[Pages H7270-H7280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3396, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 474

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3396) to define and protect the institution of
marriage. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be
considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except
those specified in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be
considered only in the order specified, may be offered only
by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments
specified in the report are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

{time} 1045

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 474 is a straightforward
resolution. The proposed rule is a modified closed rule providing for 1
hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. The proposed rule provides for
two amendments to be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The
first amendment made in order under the rule is an amendment to strike
section 3 of H.R. 3396. This amendment is debatable for 75 minutes. The
second amendment made in order under the rule is an amendment to
suspend the Federal definition of marriage under certain circumstances.
The Committee on Rules recognized that these two amendments go to the
core of the bill, and by making them in order the committee ensures
that full consideration will be given to the important issues raised by
this legislation.
Finally, the proposed rule provides for one motion to recommit with
or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported
House Resolution 474 out by unanimous voice vote.

[[Page H7271]]

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, consists of two
provisions which will protect the rights of the various States and the
Federal Government to make their own policy determinations as to
whether same-sex marriages should be recognized in their respective
jurisdictions. Section 2 of the bill clarifies that no State need give
effect to a marriage recognized by another State if the marriage
involves two persons of the same sex. It does not prevent a State from
giving effect to such a marriage, nor does it prevent a State from
making its own determination for purposes of its State law.
Section 3 ensures that the traditional meaning of marriage, the legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, will be the
meaning used in construing Federal laws.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that H.R. 3396 has considerable
bipartisan support. In fact, President Clinton will sign this bill in
its current form. I believe that H.R. 3396 advanced that interest. I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the following extraneous material for the
Record:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 77 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 35 27
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 129 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may
be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany
it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be
completely open to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).

[[Page H7272]]

H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade A: voice vote (6/
Agreement. 12/96).
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96).......... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 13/96).
1997.
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3662........ Interior Approps, FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 19/96).
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96).......... O................ H.R. 3666........ VA/HUD Approps........ A: 246-166 (6/25/
96).
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96).......... O................ H.R. 3675........ Transportation Approps A: voice vote (6/
26/96).
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)........... O................ H.R. 3755........ Labor/HHS Approps..... PQ: 218-202 A:
voice vote (7/10/
96).
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3754........ Leg. Branch Approps... A: voice vote (7/
10/96).
H. Res. 474 (7/10/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3396........ Defense of Marriage .................
Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. McInnis for
yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult, very emotional issue and, my
personal opinions aside, I do not believe it belongs on the floor of
the House of Representatives today.
This issues makes a tremendous amount of people extremely
uncomfortable; it divides our country when we should be brought
together; and frankly, it appears to be a political attempt to sling
arrows at President Clinton.
But, my Republican colleagues have decided to bring this issue up,
and unfortunately for the country, here it is.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my Republican colleagues are bringing
up this bill instead of tackling the mountains and mountains of work
awaiting them. This Congress has yet to finish five appropriations
bills; this country is waiting for the bipartisan Kennedy-Kassebaum
health care bill; and a long-overdue minimum wage increase. But what
are my Republican colleagues doing?
This week they are doing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is not what the country wants and I am sorry to see
that my Republican colleagues are wasting precious floor time on their
political agenda with complete disregard for the needs of working
Americans and congressional responsibilities for Federal spending.
But, Mr. Speaker, the rule for this bill not as unfair as other rules
we have seen this year.
It will allow for 1 hour of general debate, of which the Democrats
get half, it makes in order two Democratic amendments by Mr. Frank, and
it gives the Democrats the time requested on these two amendments.
My Republican colleagues did not make in order an amendment by
Representative Schroeder to exclude from the Federal definition of
marriage any subsequent marriage unless the prior marriage was
terminated on fault grounds.
They also did not make an amendment in order by Representatives
Johnson and Hobson to provide for a GAO study of the differences in
benefits in a marriage and a domestic partnership.
But, there is adequate time for debate of this issue during general
debate and debate on the amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to distinguish a couple of
remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. The
gentleman from Massachusetts says that this Protection of Marriage Act
is not what this county wants. I take issue with that. I think this is
exactly what this country wants. This country is demanding that the
tradition of marriage be upheld. What this country does not want is for
one State out of 50 States, that is, specifically the State of Hawaii,
to be able to mandate its wishes upon every other State in the Union.

