[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20066-20073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 106, MARRIAGE PROTECTION 
                               AMENDMENT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 801

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 106) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) two hours and 30 minutes of debate on the joint 
     resolution equally divided and controlled by the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 106 pursuant to 
     this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
     previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by 
     the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
closed rule for H.R. 106, the marriage protection amendment. The rule 
provides 2 hours and 30 minutes of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees.
  H.J. Res. 106 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States relating to marriage. The amendment states that ``Marriage in 
the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a 
woman. Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any State, 
shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents 
thereof be conferred upon any union other than a man and a woman.''
  The constitutional amendment process is the most democratic process 
in our Federal system, and it requires approval from two-thirds of each 
House of Congress and three-quarters of the States by votes of their 
State legislators.
  This bill has come up because same-sex marriage advocates have been 
using the courts and even local officials who have intentionally 
violated the law to circumvent the democratic process. Passing a 
constitutional amendment will place the debate where it belongs, with 
the American people.
  Forty-four States have already enacted laws that provide that 
marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Those 
forty-four States represent 88 percent of all the States and 86 percent 
of the population.
  As President Bush said in his State of the Union address, if judges 
insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only 
alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. 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 thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day for the House of Representatives 
and for the people that we serve. Once again, some in the leadership of 
this House, including and especially the majority leader, have brought 
a divisive, unnecessary, and just plain mean-spirited bill to the floor 
in order to advance their own partisan political interests.
  Once again, they have decided to ignore unemployment, ignore the 
health care crisis, ignore record deficits, ignore national security, 
in short to ignore the real concerns of the American people. Why?
  You can find the answer just by looking at the calendar. We are 5 
weeks from an election and there are some, not all, but some Members on 
the other side of the aisle who have chosen to put aside the important 
work we need to do.
  By today, the 13 appropriation bills should have been signed into 
law. So far, only one has the President's signature. Where is the 
Homeland Security appropriation bill? Can anyone really say with a 
straight face that a constitutional amendment beating up on gay people 
is more important than funding our Homeland Security needs? How about 
the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, or the 
transportation bill? How about funding for schools and hospitals and 
veterans? They are nowhere to be found. Instead, we get legislative gay 
bashing. Another sad day.
  Today, we are being asked to consider H.J. Res. 106, which would 
amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage, to ban civil 
unions, and to abolish the ability of States to interpret their own 
State constitutions. So this is no small matter.
  It is important to note at the outset that the Constitution clearly 
prohibits the government from interfering with the marriages performed 
by religious institutions. Our Founding Fathers were very clear about 
this. The government cannot force any church or synagogue or mosque to 
perform a religious

[[Page 20067]]

