[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20073-20076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 106 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 106

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein),  That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article --

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This Article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection 
     Amendment'.

     ``SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

       ``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 the union of a man and a woman.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the Chair 
at any time may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution 
until a time designated by the Speaker.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 1 hour and 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), the author of this 
amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the proposed 
marriage protection amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
of America.
  Before addressing the merits of the marriage protection amendment, I 
want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing this bill up.
  I know there are some in Congress and the media who do not believe 
traditional marriage rises to the level of importance to be considered 
on the floor today.
  The American people disagree with them. This bill is about protecting 
the institution of marriage, which, as the Supreme Court said many 
years ago, is ``the foundation of the family and of society, without 
which there would be neither civilization nor progress.''

                              {time}  1345

  Since Labor Day, this Congress has spent time renaming post offices 
and Federal buildings, Mr. Speaker. If we have enough time to rename 
post offices and Federal buildings, surely we have enough time to spend 
an afternoon considering whether the very foundation of traditional 
marriage will endure another 200 years.
  On one matter, however, I do agree with the opponents of this bill: 
We should not lightly undertake to amend the Constitution. In the 213 
years since the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Constitution has been 
amended only 17 times, an average of once every 12\1/2\ years.
  As a conservative I understand, perhaps better than most, the 
national consensus that the Constitution should be amended only rarely. 
Indeed, I wish we could leave the Constitution alone and this amendment 
was unnecessary, and if there was any other way to protect marriage, I 
would be the first to support it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. 
The matter has been forced upon us, and, whether we like it or not, the 
Constitution is about to be amended.
  Let me say that again: The choice before us is not whether to amend 
the

[[Page 20074]]

Constitution or leave it unamended. One way or another, the 
Constitution will be amended, and the only choice we have is whether to 
act now and accomplish the amendment through the procedures specified 
in the Constitution itself, or fail to act, in which case the amendment 
would be accomplished de facto by activist courts bent on imposing by 
judicial fiat a transformation of traditional marriage that is unsought 
and unwanted by the American people.
  How do I know what the American people want? Simple. When the people 
are given a voice in this matter, they support traditional marriage by 
overwhelming margins. Last month, for example, the people of Missouri 
approved a marriage protection amendment to their State constitution by 
a margin of 70.8 percent, and 2 weeks ago the people of Louisiana 
approved a similar amendment by a margin of 78 percent. Yet the 
people's will does not seem to count with the courts.
  Last year, Justice Scalia warned us in their Lawrence decision that 
the Supreme Court was paving the way for activist judges to redefine 
traditional marriage. Even after Justice Scalia's warning, few of us 
were prepared for the breathtaking speed with which events would 
overtake us. Only months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court decreed that for the first time in the history of this Nation, a 
State would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
  The Massachusetts courts are not alone. Only last month, courts in 
Washington struck down as unconstitutional that State's Defense of 
Marriage Act in cases concerning the recognition of same-sex marriages.
  Even in the face of this judicial onslaught, some argue that we 
should wait to act until after the Supreme Court has ruled on the 
constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Does anyone 
else see the irony here? Many of those who spoke the loudest that DOMA 
was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are the very same ones 
who now say we ought to presume DOMA is constitutional until the courts 
tell us otherwise.
  I say if we could place our confidence in the Supreme Court, there 
would be no need for the marriage protection amendment in the first 
place. But in Lawrence, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in 
which she specifically stated that she believed preserving the 
traditional institution of marriage would be a sufficient basis for 
upholding a State marriage law. The five members of the Lawrence 
majority had an obvious opportunity to join Justice O'Connor's position 
and thus reassure us on this issue. Instead, they chose to remain 
silent. Let me suggest their silence speaks volumes.
  No, we must not wait. The trajectory of the courts' decisions is 
unmistakable, and we must act now to preserve traditional marriage. We 
have already seen that even one State's misadventure in this area has 
had egregious nationwide consequences, as activists file lawsuit after 
lawsuit seeking to export same-sex marriages to other States. 
Ironically, it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to 
force this issue out of the courts and back to State legislatures, 
where it has always been and where it properly should be.
  Mr. Speaker, some people have opposed the marriage protection 
amendment on the grounds that it discriminates. But it is not the 
marriage protection amendment that discriminates against homosexuals. 
Rather, the institution of marriage, as it has been understood for 
millennia, by its very nature is reserved exclusively for persons of 
the opposite sex. Moreover, society has always limited the pool of 
persons available for marriage by age, blood ties, mental capacity, and 
other considerations.
  The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to 
discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children, 
as evidenced by volumes of social science research. Traditional 
marriage is worth preserving because the nuclear family is far and away 
the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves 
both a father and a mother.
  Yes, traditional marriage has had its problems. The high divorce 
rate, infidelity, and domestic violence are a national scandal, but far 
from undermining my point, these trends reinforce it because we are 
dismayed by these trends for the very reason that they lead to the 
break-up of traditional families, which leads to more and more children 
being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having both their mom and 
dad around to raise them.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish traditional marriage 
was not under attack, but it is. I wish we did not have to deal with 
this problem now, but we do. Like it or not, the courts have thrust 
this burden on us and we must not fail to shoulder it.
  We as Members of Congress have a responsibility to restrain activist 
judges who think they can, without devastating consequences to our 
society, simply jettison the collective wisdom of thousands of years 
without the input or consent of the American public or their elected 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the marriage 
protection amendment.
  I submit the following letter for the Record.

     Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Musgrave: The United States House of 
     Representatives is considering whether or not to send a 
     constitutional amendment protecting marriage to the States 
     for their consideration. Contrary to recent arguments and 
     assertions, I believe that this amendment is consistent 
     with--and increasingly necessary to uphold--the principles of 
     federalism so important to our constitutional government.
       The Framers rightly left marriage policy, as so many other 
     things, with the States. But the definition of marriage is 
     not mere policy issue. It strikes at the very integrity and 
     meaning of one of the primary elements of civil society.
       In a free society, certain questions must be settled for 
     the good of that society. States can't impair the obligation 
     of contracts, or coin their own money, or experiment with 
     forms of non-republican government. We learned the hard way 
     that the nation could not endure half slave and half free.
       As marriage is a fundamental social institution, it is not 
     only reasonable but also obligatory that it be preferred and 
     defended in the law. Activist judges forcing the redefinition 
     of marriage make it necessary to protect the institution in 
     the U.S. Constitution.
       This doesn't mean that marriage must be completely 
     nationalized or should become the regulatory responsibility 
     of the federal government. Policy decisions concerning 
     questions such as degrees of consanguinity, the age of 
     consent, and the rules of divorce should remain with the 
     States.
       The wisdom of extending certain benefits that stop well 
     short of marriage--that don't undermine the distinctive 
     status of marriage--are policy questions that should be the 
     responsibility of State legislatures.
       A Constitutional amendment that defines marriage and blocks 
     the actions of overzealous judges would protect the States's 
     capacity to regulate marriage by protecting the integrity of 
     the institution as such.
       In order to guard the States' liberty to determine marriage 
     policy in accord with the principles of federalism, society 
     as a whole must prevent the institution itself from being 
     judicially redefined out of existence.
       The constitutional amendment process is neither an 
     exclusively federal nor an exclusively State action: It is a 
     shared responsibility of both Congress and the States 
     representing the American people. By intention, it is a very 
     difficult process.
       Constitutional amendments ought to be rare and should be 
     pursued only after careful and serious consideration, when it 
     is necessary to address an issue of great national magnitude 
     and when there is broad-based support among the American 
     people throughout the States, as there is concerning 
     marriage.
       Is marriage sufficiently important to protect in the United 
     States Constitution?
       Despite our reluctance to amend our most sacred law--
     despite the significance of the endeavor and awesome task 
     involved--recent and impending judicial activism justifies 
     this course of action.
       Thank you for considering and sharing these concerns with 
     other Members of Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                             Edwin Meese, III,

                             Chairman, Center for Legal & Judicial
     Studies, The Heritage Foundation.
                                  ____


 Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson, St. Paul African Methodist 
   Episcopal (AME) Church, the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater 
        Boston, Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc., Boston, MA

 (Before the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee--March 3, 2004)

       Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Feingold, and other 
     distinguished members of the