[[Page H7273]]

What this bill does is it allows every State to make their own
individual decision. So if the State of Wyoming wants to make their
decision, they can make their decision. Texas can make its decision.
Colorado can make its decision. But they have the freedom to make that
decision; it is not mandated upon them by a court, a supreme court in
the State of Hawaii.
I think it is particularly important to take a look at the
traditional marriage, and we are going to have plenty of time to debate
that. If we look at any definition, whether it is Black's Law
Dictionary, whether it is Webster's Dictionary, a marriage is defined
as union between a man and a woman, and that should be upheld, and
there is no reason to be ashamed of that tradition. It is a long-held
tradition. It is a basic foundation of this country, and this Congress
should respect that.
Finally, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to address a couple of
other issues. First of all, in regard to the Schroeder amendment, which
was not allowed by the Committee on Rules, that amendment is clearly,
in my opinion, a delusion, it is a diversion. It is not focused on the
key issue which is important here, and that is, should one State be
able to mandate on every other State in the Union a requirement that
those States recognize same sex marriage?
Now, in regard to the gentleman's comment about the Johnson
amendment: The Johnson amendment would put in the statute a requirement
that the General Accounting Office do a study. It does not require a
mandate by statute. In fact, the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], said that he would write a letter
requesting that study. Every Member of the U.S. Congress has that right
to request that study be made. There is no reason to put that in
statute.

Again I think it is a delusion, I think it is a diversion from the
topic at hand, from the issue that we have got to look at, and that is
where our focus ought to be.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just cannot think why we could not be talking about
getting the water cleaned up in this country right now, why we could
not be getting the Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill before us right now,
why we could not get the minimum wage.
The matter before us today, nothing is going to happen for at least 2
years. People are going to be dying very shortly if we do not clean up
our water. People are going to be dying unless we get adequate health
care. People are going to be starving in the streets unless we do not
raise our minimum wage.
So I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] may have got his
items a little out of priority, out of whack.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me.
I want to say I think that this bill and bringing it up today is an
absolute outrage. If my colleagues think there is not enough hate and
polarization in America, then they are going to love this bill because
this just trying to throw some more gasoline on political fires people
are trying to light this year, and that is not what we need. The State
of Hawaii is years away from taking final action. Meanwhile the
gentleman from Massachusetts is right: We cannot drink the water in the
capital city of this great Nation.
So we got to deal today with something that might, might, happen
years from now, but we cannot deal with the water issue today? Now,
something is wrong with that.
We are also saying what this bill basically says is that there is a
tremendous threat to marriage if two people of the same sex stand up
and vow commitment to each other, that if they do that, then my
marriage is being threatened. I do not think so. I belong in the
marriage hall of fame. I have been married for 34 years. I have never
felt threatened by that issue.
In over 200 years this Congress has never gotten into the definition
of marriage because we have left it to the States. What we are saying
today is even if States vote unanimously to allow this type of
marriage, the Federal Government will not recognize it. This is unique,
this is different, and I really am troubled by that.
But I had an amendment that said, ``If you want to defend marriage,
I'm going to tell you what I see wrong with marriage. It is the fact
that we have let people crawl out of marriages like they crawl--a snake
crawls out of its skin and never deal with economic consequences.''
So I had an amendment saying, ``The real defense of marriage would be
to say at the Federal level you don't give benefits to the next
marriage until the person who left that marriage has dealt with the
first one in a property settlement based on fault.''
That would save us gazillions of dollars in welfare and child support
and all sorts of things because we say we are defending marriage. But
we know the traditional way this has been done is that people move to
the Federal dole because we do not want to go tap the person on the
shoulder and say, ``You have responsibility for that family you just
left. You cannot just shed them and throw them on the taxpayers'
roll.''
But, no, no, they do not want to take up my amendment. That is a
diversion, they say. That is delusion.
It is not diversion, it is not delusion. It is absolutely to the
point of this bill. It was not ruled out of order. So what happened?
The Committee on Rules said, oh, ``No, we cannot take that up.'' Why?
Because this is a political ruse. This is not about really protecting
marriage and the things that have caused this great institution of
marriage to crack.
Now, I feel very strongly that if we are going to make marriage work,
we should be really valuing adults, taking responsibility for each
other. That is very hard for anybody to do any more. This country is
getting straight A's in fear of commitment. Most people do not want
anything but maybe a cat. So if there are two individuals and they are
willing to make a commitment to each other under the civil law of a
State and a State decides to recognize it, what right does the Federal
Government have to say, no, they cannot do that?
What we? Are we not human beings? Do we not respect each other?
Should we not really be doing everything we can to try and take care of
each other as our brother's keepers, as our sister's keepers? Taking
care of children?
I am shocked that my amendment was not allowed, terribly shocked,
because if nothing else, it protects the most innocent victim of
throwaway marriages, and that is children.