marriage. That will not change, no matter what happens today.
  Now, there are several fundamental problems with this amendment. 
First, it has long been the tradition in this country that States, not 
the Federal Government, have the right to regulate marriage and other 
issues of family law. And States are already addressing same-sex 
marriage. When the Hawaii Supreme Court held that denying same-sex 
couples the right to marriage violated the Hawaii constitution, the 
voters of Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment allowing the State 
legislature to limit marriage to different-sex couples.
  The people of Alaska amended their constitution to define marriage as 
a union between one man and one woman after an Alaskan trial court held 
denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples violated the Alaskan 
constitution.
  States all across the country are moving in similar directions, but 
that is not good enough for the supporters of this amendment. They 
believe that the only way to address this issue is to add 
discrimination to the United States Constitution.
  Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Defense of Marriage 
Act, or DOMA, was signed by President Clinton and is already the law of 
the land. Under DOMA, States can already refuse to recognize marriages 
from States with different policies.
  I guess that fact does not make for very good press releases or 30-
second political attack ads.
  Second, if this amendment becomes the law of the land, civil union 
and domestic partnership laws all across the country will be thrown out 
the window. Things like hospital visitation rights, family medical 
leave, and inheritance rights can be taken away.
  According to the Coalition Against Discrimination in the 
Constitution, an organization of civil-rights groups, labor unions, and 
religious organizations, this constitutional amendment would likely 
prevent the civil unions enacted by the States of Vermont and 
California.
  Now, we will hear a lot of talk from people on the other side of the 
debate today about Massachusetts, so let me talk about my home State. 
Our State Supreme Court decided in favor of same-sex marriage last 
year. And right now there is a legislative process underway in which 
the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to change our own 
State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, if they so choose.
  The interesting thing is that I doubt that it will succeed in 
Massachusetts. Starting on May 17, 2004, gay men and women in 
Massachusetts got married, and guess what? The world kept spinning on 
its axis, the sun came up the next day, people went to work, sent their 
kids to school and cheered for the Red Sox. So we are doing just fine 
in Massachusetts, thank you very much. And we certainly do not need 
anyone from Colorado or Georgia or Texas telling us how to handle the 
marriage issue in our own State.
  The impeccably conservative Vice President of the United States, Dick 
Cheney, said it well in 2000, and I have his words right here, and I 
quote, ``The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society, and 
freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people 
should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to 
enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to 
regulate or prohibit behaviors in that regard. I think different States 
are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I 
don't think there should necessarily be a Federal policy in that 
area.''
  And those are the words of the Vice President of the United States, 
Dick Cheney. The Vice President speaks from very personal experience. 
He loves someone who is gay, not because she chose to be gay but 
because that is just who she is.
  Mr. Speaker, if this amendment passes, discrimination against a group 
of people will be written into the Constitution of the United States. 
If this amendment passes, we will be taking a step backward in our 
march toward equal protection under the law. All of us take an oath to 
uphold and defend the Constitution not to use it as a political weapon.
  There are some who say that this is about protecting future 
generations, our kids. Well, let me tell you in this chamber today, I 
have two beautiful children, a 6-year-old son and a 3-year-old 
daughter, who I love more than anything, and I do not want them to grow 
up in a country where an entire group of people is treated as second 
class citizens.
  To those, like the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Musgrave), who say 
this is about protecting marriage, let me ask, just whose marriage are 
you trying to protect? I am happily married, and I do not need Members 
of Congress to protect my marriage. Please do not use my marriage to 
promote homo-
phobia and discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is wrong. And to those of my colleagues 
who support this amendment today, let me state clearly that you are on 
the wrong side of history. It is wrong to tarnish our most sacred 
document, our Constitution, with discrimination. It is wrong to take a 
beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of 
division and hostility.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Help secure 
the blessings of liberty for all Americans. Vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts is aware that the Homeland 
Security bill, a very complicated bill, is going through, I believe, 
five committees, and it is in that committee process this week and we 
are going to have it on the floor next week. So it is not that the 
Homeland Security bill is not going to be dealt with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the rule before us and in support of the 
marriage protection amendment itself.
  I am well aware that this is not a day many of us in this House 
relish. Many of us who support the marriage protection amendment are 
saddened that the need for this amendment exists at all. The definition 
of marriage seems to us, and the vast majority of the American people, 
as a matter of common sense and social reality. And many who oppose the 
amendment, most I would say, see the movement to protect marriage as 
mean spirited and unnecessary. In either case, most of us in this House 
would prefer not to have this debate. We would prefer to live in a 
society in which such debates were unnecessary, but, unfortunately, we 
do not.
  The question of the future of marriage in America has been forced 
upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench and 
forced upon us in such a way that the only remaining answer is to amend 
the Constitution of the United States. These are the facts, Mr. 
Speaker. The majority of the American people want to protect 
traditional marriage for reasons ranging from the political to the 
religious to the practical. But a minority of our citizens, a vocal and 
sincere minority, wish to alter the definition of marriage to include 
relationships outside the union of one man and one woman.
  In response to this minority opinion, the American people asserted 
their consensus in 1996 when a Republican Congress and a Democrat 
President worked together to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Its 
support was and remains bipartisan and overwhelming across the country.
  DOMA says two things: First, that for the purposes of Federal law, 
the term marriage describes a union between one man and one woman. And, 
second, it says that no State, including Massachusetts, can force their 
will on the rest of us. And no State under its own laws can be required 
to recognize homosexual unions licensed in other States.

                              {time}  1300

  That is the law as it currently stands: fair, straightforward, and 
representative of an overwhelming consensus among the American people.

[[Page 20068]]