[[Page 20075]]

     subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come before 
     you today.
       My name is Richard W. Richardson. I am an Ordained Minister 
     in the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston, 
     Massachusetts. I am also President and CEO of Children's 
     Services of Roxbury, a child welfare agency. I've worked in 
     the field of child welfare for almost 50 years. In addition, 
     I have been a foster parent myself for 25 years.
       Finally, I serve as chairman of the Political Affairs 
     Committee of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater 
     Boston. The BMA has a membership of 80 churches from within 
     the greater Boston area, whose primary members are African 
     American, and number over 30,000 individuals and families. I 
     am here today to offer testimony on behalf of the BMA as well 
     as myself.
       The BMA strongly supports the traditional institution of 
     marriage, as the union of one man and one woman. That 
     institution plays a critical role in ensuring the progress 
     and prosperity of the black family and the black community at 
     large. That's why the BMA strongly supports a federal 
     constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of 
     one man and one woman, and why the BMA is joined in that 
     effort by the Cambridge Black Pastor's Conference and the Ten 
     Point Coalition.
       The BMA didn't come at this conclusion lightly. I never 
     thought that I would be here in Washington, testifying before 
     this distinguished subcommittee, on the subject of defending 
     traditional marriage by a constitutional amendment. As 
     members of the BMA, we are faced with many problems in our 
     communities, and we want to be spending all of our energies 
     working hard on those problems. We certainly didn't ask for a 
     nationwide debate on whether the traditional institution of 
     marriage should be invalidated by judges.
       But the recent decision of four judges of the highest court 
     in my state, threatening traditional marriage laws around the 
     country, gives us no choice but to engage in this debate. The 
     family and the traditional institution of marriage are 
     fundamental to progress and hope for a better tomorrow for 
     the African-American community. And so, much as we at the BMA 
     would like to be focusing on other issues, we realize that 
     traditional marriage--as well as our democratic system of 
     government--is now under attack. Without traditional 
     marriage, it is hard to see how our community will be able to 
     thrive.
       I would like to spend some time explaining why the 
     definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman 
     is so important--not just to the African-American community, 
     but to people of all religions and cultures around the world.
       To put it simply: We firmly believe that children do best 
     when raised by a mother and a father. My experience in the 
     field of child welfare indicates that, when given a choice, 
     children prefer a home that consists of their mother and 
     father. Society has described the ``ideal'' family as being a 
     mother, father, 2.5 children and a dog. Children are raised 
     expecting to have a biological mother and father. It is not 
     just society--it is biology, it is basic human instinct. We 
     alter those expectations and basic human instincts at our 
     peril, and at the peril of our communities.
       The dilution of the ideal--of procreation and child-rearing 
     within the marriage of one man and one woman--has already had 
     a devastating effect on our community. We need to be 
     strengthening the institution of marriage, not diluting it. 
     Marriage is about children, not about adult love. As a 
     minister to a large church with a diverse population, I can 
     tell you that I love and respect all relationships. This 
     discussion about marriage is not about adult love. It is 
     about finding the best arrangement for raising children, and 
     as history, tradition, biology, sociology, and just plain 
     common sense tells us, children are raised best by their 
     biological mother and father.
       Let me be clear about something. As a reverend, I am not 
     just a religious leader. I am also a family counselor. And I 
     am deeply familiar with the fact that many children today are 
     raised in nontraditional environments. Foster parents. 
     Adoptive parents. Single parents. Children raised by 
     grandparents, uncles, aunts. I don't disparage any of these 
     arrangements. Of course I don't. People are working hard and 
     doing the best job they can to raise children. That doesn't 
     change the fact that there is an ideal. There is a dream that 
     we have and should have for all children--and that is a mom 
     and dad for every child, back or white.
       I don't disparage other arrangements. I certainly don't 
     disparage myself. As a foster parent to more than 50 
     children, a grandparent of seven adopted grandchildren, and 
     almost 50 years of working with children who have been 
     separated from their biological parent(s) and are living in a 
     foster home, been adopted, or in any other type of 
     nontraditional setting, I can attest that children will go to 
     no end to seek out their biological family. It is instinct--
     it is a part of who we are as human beings, and no law can 
     change that. As much as my wife and I shared our love with 
     our foster children, and still have a lasting relationship 
     with many of them, it did not fill that void that they 
     experienced.
       I want to spend my last few moments talking about 
     discrimination. I want to state something very clearly, 
     without equivocation, hesitation, or doubt. The defense of 
     marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, 
     I know something about discrimination. The institution of 
     slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The 
     institution of segregation was about discrimination. The 
     institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against 
     interracial marriage, was about discrimination.
       The traditional institution of marriage is not 
     discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. 
     Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created 
     for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare 
     the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. From what 
     I can tell, every U.S. Senator--both Democrat and 
     Republican--who has talked about marriage has said that they 
     support traditional marriage laws and oppose what the 
     Massachusetts court did. Are they all guilty of 
     discrimination?
       Finally, I want to mention something about the process. I 
     know that the Massachusetts legislature is currently 
     considering this issue, and I hope that they do. The court 
     has told us that we cannot have traditional marriage and 
     democracy until 2006 at the earliest. That is wrong, that is 
     antidemocratic, that is offensive, and that is dangerous to 
     black families and the black community.
       But importantly, a state constitutional amendment will not 
     be enough. I know that the Attorney General of Nebraska is 
     here, and I am honored to share the panel with him. I am not 
     a lawyer. But I know the lawyers who have been fighting to 
     abolish traditional marriage laws in Massachusetts. I have 
     been in the courtrooms and seen them argue. They are good 
     people, and well meaning. But I can tell you this--they are 
     tenacious, they are aggressive, and they will not stop until 
     every marriage law in this nation is struck down under our 
     U.S. Constitution. And every schoolchild learns in civics 
     class knows that the only way to stop the courts from 
     changing the U.S. Constitution is a federal constitutional 
     amendment.
       The defense of marriage should be a bipartisan effort. I am 
     a proud member of the Democratic Party. And I am so pleased 
     that the first constitutional amendment protecting marriage 
     was introduced by a Democrat in the last Congress. I am 
     honored to have been invited here to testify in front of this 
     subcommittee of both Republicans and Democrats. I hope that 
     each and everyone of you will keep the issue of defending the 
     traditional institution of marriage as a bipartisan issue.
       Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to 
     represent the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, 
     the Cambridge Black Pastor's Conference, and the Ten Point 
     Coalition, in reaffirming our support for a Federal 
     Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the union 
     between a man and a woman. I would be pleased to take any 
     questions.
                                  ____