{time} 1100

Children have been cast off and thrown away, and people do not want
to take responsibility for them and say, ``I am going to have a new
family.''
To me, Mr. Speaker, my amendment goes to the core of the defense of
marriage. If we really want to defend marriage in this country, then
say to people, when you make that commitment you have to mean that
commitment. And even if you want to leave that commitment, you may be
able to leave it physically, but you cannot shed it economically. You
still have economic responsibility.
That is why I say this bill is absolutely nothing but a wedge issue.
We are building the platform for Candidate Dole to stand on in San
Diego. We are out trying to make candidates spend a million dollars
defending this issue when we are not talking about the debt, when we
are not talking about clean water, when we are not talking about all
the real issues. I urge a no on this rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Colorado in committee was turned down 22 to 3, 22 to
3.
Second of all, I think an interesting situation here, the
gentlewoman, the preceding speaker, is from the State of Colorado. As
Members know, I am from the State of Colorado. The gentlewoman from
Colorado supports same-sex marriage. The gentleman from Colorado
opposes same-sex marriage. That is a debate that ought to be carried
out

[[Page H7274]]

within the confines of the State of Colorado.
Neither the gentlewoman from Colorado nor the gentleman from Colorado
ought to have their debate determined by the Supreme Court in the State
of Hawaii. The gentlewoman is very capable of carrying forward this
debate within Colorado, as I feel that I am, too. We ought to carry
that out, not the people of Hawaii. That is a decision for the people
of Colorado or for the people of Wyoming or for the people of New York.
Second of all, I think it is important to highlight the President's
comments. At the very beginning, I believe that the gentlewoman from
Colorado made the comment that she is shocked that we are bringing this
type of bill to the floor. Let me say the President's comments, of whom
I find the gentlewoman from Colorado in constant support, the
President, through his press secretary says, ``The President believes
this is a time when there is a need to do things to strengthen the
American family, and that is why he has taken this position in
opposition to same-sex marriage.''