  One would think this would be the end of the story, but it is not. 
DOMA is under an incessant and coordinated constitutional attack in the 
Federal courts. Despite DOMA's obvious constitutionality, those 
activist judges, who feel a greater responsibility to their own 
political ideology than the Constitution, seem not to care. Indeed, 
inventing rights out of whole cloth, in direct violation of the will of 
the people, too often seems to be the coin of the realm on the Federal 
bench these days.
  In such an environment, it is no surprise to me that legal scholars 
on both sides of this issue, from Lawrence Tribe to Robert Bork, all 
but concede DOMA will eventually be struck down because it contradicts 
the tortured jurisprudence of activist judges.
  Mr. Speaker, in other words, the definition of marriage will be a 
matter of constitutional law one day very soon. The question before us 
is whether that definition will be radical and arbitrary, or based on 
the experience of human civilization dating back to the origin of our 
species; whether that definition will be written by individual judges 
imposing their political biases on the Nation or written by the people 
of the United States through their elected Representatives in Congress 
and State legislatures.
  DOMA passed with broad bipartisan support. To date, 44 States have 
defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Consensus 
exists today. And yet the runaway courts keep coming, bent on replacing 
Congress as the legislative authority of the United States. Let me be 
plain: The status quo is not an option. Avoiding this issue is not an 
option, not anymore, not since the Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts invented a right to homosexual marriage out of thin air, 
and not since a State court judge invented a similar right in 
Washington State, not since 11 States face court challenges to their 
marriage laws. This issue is not going away.
  Those who know me know I am not a fan of constitutional amendments in 
general. And at first I resisted this amendment in particular. But the 
fact can no longer be denied. If marriage is to be protected in this 
country, it can only be protected by a constitutional amendment. The 
timing, substance and necessity of the marriage protection amendment 
have been forced by the courts and their refusal to be bound by the 
clear and absolute limits of their constitutional authority to 
interpret the law. This amendment is the only way marriage will be 
protected.
  Now I know it is a difficult issue, and I know it is an emotional 
issue for people across the political spectrum and across this country, 
but it is an issue that has been forced. The people must be heard. 
Congress must assume its responsibility and must respond. This debate 
today will begin with that response, and, I hope, do so as it should, 
with civility, respect and sensitivity to all points of view.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin as the majority 
leader leaves, I must say when he says that the timing of this, 1 month 
before an election when the issue has been pending all year, when he 
says the timing was forced upon him and is not effected by political 
considerations, he violates what I would recommend to the gentleman is 
an important rule of political debate: No matter how advantageous one 
thinks it is, try hard to believe something no one believes; it does 
not really help your cause.
  Beyond that, we have the most seriously misdescribed constitutional 
amendment I have ever seen. Actually if the Republicans go forward with 
their proposal, having created the largest deficits in our history, to 
require a balanced budget some time in the far distant future, that may 
be an even greater one at variance with reality. But here is the 
problem: They describe an amendment very different than the one they 
bring forward.
  We have heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the gentleman 
from Texas say this is aimed at preventing judges from forcing one 
State to do what another State does. It does far more than that. At its 
core what it does is say that no State, by whatever process it chooses, 
may find that two women being willing to commit themselves to each 
other legally as well as emotionally is a good thing and not a bad 
thing, because that is the core of the issue.
  In the State of Massachusetts, it is true we began with a court 
decision. Since then, it has been debated in our legislature. The 
legislature of Massachusetts very narrowly approved an amendment that 
would have said no to same-sex marriages but would have mandated full 
civil unions, which may also be thrown out by this amendment. That 
amendment will now be debated next year.
  An election is going on in Massachusetts today in which how people 
voted on this is a major issue. We just had a change in the leadership 
of the Massachusetts House. A speaker who opposed same-sex marriage has 
been replaced by a speaker elected by the House of Representatives of 
Massachusetts, in turn elected by the people, who support same-sex 
marriage.
  I think the question is very much in doubt, but the point is 
undeniable; the political process in Massachusetts, the democratic 
process in Massachusetts, is now deciding whether or not to allow same-
sex marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side comes with an amendment that would cancel 
any decision made on this that they do not like by the people of 
Massachusetts. This is not an amendment that says one State cannot do 
something to another State. There would be an amendment possible. I 
would not be for it, but if that is really what is meant, then we would 
have an amendment that took DOMA and made it a constitutional 
principle. Such an amendment would be possible. I think it would be a 
mistake. I do not think it would be a good idea to freeze that, because 
then we would have some real difficulties, but it would be at least in 
accordance with what the other side is saying because this amendment 
does far more than has been described.
  It has been a rule that I have found when people in political debate 
will not be completely open about what they are trying to do, it is 
because they really know it is not defensible. Why do you not 
acknowledge that this amendment would cancel a democratic decision by 
the people of Massachusetts? Indeed, if the legislature decides to get 
rid of this, there will be a referendum. If the legislature does not 
decide to get rid of it, then a fairly small number of people can force 
a referendum and we will have a referendum, very likely, in 2008.
  We will have had by that time the benefit of 4 years in which same-
sex marriages happened. I understand why the opponents of same-sex 
marriage are so upset. They have made a number of predictions about 
what will come after same-sex marriage, none of which will be proven 
true, so they are desperately trying to cut this off before it happens. 
We have already had nearly 5 months of same-sex marriage. None of their 
predictions were proven true, as none of their predictions were proven 
true when they talked about the chaos in Vermont.
  But let us understand what the House is being asked to do. If the 
concern was to say judges could not decide this, if the concern was to 
say full faith and credit does not apply, there would be amendments 
that could be narrowly drafted to deal with that, although I would not 
support them. But that is not what is here. This amendment says no 
State, Vermont, Massachusetts, by whatever process, by referendum, by 
vote of the legislature, by whatever process, can decide that it would 
like to have same-sex marriage for its own citizens.
  I will say that on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, who do 
not share the distaste for love that is expressed in a way in which you 
do not disapprove that Members of the majority have, please do not 
impose your views on the people of Massachusetts. If your concern is 
genuinely to prevent one State from forcing another, deal with that. 
But this is an undemocratic effort to say no State may differ in this 
intimate matter of public policy with your views.

[[Page 20069]]