    Testimony of Pastor Daniel de Leon, Sr., Alianza de Ministerios 
  Evangelicos Nacionales (AMEN), Pastor, Templo Calvario, Santa Ana, 
            California, General Presbyter, Assemblies of God

 (Before the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee--March 3, 2004)

       Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies 
     and gentlemen.
       My name is Pastor Daniel de Leon, and I am here to 
     represent the largest Hispanic Evangelical organization in 
     the country, AMEN (Association Evangelica de Ministerios 
     Nacionales). AMEN is comprised of over 8,000,000 members, 
     representing 27 denominations and 22 Latino nations. I am 
     also the Pastor of the largest Hispanic Evangelical Church in 
     America, Templo Calvario, in Santa Ana, California.
       AMEN is a leading advocate on issues that concern the 
     Hispanic community. On many issues, we work closely with our 
     Catholic brethren. We are certainly working together on the 
     issue we are discussing today--the institution of marriage, 
     understood throughout history and across diverse religions 
     and cultures as the union of one man and one woman. We have 
     been a member of the Alliance for Marriage since its 
     inception.
       When I turned on my television a few weeks ago, and saw 
     what was happening in San Francisco, I couldn't believe my 
     eyes. As I sat there, several things came to mind.
       First, I could not understand how an elected official could 
     ignore and violate the laws of our state, and get away with 
     it. I also could not understand why the courts would not stop 
     this--why they would refuse to require an elected official to 
     comply with the law of his state, and to respect the will of 
     the people as expressed in our laws.
       Second, it wasn't just that officials and judges were 
     ignoring the law. It was much worse than that. They were 
     ignoring a law that is so fundamental to society--and in 
     particular, of great importance to my community, to the 
     people who I counsel. They were ignoring the importance of 
     the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one 
     woman.
       Just a few years ago, Californians voted to reaffirm that 
     marriage in the state of California is between a man and a 
     woman only. Hispanics in particular voted overwhelmingly to 
     uphold the traditional institution of