This is an issue that becomes very relevant the minute the Hawaii
Supreme court issues its decision. In addition, it is also very
relevant because of the implications it has to the Federal Government
on benefits that are entitled to spouses. So there are three keys we
really need to look at: First, what will the Federal Government be
obligated to as far as tax-funded dollars by same-sex marriages;
second, what are States' rights? Why should not the States exercise
their individual rights? The third point is the traditional definition
of marriage.
I for one have no shame, have no bashfulness, in standing in front of
the U.S. House and saying I do not support same-sex marriages. I
believe that the tradition of marriage, as recognized between one man
and one woman, not one man and five women, not one man and one man or
one woman and one woman, but one man and one woman, should be continued
to be recognized as a tradition which is basic to the foundation of
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the fine gentleman from the State
of California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I speak to a specific point, the
constitutionality of what we do today, because the issue had been
raised. I begin with drawing my colleagues' attention to Article 4,
Section 1: ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.''
But I urge my colleagues to read to the second sentence of that
section: ``And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the
Effect thereof.''
The second sentence of that provision of the Constitution is quite
important to understand the constitutionality of the bill we debate
today, because whereas the general rule is that full faith and credit
is to be given to the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every
other State, an exception is created if Congress chooses by general
law, as opposed to a specific law to a specific contract, by general
law to prescribe the manner in which such records and proceedings are
proved, and the effect thereof. I emphasize the second phrase, ``The
effect thereof.''
A leading treatise on the field of constitutional law, the Library of
Congress' own contracted work, the annotated Constitution, at page 870,
refers to this power in the context of divorce, not marriage; we do not
have any quotation from this source on marriage. But on divorce they
say, ``Congress has the power under the clause to decree the effect
that the statutes of one State shall have in other States.''
This being so, it does not seem extravagant to argue that Congress
may under the clause describe a certain type of divorce and say it
shall be granted recognition throughout the Union and that no other
kind shall.'' ``And that no other kind shall,'' establishing, I think
quite clearly, what the phrases of the Constitution suggest: that
Congress has the constitutional authority to establish exceptions to
the general full faith and credit clause.
Has Congress used this authority? Yes, it has, quite recently, in a
very related context. In 1980 the Congress adopted section 1738(a) of
title 28, which provided that ``Whereas child custody determinations
made by the State where the divorce took place generally are applied in
all other States, not so if the couple moved to another State.'' And
Congress said that the second State did not have to abide by the child
custody determinations of the first State where the couple moved to the
second State, an explicit use of this second sentence of article 5,
section 1, power in the Congress.
Then most recently, in 1994, in section 1738(b) of the same title,
Congress once again established that rule for child support orders. We
have, thus, a rather clear example of power explicitly in the
Constitution, recognized by treaties, and used as recently as last
year.
The advisability of this bill shall be debated. My purpose this
morning was to speak to its constitutionality. Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt as to its constitutionality.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Honolulu, HI [Mr. Abercrombie].
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from
Colorado, inasmuch as he continues to invoke the name of Hawaii, to at
least try to be accurate. I understand the gentleman has his political
duty that he is going to do today here, at least as he conceives it. I
do not object to that. I do object to his, I must say, making
statements like ``Hawaii mandating its wishes on the rest of the
Nation''; his constant invocation of what Hawaii intends to do or not
do.
I daresay that there are not five people in this House of
Representatives that have the slightest clue as to what is taking place
legislatively or judicially or personally in Hawaii with respect to
this issue. I can tell the Members that the individuals involved are
constituents of mine, two of whom I know personally.
I know that the kind of rhetoric that has been utilized with respect
to this issue does not reflect either their wishes or their
motivations. I find it at best a question that needs to be answered as
to our definition with respect to marriage. I will not use the word
hypocritical, but I think others might certainly question the
motivation of people who want to define marriage when this Defense of
Marriage Act might better be characterized as defense of marriages.
If we intend to say that marriage, and we are writing a national
marriage law, which is what we want to do here, is between one man and
one women, does that mean that we will now write a national divorce
law? Because I understand some of the people who are sponsoring this
bill are on their second or third marriages. I wonder which one they
are defending.
I do not object to that. I think people are entitled to make their
private relationships what they will and to seek such happiness in this
life as they are able to achieve, but I think that when we move into
the area of the private relationships of other people, that we at least
ought to show some respect for the human context.
When the gentleman from Colorado and others speak so glibly of Hawaii
and the people who are involved in the legal proceedings there, they
forget these are human beings, some human beings that I know
personally. All they are trying to do is conduct their lives as
reasonable, sober, responsible people seeking their measure of
happiness and tranquility in this life, and to try to bring as much as
they can into their lives of the values that we cherish in Hawaii, of
kindness and responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, amendments will be offered to this bill, because this is
more than the defense of marriage. It also gets into the question of
benefits. We contend and I certainly contend that nothing that is
proceeding today in Hawaii and in the courts of Hawaii affects in any
way what any other State does. It is quite clear, and I can cite at
great length, and I do not have the time obviously now, the fact that
other States are able to establish already what they recognize or do
not recognize with respect to marriage.
The full faith and credit clause has been invoked in our Nation's
history very few times, less than half a dozen times, and it involves
the custody of children, the protection of children,

[[Page H7275]]