  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of 
the underlying Marriage Protection Act, and consider this to be an 
extremely important day in the life of this institution and the life of 
this Nation.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who just 
spoke, who I respect greatly as the national leader that he is, 
although I am a conservative and although I support a constitutional 
amendment to define marriage in the terms which the overwhelming 
majority of the American people wish to continue to define it, I have 
no distaste for love; and neither is it my desire to impose views or 
attack any individual or anyone in a relationship in America.
  I am from south of Highway 40 in Indiana, but I do know the 
difference between defending and attacking. And the truth is, as legal 
scholars and millions of Americans know, the institution of marriage is 
under attack by activist judges; and it brings us, as the majority 
leader said so eloquently, to this place, by necessity, where a 
constitutional amendment is the only way we can express the will of 3 
out of 4 or more Americans who desire to continue to have this 
fundamental institution of marriage defined as it has been throughout 
the millennia.
  Activist judges have had successes since 1999 when they convinced the 
Vermont Supreme Court that they should order the State legislature to 
legalize same-sex marriage. A second major victory came when they 
convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force that State 
to give full marriage licenses.
  The activists have literally plotted a State-by-State strategy to 
increase the number of judicial decisions mandating same-sex marriage, 
and the U.S. Supreme Court provided potent ammunition to activists when 
they decided the Lawrence v. Texas case in June of last year. In that 
case dealing with same-sex sodomy, the court strongly signaled that a 
right to same-sex marriage could be found in the Constitution. Scholars 
ranging from Supreme Court Justice Scalia all the way to Harvard 
liberal scholar and author Lawrence Tribe agree that the Lawrence v. 
Texas case paves the way for this Supreme Court in this Nation's 
Capital to recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are now 
challenging marriage laws in States across the Union, including my own 
little State of Indiana.
  So we come here not to attack but, rather, in a spirit of civility to 
defend an institution that is cherished and is so essential to the 
American people in the life of our Nation.
  In closing, we are here today because marriage matters; because, like 
millions of Americans, I believe it was ordained by God, instituted in 
the law, it is the glue of the American people, and the safest harbor 
to raise children. Let us adopt the rule, defend the institution of 
marriage, and ensure that our society's most cherished social 
institution is defined by we the people and not unelected judges.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would like to 
point out one thing which I find particularly interesting, and that is 
at the recent Republican National Convention in New York City, all of 
the featured prime-time speakers that the party decided to put on 
display for us, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and Arnold 
Schwarzenegger, all oppose what is trying to be done today. They all 
oppose this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today we stand on the floor of 
the people's body, the United States House of Representatives, with the 
intention of writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution for the 
first time in our Nation's history.
  It is not so troubling that this is politically driven, what is so 
troubling is the mean-spirited nature of this legislation. The marriage 
protection amendment; what a cruel joke. It does not do anything to 
protect marriage in this country. It does not suggest to individuals 
the importance of communication in a successful relationship. It does 
not reduce promiscuity or stop unwanted pregnancies. It does not 
strengthen people's resolve to work through the difficulties that 
always come within a marriage. It does not do any of that.

                              {time}  1315

  What it does do is to single out one group of people for 
discrimination, declaring them forever unworthy of the same legal 
protection that all other Americans enjoy. Further, this amendment 
would usurp the will of the people in States that have used their 
traditional States rights authority to define civil marriage and civil 
union laws. State laws passed by elected representatives in places like 
Vermont will be wiped clean off the books. In situations where a loved 
one is sick in the hospital, same-sex couples will once again lose the 
right to sit bedside and help nurse their partner back to health. These 
couples' ability to plan their financial future together and to share 
health care benefits will also be forever taken away.
  Mr. Speaker, we already have sufficient legislation to allow 
individual States the ability to retain and structure marriage laws the 
way they see fit. I opposed and continue to oppose the Defense of 
Marriage Act which passed the House back in 1996, but this law is still 
fully functional and in effect. No State in the Union has to accept any 
other State's laws with respect to same-sex marriage. Since the bill's 
enactment 8 years ago, it has not been successfully challenged in any 
court anywhere in the country.
  Why, then, do we need to preemptively amend our Constitution? Our 
Constitution was meant to be a sacred document by which we protect and 
expand individual rights, not to take them away, not to restrict them. 
That is not what our country is about, and thus that is not what the 
Constitution is about. That is why we ought to stand in opposition to 
this crass attempt to politically divide the American public in an 
election year. We ought to vote against this. We ought to vote for the 
Constitution. We ought to uphold the vision of our forefathers and 
expand the Constitution, use it as a document to protect individual 
rights, not to restrict and destroy them.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the 
Marriage Protection Amendment rule. We did not ask for this debate. It 
was brought on us by activist judges who have chosen to impose on the 
will of the people this redefinition of marriage.
  Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts can give us all sorts 
of technical explanations, but we all know from experience that kids 
are best off when they have a mom and a dad. And kids are what this 
debate is all about. It is not about civil rights or the rights of 
same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. 
This amendment does not change that. Instead, this amendment simply 
defines what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.
  There are some here that would claim that traditional marriage is 
discriminating. But my question is this: Did 342 Members of this House 
and former President Clinton in their support of the Defense of 
Marriage Act discriminate when they voted that marriage is between one 
man and one woman? Are we saying that 70 percent of the voters of my 
State that just said that marriage is between one man and one woman, 
are they discriminating? How about 80 percent of the voters of 
Louisiana, are they discriminating? I do not think so.
  Activist judges are trying to institutionalize a lie, that marriage 
is just about big people's relationships. But they forget the little 
people, about the children, the whole generation of kids who will 
struggle because of the terrible precedent set by changing the 
institution of marriage.
  We do not have to look very far to see the results of family 
deterioration.