[[Page 20076]]

      marriage. This is one institution, even though imperfect, 
     that has withstood the test of time and has proven to bring a 
     sense of stability to society for time immemorial.
       The institution of marriage is designed for children, not 
     for adult love. Adults can love in many ways--between brother 
     and sister, between grandparents, uncles, aunts, between 
     friends and loved ones. But marriage is for children. I am so 
     saddened that we have forgotten that. And I am even more 
     saddened that marriage is drifting further and further from 
     what it is supposed to be all about--children. Adults seem to 
     care more and more about one thing, themselves. This is one 
     of the reasons why 50% of marriages wind up in divorce. We 
     must strengthen marriage--not weaken it. And I fear that, if 
     we start to abolish marriage laws in our nation, we will go 
     further down the path of teaching people that marriage does 
     not matter for the well-being of children, it only matters 
     for the pleasure of adults.
       I am not here because I want to be here. There are many 
     problems in my community, and I should be there working on 
     them, not here far away in Washington, D.C. But I have flown 
     all the way here from California, because I need to be here, 
     to defend the most basic institution of society for the good 
     of all, on behalf of my community. Because without marriage, 
     we have no hope of solving the other problems we are facing 
     back home.
       I live every day in the front-lines of Urban America, where 
     the ills of society are magnified greatly. People like 
     myself, who provide a service to our community, are often the 
     ones that have to ``pick up the pieces'' when marriages and 
     families fall. In my 30 years of counseling, I have often 
     dealt with grown children that still harbor hurts and deep 
     seated frustrations because they did not have a mother and a 
     father.
       I know that there are good people trying to raise children 
     without a mother and a father. Perhaps it is the single 
     parent. Or the grandparent or aunt and uncle. Or the foster 
     parent. They do their best, and we admire and respect them 
     for that. But at the same time, we want the very best for 
     children--and that is a mother and father, and an institution 
     that encourages people to give children both a mother and 
     father.
       I want to say something about civil rights and 
     discrimination. My people know something about 
     discrimination. The institution of marriage was not created 
     to discriminate against people. It was created to protect 
     children and to give them the best home possible--a home with 
     a mother and father.
       Some people talk about interracial marriage. Laws 
     forbidding interracial marriage are about racism. Laws 
     protecting traditional marriage are about children.
       To us in the Hispanic community, marriage is more than a 
     sexual relationship. It is a nurturing, caring and loving 
     relationship between a man and a woman that is to remain 
     intact ``until death do us part.'' Children are born into 
     this loving relationship with a great sense of anticipation. 
     We love our children and we love children as you can tell by 
     the numbers!
       Marriage between a man and a woman is the standard. A child 
     is like a twig that is planted in the soil of our society 
     that requires two poles to have the best chance of growing 
     strong and healthy. Those two poles, if you will, are the 
     parents, Dad and Mom. Very different and at a times even 
     opposites but necessary for a balanced form of living.
       Furthermore, marriage is a moral and spiritual incubator 
     for future generations. Our children learn from their parents 
     not only how to make a living but more importantly, how to 
     live their life. This is not readily learned by a simple form 
     of transference of knowledge but rather through the 
     experience of daily living. Children learn from observation. 
     As the home goes, so goes society.
       I believe that we need to send a positive message to our 
     children and their children. That we cared enough about the 
     most basic institution of our society, marriage between a man 
     and a woman, that we passed a Constitutional Amendment to 
     preserve it for future generations. This is not, and must not 
     be, about party politics. This must be seen as our struggle 
     as a social family to bring stability to a divided house.
       The President is right when he said that, ``On a matter of 
     such importance, the voice of the people must be heard . . . 
     if we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being 
     changed forever, our nation must enact a Constitutional 
     Amendment to protect marriage in America.''
       Thank you very much.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin this discussion 
with the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and others that are 
joining us asking for time. Before I recognize the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I merely want to begin our discussion by observing how 
unnecessary consideration of this matter is at this point. No one in 
the Chamber is unaware of the fact that the obvious ploy by some is to 
play upon the worst fears of our citizens, who are deep into an 
election year, to deal extensively with a subject, a constitutional 
amendment, which every Member on this floor knows is going nowhere. The 
reason? Because it has already been defeated by the other body. The 
only conceivable point of this amendment is to energize the 
conservative political base.
  Well, we are not buying into that, Mr. Speaker. We know that this is 
the reason that it is being done, because our distinguished majority 
leader only recently told us that we could not take up the assault 
weapons ban because we did not have the votes to pass it.
  Well, do we have the votes to pass this amendment, a two-thirds 
requirement, while we are here on the floor less than 45 days before 
the election? I think that we know the answer to that.
  We know that the States are fully capable of dealing with the issue 
of the same-sex relationship on their own. Our Nation has a long 
tradition of leaving questions relating to civil marriage to the 
States, and for more than 228 years the States have dealt with these 
issues, with marriage age limits, with miscegenation and divorce. Let 
us leave it with the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
801, further proceedings on H.J. Res. 106 will be postponed.

                          ____________________