the interstate capacity to enforce child support laws. That is the kind
of thing we have dealt with, serious issues.
I do not doubt that it is a serious issue for individuals here as to
what constitutes marriage, but to try to utilize Hawaii for some
political agenda having to do with, I guess, the elections in November
is something that I find nothing less than reprehensible. We can define
marriage any way we want in the States right now. This bill has nothing
to do with that. Hawaii certainly is not challenging it.
In fact, I would like to hear from the gentleman from Colorado or
anybody else any indication that the State of Hawaii has ever indicated
in any way, shape, or form that it intends to, as the gentleman put it,
mandate its wishes on the rest of the Nation. I do not think this is
the case, and I do not think this is the bill to do this kind of thing,
and certainly not to malign Hawaii in the process.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the gentleman from Hawaii,
there certainly will be a mandate or an attempt to mandate upon every
State in the Union any decision that comes out of the Hawaiian Supreme
Court allowing same-sex marriage.
Second of all, the gentleman from Hawaii starts out by, in my
opinion, lecturing the gentleman from Colorado about the State of
Hawaii and where do these comments come from. Let me quote from a
gentleman from the State of Hawaii who represents the State of Hawaii
in the State House of Hawaii. The gentleman is State representative
Terrance Tom, who testified before the committee here.
Let me quote: ``I do know this: No single individual, no matter how
wise or learned in the law, should be invested with the power to
overturn fundamental social policies against the will of the people.
``If this Congress can act to preserve the will of the people as
expressed through their elected representatives, it has a duty to do
so. If inaction by the United States Congress runs the risk that a
single judge in Hawaii may redefine the scope of Federal legislation,
as well as legislation throughout the other 49 States, failure to act
is a dereliction of the responsibility you were invested with by the
voters.''
This is not politics. This is clearly, if we fail to act in this
body, as stated by the gentleman from the State of Hawaii, ``It is a
dereliction of responsibility you,'' referring to the U.S. Congress,
``were invested with by the voters.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, you need to duck in here today. The red herrings are
flying fast and furious. We hear about clean water and we hear about
minimum wage and we hear about amendments that were defeated by
overwhelming votes in committee, and it being outrageous that those
amendments are not before us today. We hear about politics.
We hear about all sorts of things from the other side, when the fact
of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, let us do away with the red herrings,
let us put aside the smoke and look at what we have. We have a basic
institution, an institution basic not only to this country's foundation
and to its survival but to every Western civilization, under direct
assault by homosexual extremists all across this country, not just in
Hawaii.
This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that has arisen in a bipartisan
manner, as the gentleman from Colorado has already stated. President
Clinton said he supports this legislation and would sign it. I would
also point out that our colleagues on the other side, this is not a
Republican proposal, it is a proposal that enjoys bipartisan support.
Just look at the list of cosponsors, both original cosponsors and
subsequent cosponsors, and Members will find people from both parties
who support this. The reason they do support it is because it is not a
partisan issue. This is an issue that transcends partisan lines. It
goes to the heart of a fundamental institution in this country, and
that is marriage.

{time} 1115

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not one invented by anybody who is a
cosponsor of this bill. It was not invented by anybody in this
Congress. It is an issue that is being forced on us directly by assault
by the homosexual extremists to attack the institution of marriage. One
has to look no further than the words of some of their organizations
themselves, such as the Lambda Defense Fund. This is part of a
concerted effort going back many years and now poised, at least in the
State of Hawaii, for success from their standpoint.
The learned gentleman from Hawaii took issue with any of us who might
claim to know something about what is going on in Hawaii as if we did
not. Well, in fact we do. One of the reasons we do know a little bit
about what is going on in Hawaii is the fact that one of the persons we
heard from in the Judiciary Committee, the subcommittee, was Hawaiian
State Representative Terrance Tom, chairman of the Hawaiian House
Judiciary Committee. He said that the Supreme Court's ruling in Hawaii
has been met with very strong resistance on the part of the Hawaiian
public and public opinion and their elected representatives.
He went on to explain in some detail the background as to why this
legislation that he was testifying in behalf of in the Congress was
important to him and to other people in Hawaii. We do not purport to
know certainly as much as the learned representative from Hawaii but we
do know a little bit about what is going on out there.
The legislation that is before this body today is a reaction to what
is being forced on this country. It is very limited legislation. It
goes no further than is absolutely essential to meet the very terms of
the assault itself. It simply limits itself to providing, as the
Constitution clearly and explicitly foresaw in the full faith and
credit clause, that we exercise that power to define the scope of full
faith and credit, and it also goes no further than simply fulfilling
our responsibility in this body to define the scope of marriage as with
other relationships and institutions that fall into the jurisdiction of
Federal law, to define it, that for purposes of Federal law only,
marriage means the union between a man and a woman.
One of the most astounding things that I heard was in our committee,
one member indicating that he did not really know the difference for
legal purposes between a man and a woman or between a male and a
female. I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that we all know that. And the fact of
the matter is that marriage throughout the entire history of not only
our civilization but Western civilization has meant the legal union
between one man and one woman. For us to now be poised as a country,
and this is an issue that will be presented, to sweep that away would
be outrageous. The American people demand this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary, it is essential, it is
limited in scope, and it addresses the legal issues that properly fall
within the ambit of congressional authority. It goes no further than is
necessary to meet this challenge, but the challenge is there, and the
challenge must be met. If we were to succumb to the homosexual
extremist agenda on the other side, and this is part of a plan, then we
would be the first country to do so. Not even the very liberal
socialist economies of Europe or the countries of Europe have done
this. No country in the world recognizes homosexual marriages as the
full legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Johnston].
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me preface my remarks that
yesterday I celebrated my 42d wedding anniversary with my first and
only wife. I have two children and four grandchildren that I am very
proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I really have to say that we should be embarrassed today
to consider this legislation. Of all the pressing needs facing our
country, the leadership has chosen to focus on this, the so-called
Defense of Marriage Act.
Defending our country against enemies is certainly important, as is
defending our children against poverty and ignorance. Defending the
elderly against neglect is important, as is defending our families
against crime and criminals. But defending marriage? Get real.
Defending marriage against what?