[[Page 20070]]

Whole cities have suffered terrible poverty and crime because the model 
of traditional families has been weakened. Should we now stand idly by 
while a mere handful of activist judges seek to institutionalize the 
lie that marriage is disconnected from child rearing? Certainly the 
experience in the Netherlands would tell us that we should not. When 
they changed the definition of marriage, they had many more children 
born out of wedlock.
  The other night I went to dinner, and there was a beautiful little 
16-year-old girl there. She had never had a family. She said that there 
was one thing that she had wanted all of her life and there was only 
one thing she had ever wanted and that was she wanted a family. Her 
heart was telling her the truth. Think about what she had lost. Have 
you ever been completely lonely? No mom? No dad? Nobody to turn to? 
Think about what a family provides: the love, the affection, the 
security when you have a bad dream at night, self-discipline and 
obedience and the grace of forgiveness and sharing as opposed to 
selfishness.
  I remember as a kid riding a bicycle. I was trying to learn. My dad 
ran along beside. He was so big and strong. I got it to go a ways and 
crashed into a bush. I came up all crying and scratched. He put me back 
on the bike and taught me something about persevering.
  That is what this whole story is about. It is about little people and 
whether they are going to have a mother and a father. The real 
discrimination here is the activist judges who would deny children the 
rich advantages of a mom and a dad. If this Congress does not act to 
protect families, it is a gross dereliction of our duty.
  Vote to protect our children and vote to protect marriage.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me first say to the gentleman who just spoke, I guess I must 
obviously have more confidence in our State legislatures across this 
country than he does because State legislatures all across this country 
are acting on this issue. I think they are closer to the people of the 
States than in many respects we are. It seems to me that this process 
is working. When he says that we are forced to be here, that we cannot 
talk about getting a real highway bill, that we cannot talk about 
health care, that we cannot talk about national security issues or 
veterans benefits or education, but we have to be here and debate this 
right now, the fact of the matter is this debate is going on all across 
this country, and we should let that process make its way through.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
to the underlying amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, soldiers and innocent civilians are dying every single 
day in Iraq, 45 million Americans are without health insurance, over 35 
million Americans are living in poverty, and 8 million are unemployed 
and looking for work. Yet with only 10 days until recess, the 
leadership of this House wastes time on a constitutional amendment that 
does nothing to stop the deaths of our courageous young people in Iraq, 
nothing to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, 
nothing to address the health care crisis in this country, and nothing 
to create jobs for unemployed workers and our growing population.
  Instead, they bring forward a constitutional amendment which, if 
ratified, would enshrine discrimination in the United States 
Constitution, this country's most treasured document. Our Constitution 
has never been amended to discriminate against a particular group of 
Americans.
  Gay and lesbian Americans deserve the same rights, responsibilities, 
and protections as other citizens. This amendment would deny same-sex 
couples the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, to share 
health insurance, to collect Social Security death benefits, all rights 
that married couples take for granted. We all have family members or 
friends whose hopes and dreams this amendment would shatter, good 
people whose lives should not be used as an election-year tactic to 
distract attention from the incompetence of the Bush administration's 
planning for and the conduct of the dismal, dismal aftermath of 
President Bush's war on Iraq and to distract attention from 4 years of 
deteriorating fiscal stability here at home, with record yearly 
deficits, exploding national debt, and puny job growth.
  Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule and this divisive, 
discriminatory amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, my comments would be generally around an article which 
appeared by one of my colleagues whom I greatly respect, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox), who spoke out against this amendment. I 
generally agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), but I 
have to respectfully disagree with him on this particular item.
  Traditional marriage, let us face it, is under attack for the very 
reasons that my colleague from California (Mr. Cox) had cited in that 
article. We need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional 
marriage from the courts. For the reasons cited by the Massachusetts 
Supreme Court and the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. 
Texas, we cannot trust the courts to interpret the law as it was 
intended.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) cited in the article: 
``The judicial imagination continues to thrive.'' While I believe that 
rights under the 14th amendment should evolve, there must be checks. 
The Marriage Protection Amendment will check this imagination and 
protect marriage as it was intended.
  The need for a Federal marriage amendment is simple. The traditional 
institution of marriage is under Federal constitutional attack in the 
courts. Legal experts across the political spectrum agree that the only 
way to guarantee and preserve the status quo, and the traditional 
institution of marriage, is a Federal constitutional amendment.
  Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in 
Lawrence v. Texas in June of 2003, legal experts predicted that courts 
would begin to strike down traditional marriage laws around the 
country. Indeed, one justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has already written, 
while serving as general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, 
that traditional marriage laws such as anti-bigamy laws are 
unconstitutional and must be struck down by the courts.
  A State constitutional amendment cannot solve this problem. Just ask 
Nebraska, whose State constitutional amendment is currently under 
Federal constitutional attack. And as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) had acknowledged, even the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court relied on the 14th amendment, a Federal constitutional provision, 
to invalidate traditional marriage laws in that State.
  At least six Federal constitutional challenges to the Federal Defense 
of Marriage Act, DOMA, are now pending in four States: Florida, 
Minnesota, Washington, and California. A representative of the Lambda 
Legal organization, a champion of the nationwide litigation campaign to 
abolish traditional marriage laws in every State, recently stated, ``We 
won't stop until we have same-sex marriage nationwide.''
  The only way to stop the lawsuits and to ensure the protection of 
traditional marriage is a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a very 
well-known group to all of us here in the Congress, a group that voted 
to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush again in 2000, has issued a 
statement entitled ``Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Their 
Endorsement from President Bush.''
  The statement says that it is impossible to overstate the depth of 
anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti-
family constitutional amendment. It goes on to say that using gays and 
lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log 
Cabin, and they conclude by saying that this year they will

[[Page 20071]]

withhold their endorsement of President Bush.
  The text of the article is as follows:

 Log Cabin Republicans Vote To Withhold Endorsement From President Bush

       Washington, Sept. 8.--Log Cabin Republicans are withholding 
     their endorsement from President Bush for 2004. ``Log Cabin's 
     National Board has voted to withhold a Presidential 
     endorsement and shift our financial and political resources 
     to defeating the radical right and supporting inclusive 
     Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of 
     Representatives,'' said Log Cabin Board Chairman William 
     Brownson of Ohio. The Log Cabin Board of Directors voted 22 
     to 2 not to endorse the President's re-election.
       ``Certain moments in history require that a belief in 
     fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of 
     partisan politics; this is one of those moments. The national 
     board's vote empowers Log Cabin to maintain its integrity 
     while furthering our goal of building a more inclusive 
     Republican Party. Log Cabin is more committed than ever to 
     its core mission to build a stronger and more inclusive 
     Republican Party. There is a battle for the heart and soul of 
     the Republican party, and that fight is bigger than one 
     platform, one convention, or even one President,'' said Log 
     Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.
       The vote by Log Cabin's 25 member national board marks the 
     first time since the organization opened a national office in 
     Washington, DC in 1993 that the organization has not endorsed 
     the Republican nominee for President. Log Cabin endorsed Bob 
     Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000.
       Log Cabin will devote its financial and political resources 
     to elect fair-minded Republican allies to local, state and 
     federal offices. Log Cabin will endorse more than 50 GOP 
     candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. ``Every victory by 
     fair-minded Republicans is a victory for the future of our 
     party. We have made it clear that we can either be the party 
     of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani or we can be the 
     party of Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum,'' continued Guerriero.
       ``Log Cabin has proudly supported the President's firm 
     leadership in the war on terror. As principled Republicans, 
     we believe in our Party's commitment to a strong national 
     defense and a confident foreign policy. We especially applaud 
     the President's leadership in cutting taxes for American 
     families and small businesses, his belief in free market 
     principles and his compassionate and historic leadership in 
     the global fight against HIV/AIDS,'' continued Guerriero.
       ``At the same time, it is impossible to overstate the depth 
     of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support 
     for an anti-family Constitutional Amendment. This amendment 
     would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize 
     civil unions and domestic partnerships. For six months, the 
     President has made it clear what he opposes. He opposes civil 
     marriage equality; however he has failed to articulate 
     clearly what he supports. Does he support federal civil 
     unions? Does he support domestic partnerships? Does he 
     support tax fairness for gay and lesbian couples? Does he 
     support employment non-discrimination? Does he support hate 
     crimes legislation? Does he support allowing gay and lesbian 
     service members to serve openly and honestly?'' asked Log 
     Cabin Political Director Chris Barron. ``An organization's 
     endorsement means nothing if it does not have to be earned.''
       ``Some will accuse us of being disloyal. However, it was 
     actually the White House who was disloyal to the 1,000,000 
     gay and lesbian Americans who supported him four years ago. 
     Log Cabin's decision was made in response to the White 
     House's strategic political decision to pursue a re-election 
     strategy catered to the radical right. The President's use of 
     the bully pulpit, stump speeches and radio addresses to 
     support a Constitutional amendment has encouraged the passage 
     of discriminatory laws and state constitutional amendments 
     across America. Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an 
     election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin,'' continued 
     Guerriero.
       ``At the same time that we saw record numbers of gay and 
     lesbian delegates at the Republican National Convention, and 
     at the same convention where we saw hundreds of fair-minded 
     Republicans gather to support Log Cabin and our allies, our 
     party's platform adopted vicious and mean-spirited language 
     that marginalizes gay and lesbian Americans.''
       Log Cabin's 2000 endorsement of the Bush/Cheney ticket came 
     during an election where the Republican nominee ran a 
     compassionate conservative campaign that avoided culture war 
     issues. After meeting with gay Republicans in 2000, Mr. Bush 
     declared ``I am a better man,'' and welcomed gays and 
     lesbians as valued parts of the American family. The early 
     days of the Bush administration were marked by significant 
     victories--maintaining existing anti-discrimination 
     protections for federal employees, appointing openly gay 
     employees throughout the Administration, a continuing 