[[Page H7276]]

Against whom? We are wasting precious time here.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation denigrates the House of
Representatives. What this bill lacks in substance and import, it makes
up for in shameless politics. Demonizing Communist countries, welfare
mothers, or immigrants is now old news. So the demon du jour is gays.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those Americans who truly fear the
notion of gay marriage. But the institution of marriage is not in
jeopardy because some choose to associate with the benefits and the
obligations of marriage. We as Members of Congress have a duty to
educate, to enlighten, and push for a society that does not punish
people because they are different. We are here to lead our
constituents, not leave them behind.
The possibility that gays may marry must rank pretty low among the
problems and the difficulties facing American families today. Everyone
knows that the only true threat to marriage comes from within. Let us
focus on the real problems this election year and do our constituents a
real favor. They just might appreciate it.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Embarrassed? The preceding speaker says we should be embarrassed
because we are talking about marriage on this House floor. Let me say
to every one of my colleagues, I am not embarrassed by defending the
traditional recognition of marriage. I would like to quote from a
friend of mine, Bill Bennett:

The institution of marriage is already reeling because of
the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, and
out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its
devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a
radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on
an institution that is the keystone and the arch of
civilization.

The issue is very simple here. No. 1, the rule that we are discussing
today is a very fair rule. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts,
who has just asked for a request to yield, is going to have lots of
time in the following hour because the Rules Committee has allowed two
of his amendments to be debated on the floor. It will be a very healthy
and good debate for all of us.
No. 2, the bill is very clear in what it does. It does the following:
First, it confirms the tradition of marriage as this country and
every other country in the world recognizes. That is, a union between
one man and one woman. Second, it preserves the States rights, so that
one State, like the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, cannot
mandate upon another State their interpretation of what marriage should
be. And, third, it preserves the ability for the Federal Government not
to be obligated to a particular State that may choose to recognize same
sex marriage.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the fine gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, as I have said
many times, that the family is the cornerstone, in fact the foundation
of our society, and at the core of that foundation is the institution
of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many that have come and said already
this morning, does Congress not have more important things to do? I
would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely nothing that we do
that is more important than protecting our families and protecting the
institution of marriage.
I have said, too, that this current situation that is taking place in
Hawaii, where the Supreme Court is about to rule that same sex
marriages are in order, is a frontal assault on the institution of
marriage and, if successful, will demolish the institution in and of
itself with that redefinition.
How can we possibly, once we begin to redrew the border, the playing
field of the institution of marriage to say it also includes two men,
or two women, how can we stop there and say it should not also include
two men and one woman, or three men, four men, or an adult and a child?
If they love one another, what would be the problem with that? As long
as we are going to expand the definition of what marriage is, why stop
there? Logically there would be no reasonable stopping place.
Another thing that I would like to address is that there have been
many who have said that we are doing this for political reasons. What
political gain is there for Republicans or Democrats when the President
has already endorsed this very bill? He has said he will sign it. This
is not a wedge issue. This is not a line of distinction between one
Presidential candidate and another. The President has said he will sign
it. We just simply have to do the right thing and pass it today.
Many are asking, why do we need the Defense of Marriage Act? Quite
simply, the legal ramifications of what the State court of Hawaii is
about to do cannot be ignored. If the State court in Hawaii legalizes
same-sex marriage, homosexual couples from other States around the
country will fly to Hawaii and marry. These same couples will then go
back to their respective States and argue that the full faith and
credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires their home State to
recognize their union as a marriage.
We in Congress can prevent confusion and litigation in 49 States by
passing this modest bill. The legislation does two things, simply:
First, it allows States to decide for themselves if they will recognize
same-sex unions as marriages. Each State can affirmatively embrace
either same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize Hawaiian same-sex
marriages. This provision respects each State's historical power to
establish conditions for entering into a legal marriage.
Second, the bill defines for Federal purposes marriage as the legal
union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and spouse as a husband
or wife of the opposite sex.
Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that as a concerned
father and observer of our culture, I wonder what marriage and child-
rearing will be like for my own grandchildren. Destroying the exclusive
territory of marriage to achieve a political end will not provide
homosexuals with the real benefits of marriage, but it may eventually
be the final blow to the American family. Now, more than ever, the
institution of the family needs to be protected, promoted, and
preserved.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York City [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, marriage does not need defense from
Congress. Two gay people applying for the benefits and the obligations
of marriage should stay together their whole life, that does not
threaten a marriage. If your marriage is threatened, it may be because
you have lost your job and cannot provide for your family. It may be
because of emotional reasons. Congress is not going to save your
marriage. If your marriage is not threatened, you do not need Congress
to intervene. I will talk about that later.
What I want to say now is that this bill is a fraud from beginning to
end. It is a fraud. It purports to do two things: It is going to save
the other States from having to go along with same sex marriages if and
when Hawaii does so. No; it will not.
First of all under the full faith and credit clause of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court has always recognized the public policy
exception. If one State recognizes 12-year-old marriages and New York
chooses not to, New York does not have to recognize a marriage of 12-
year-olds if they get married in one State and move to New York, and so
forth. If Hawaii chooses to recognize same sex marriages and Colorado
or New Jersey has a policy against same sex marriages, they will not be
forced to recognize it under the existing Constitution and the existing
law. If they were, if the Supreme Court read the full faith and credit
clause differently than it does, this could not stop it because you
cannot amend the Constitution by a statute. So this bill is unnecessary
for that purpose and were it necessary it would be ineffective.
But the second clause of the bill is the really pernicious clause
because the first clause, save all the States from Hawaii, does nothing
at all. It does nothing. It is a fraud to talk about it, a fraud on the
American people.
The second part of the bill is that assault on States rights which we
keep hearing from the gentleman from Colorado and others as sacrosanct,
this bill is going to defend States rights, nonsense. What this bill
says in the second clause is that if Colorado or New York or Hawaii or
New Jersey or any State chooses whether by judicial fiat or by

[[Page H7277]]

action of its legislature or by public referendum of its people to
recognize same sex marriages, the Federal Government will not recognize
those marriages for purposes of Social Security or Veterans'
Administration benefits or pensions or tax benefits or anything else.
We will say to a State, ``Do what you want, we won't recognize what you
do because Congress knows better.''
Mr. Speaker, marriage and divorce has always been a State matter,
never to be tampered with by Congress or by the Federal Government. Why
start down that road now? And if we start down that road now, we will
continue. This is not States rights. This is Federal invasion.

{time} 1130

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the campaign headquarters for
the radical right. You see, knowing that the American people
overwhelmingly rejected their deep cuts in Medicare and education,
their antifamily agenda and their assault on our environment, the
radical right went mucking around in search of an election-year ploy to
divide our country. Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act trample
over the Constitution, it flies in the face of everything the new
majority supposedly supports when it comes to States rights and to
determining marriage law.
Let us not be pawns. Let us not be pawns of the radical right. Let us
not turn the floor of the House of Representatives into a political
convention for extremists. Let us not take part in this assault on
lesbian and gay Americans and their families. Instead, let us defeat
the rule on this mean-spirited bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The
Republican leadership of this Congress should be ashamed of itself.
This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Despite the rhetoric
we have heard today in this Hall and the rhetoric of the religious
right, one can honor the relationship between a man and a woman without
attacking gay men and lesbians. No matter who is being attacked,
discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong.
You know, I have never been called by any constituent, by anyone to
complain to me that they want me to defend their marriage. If we want
to have a debate about defending American marriages and American
families, let us talk about the real issues affecting American
families. Let us talk about the rising cost of college education. Let
us talk about the ability to get health insurance, to afford health
insurance, to keep health insurance for our children. Let us talk about
raising the minimum wage. That is the way we strengthen our families,
by looking at the real issues and taking responsible action to solve
them.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is that President Clinton now is
being labeled with the radical right or that some of the Democrats, and
there are going to be a number of Democrats who vote for this bill,
being labeled, as they should be apparently, ashamed of themselves or
extremists. These are not extremists. This is a long-held American
tradition and not just an American tradition. It is a tradition held in
every country in this world. It is a tradition we ought to uphold.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this act. The
impending recognition of same-sex marriages in Hawaii is what is
bringing it to the floor. The suggestion that somehow this is political
or this is campaign rhetoric or campaign tactics, which I heard in the
subcommittee, I heard again at the full committee, is simply not the
case.
As I will mention later, if anything, it is about the last thing that
I or my colleagues on that subcommittee or on the Committee on the
Judiciary want to get involved with. It is something that frankly no
one wants to touch with a 10-foot pole, certainly not me. The fact is
that the impending recognition of same-sex marriages in Hawaii has
raised the probability that all other States in the United States of
America are going to be compelled to recognize and to enforce the
Hawaii marriage contract under the full faith and credit clause of the
U.S. Constitution. That has very far-reaching implications, both
fiscally as well as socially for the State of Ohio.
For example, if two individuals of the same gender obtain a marriage
license in Hawaii and then move to Ohio, the State of Ohio would have
to honor that marriage license. The people of Ohio would have no say in
the matter. The fact is that there is some question about that. It is
not absolutely crystal clear as to whether the full faith and credit
clause would apply in that way, but what we are going to do is we are
going to make it crystal clear that a State will not have to recognize
a same-gender marriage if it chooses not to.
Second, I want to point out that there is another issue involved in
this, and it has to do with all of the rights and privileges, the
obligations and responsibilities that go with a legal marriage contract