     dialogue with our organization, and the extension of survivor 
     benefits to gay and lesbian partners who lost loved ones on 
     9/11.
       Unfortunately these early successes were short-lived. 
     ``Last year, a dramatic and disappointing shift occurred 
     rooted in Karl Rove's public acknowledgment that the 2004 re-
     election campaign would focus on turning out four million 
     more evangelicals who he believed stayed home in 2000,'' said 
     Guerriero. The President's initial reluctance to amend the 
     Constitution became full-fledged support on February 24th of 
     this year.
       Log Cabin has spent most of the year fighting the anti-
     family Federal Marriage Amendment. This fight culminated with 
     a July victory in the Senate when a growing chorus of 
     Republican opposition of the amendment forced the pro-
     amendment faction to play procedural games to avoid an 
     embarrassing loss. As many as a dozen or more Republican 
     Senators were prepared to oppose the FMA on its merits.
       ``During the fight over the anti-family FMA, we sadly 
     watched as the President and his Administration leaned on 
     Republican members of the House and Senate to support this 
     divisive and unnecessary amendment. We watched as the 
     President's support for this anti-family amendment emboldened 
     the forces of fear and exclusion to push anti-gay ballot 
     initiatives and legislation on the state and local level. We 
     watched as the radical right works to defeat fair-minded 
     Republicans across the nation. We watched as the Republican 
     Party Platform rejected our Party Unity Plan and included 
     language opposing not only civil marriage but also civil 
     unions, domestic partnerships or indeed any basic benefits 
     for same-sex couples. At a time when courageous gay and 
     lesbian military personnel are helping to win the war on 
     terror, the platform outrageously claims `homosexuality is 
     incompatible with military service','' continued Guerriero. 
     The GOP platform language continues to target gays and 
     lesbians and fails to present a positive agenda to ensure 
     basic fairness for millions of gay Americans, who pay taxes, 
     serve in the military, enhance communities, and serve in 
     government.
       Throughout this challenging year Log Cabin has doubled in 
     size and launched new chapters were none existed. Log Cabin 
     successfully led the fight against the Federal Marriage 
     Amendment with its first ever television advertising 
     campaign, worked with 18 GOP lawmakers in passing hate crimes 
     legislation in the Senate, and continued supporting and 
     educating state and local officials. Log Cabin was proud to 
     be the only gay and lesbian organization to endorse Arnold 
     Schwarzenegger's campaign for Governor of California. Log 
     Cabin also was proud to see many of its closest allies 
     speaking in primetime at the Republican National Convention. 
     ``It is not surprising to anyone at Log Cabin that the 
     President's first real bounce in the polls came after a 
     convention that highlighted inclusive Republicans and focused 
     on unifying issues such as winning the war on terror. Log 
     Cabin knows that the 2006 and 2008 elections will highlight a 
     new generation of inclusive Republican leaders,'' said 
     Guerriero.
       Log Cabin calls on both major parties to return to the 
     issues that unite the American family instead of fueling an 
     unnecessary culture war. Log Cabin also denounces the 
     continued flip-flops on gay and lesbian issues from 
     Democratic nominee John Kerry. Senator Kerry has repeatedly 
     made clear his opposition to civil marriage equality and has 
     supported discriminatory constitutional amendments in 
     Massachusetts and Missouri.
       Log Cabin is firmly committed to seeing inclusive 
     Republicans elected in 2004. Log Cabin will continue to 
     oppose and expose any efforts to marginalize gays and 
     lesbians. We also will continue to make it clear that the 
     only way the GOP can continue as the majority party is to 
     reach out to all Americans. Log Cabin also will continue to 
     make it clear that the gay and lesbian community can realize 
     full equality only if it works on building new alliances with 
     conservative and centrist Americans.
       ``The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party 
     has just begun. We are confident that the politics of 
     inclusion and hope will prevail over the politics of 
     exclusion and fear. History, fairness and common decency are 
     on our side,'' concluded Guerriero.
       Last week, Log Cabin launched a new television advertising 
     campaign to take this fight for the GOP's future directly to 
     the American people. The ad makes it clear that the party has 
     a choice. We can be the party of hope, in the best tradition 
     of Ronald Reagan, by uniting around issues that bring 
     Republicans together, like winning the war on terror; or the 
     party can divide Americans with the politics of intolerance 
     and fear that only lead to hate.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some 
confusion as to what constitutes marriage. In the Christian community, 
and we are a Christian Nation, you can affirm that by going back to our 
Founding Fathers and their belief in how we

[[Page 20072]]

started, among Christians, marriage is generally recognized as having 
started in the Garden of Eden. You may go back to Genesis to find that 
and you will note there that God created Adam and Eve. He did not 
create Adam and Steve. A union between other than a man and a woman may 
be something legally, but it just cannot be a marriage, because 
marriage through 5,000 years of recorded history has always been a 
relationship between a man and a woman.

                              {time}  1330

  More than just Christian societies have marriage. And why would every 
recorded society through 5,000 years of recorded history, why would 
they all have marriage as a union between a man and a woman? It is 
because societies, one and all, have recognized that marriage is a very 
important institution. And why is it important? It is because the usual 
product of marriage is children. And the state, or the tribe or 
whatever the organization is, all through history recognized that there 
is a responsibility for the assurance that the children brought into 
the world as a result of marriage are going to be cared for, which is 
why all of these societies have recognized that children should not be 
born out of that relationship, and that relationship is fundamentally 
there to make sure that their society is going to be perpetuated 
because children are going to be cared for, if not by the parents, then 
by the society that has recognized this relationship.
  I think that a society is at risk when the institution of marriage, 
so fundamental to the stability of society, is put at risk.
  So I am in strong support of this rule and the bill that follows.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that there is 
no law in this country that forces any given religion to recognize any 
particular marriage. Religions are separate from what we are talking 
about here today. I just want to remind the gentleman that there are 
non-Christians who live in this Nation as well, and I would hope that 
he would believe that this country is equally theirs as well.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would note that I had 
mentioned that not only Christian nations but every society through 
5,000 years of recorded history has recognized the institution of 
marriage as being essential to the stability of their society. We are a 
Christian society, but I recognize that every other society, no matter 
what their origin, has certified that marriage is important to the 
stability of their society. It is to ours. It was to theirs.
  I support the rule, and I support the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have to tell the Members I cannot imagine a more important debate, 
sadly, that we must have. The question is whether or not the United 
States House of Representatives is going to sit idly by and be silent 
while activist radical judges unravel the very fabric of our society by 
undoing the basic building block that has made this and every 
civilization that has ever been successful a success.
  What we have got to recognize is that we have an obligation as a 
Congress here. Yes, there are three separate and equal branches of 
government in the United States under our wonderful Constitution given 
to us from the Founders. However, it is unfortunate that all too often 
lately, the judicial branch has essentially forced legislature into 
drafting reactions to what they have invaded, which is the territory of 
the Congress in making laws for the country. And thus this 
constitutional amendment is absolutely necessary.
  Of course, a healthy jealousy between the three branches is always a 
good thing. It was designed by Madison and the Framers in order to have 
a give and take between the three branches. But it is emphatically 
within the province of the Congress to make laws that affect the people 
of the United States of America, and all too often courts are trying to 
do that for us.
  Today, we are here to protect the very definition of marriage. The 
American people have spoken very clearly time after time about the 
importance of defending the traditional view of marriage. This 
amendment does not prohibit any consensual behavior between any two 
American citizens. It does not prevent any two people from behaving 
however they would like. What it does do is to defend for our children, 
for our posterity, the traditional, historic definition of marriage.
  It is unfortunate that the will of the people increasingly is being 
violated by activist judges so that they can impose like philosopher-
kings their view of a better way to do things, and they have certainly 
come up with a better way to do traditional family life. And they are 
going to, as they did in Massachusetts, try to impose it on all 
Americans.
  Thomas Jefferson, near the end of his life, wrote in a letter to 
Edward Livingston on March 25, 1825: ``One single object . . . will 
merit the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges 
from usurping legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I beg Congress to protect marriage, protect 
our children, protect our future. Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to read a Q and A between Vice President Dick Cheney and 
a questioner in Davenport, Iowa, on August 24, 2004, because I think it 
helps to kind of put this in perspective, and maybe some of my 
colleagues should listen to this.
  The question was: ``We have a battle here on this land as well. And I 
would like to know, sir, from your heart, I don't want to know what 
your advisors say or even what your top advisor thinks, but I need to 
know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?''
  And the Vice President responded: ``Well, the question has come up 
obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. 
Lynn and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is 
very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride 
in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, 
frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.
  ``With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is 
that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to be 
free, ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want 
to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is 
what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by 
government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, 
that's been a relationship that has been handled by the States. The 
States have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining 
what constitutes a marriage. I made clear 4 years ago, when I ran and 
this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman, that my 
view was that that's appropriately a matter for the States to decide 
and that's how it ought to be best handled.''
  I very rarely agree with the Vice President of the United States, but 
I think he makes an awful lot of sense on this issue, and I think he 
makes a compelling case why we should not be moving forward with a 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate and vote on the Marriage 
Protection Amendment. And let us be clear. This debate today is not 
about denying anyone rights. This is ensuring that the will of the 
people is protected.

[[Page 20073]]

  My home State of South Carolina is one of 44 States that has already 
enacted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 
They voted, and they decided how marriage should be defined. So I stand 
here today as their representative, wondering why that will and that 
the will of over 70 percent of Americans nationwide should be tossed 
aside because a few activist judges disagree.
  Unfortunately, as we stand here today, we are faced with the fact 
that a handful of these judges have taken it upon themselves to hand 
down rulings that in effect amend the Constitution of the United 
States. They have circumvented the democratic process with their 
rulings. Therefore, the decision we are now left with is not whether 
the Constitution will be amended but who will amend it, activist judges 
or the American people.
  Every American should have the opportunity to vote on this important 
issue. The institution of marriage deserves protection. It is our most 
basic social institution for protecting children. Preserving it sends a 
message to our children about marriage and traditional family life and 
values.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in supporting 
the marriage protection amendment. It is time to get the debate back 
where it belongs, with the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to read a couple of other quotes here which I think 
are enlightening. One from John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona 
where he said: ``The constitutional amendment we're debating today 
strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of 
Republicans.'' He added, the amendment ``usurps from the States a 
fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal 
remedy for a problem that most States do not believe confronts them.''
  Let me read one other quote here. ``It seems to me that the power to 
regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun 
possession any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate 
marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals throughout the 50 States. 
Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual 
States.'' And that is from the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence 
Thomas in U.S. v. Lopez.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. We 
have the opportunity to reject the politics of division and 
discrimination. We have the opportunity to protect the Constitution of 
the United States, to stay on the path toward equal protection under 
the law for every single American. We have the opportunity to act in a 
way that reflects well on this institution and the people we are 
elected to serve.
  I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Republicans who will 
vote ``no'' on this misguided constitutional amendment today. And I am 
proud to stand with them.
  We will hear a lot about Massachusetts today. A son of our State 
named John F. Kennedy once said, ``The heart of the question is whether 
all Americans are to be afforded equal opportunities, whether we are 
going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.'' Mr. 
Speaker, that is indeed the heart of the question.
  I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity, vote ``no'' on this 
constitutional amendment.
  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.

                          ____________________