as it relates to Federal law. We are talking about probably most
important, survivors benefits, both for veterans as well as for Social
Security recipients, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
One of the things that was said during the debate that I think is
probably the most preposterous, and this was said at committee. I do
not know if it has been said on the floor today. But that is that
Congress has no business legislating morality. That is preposterous. It
is ridiculous and it is absurd. The fact is that we legislate morality
on a daily basis. It is through the law that we as a nation express the
morals and the moral sensibilities of the United States, and what is
morality except to decide what is right and what is wrong? That is what
morality is all about.
Clearly we have got laws about murder, we believe that murder is
wrong. It is a moral issue. We have laws about theft and burglary,
larceny, rape, and other bodily attacks. Those are moral issues. To
question that somehow we have no right to make a moral judgment on an
issue completely misses the point of what we do in Congress every
single day of the week.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Gerry Studds, the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, first if I may make a legal observation then
a much more personal one. This bill has two brief sections. One
purports to give States the right to decline to recognize marriages in
another State, and the other denies Federal benefits to any State which
makes such a decision. As has been said before, the first part is
absolutely meaningless. Either under the Constitution the States
already have that right, in which case we do nothing, or they do not,
in which case we cannnot do anything because it is a constitutional
provision. So, so much for the first part.
We are then left with a bill that simply denies Federal benefits to
any State which choose to sanction a certain kind of marriage. Mr.
Speaker, I have served in this House for 24 years. I have been elected
12 times, the last 6 times as an openly gay man. For the last 6 years,
as many Members of this House know, I have been in a relationship as
loving, as caring, as committed, as nurturing and celebrated and
sustained by our extended families as that of any Member of this House.
My partner, Dean, whom a great many of you know and I think a great
many of you love, is in a situation which no spouse of any Member of
this House is in. The same is true of my other two openly gay
colleagues.
This is something which I do not think most people realize. The
spouse of every Member of this House is entitled to that Member's
health insurance, even after that Member dies, if he or she should
predecease his or her spouse. That is not true of my partner.

[[Page H7278]]

The spouse of every Member of this House knows that, if he or she
predeceases, is predeceased by their spouse, a Member, that for the
rest of their lives they may have a pension, long after if they live
longer, the death of the Member of Congress.
I have paid every single penny as much as every Member of this House
has for that pension, but my partner, should he survive me, is not
entitled to one penny. I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I do
not believe most Americans think that is fair. And that is real. Yet
that is what the second section of this bill is about, to make sure
that we continue that unfairness. Did my colleagues know, for example,
that, if my partner, Dean, were terribly ill and in a hospital, perhaps
on death's door, that I could be refused the right to visit him in the
hospital if a doctor either did not know or did not approve of our
relationship? Do you think that is fair? I do not think most Americans
think that is fair.
He can be fired solely because of his sexual orientation. He can be
evicted from his rental home solely because of his sexual orientation.
I do not think most Americans think that is fair. Mr. Speaker, not so
long ago in this very country, women were denied the right to own
property, and people of color, Mr. Speaker, were property. Not so very
long ago people of two races were not allowed to marry in many of the
States of this country.
Things change, Mr. Speaker, and they are changing now. We can embrace
that change or we can resist that change, but thank God All Mighty, as
Dr. King would have said, we do not have the power to stop it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Barney Frank, the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand why no Member
on the other side agreed to yield. We have a tradition around here of
yielding. But when your arguments are as thin as theirs, you do not
risk rebuttal.
Let us talk about the points here. First of all, we are told that
this is not political. Now, people may understand why we do not speak
here under oath. No one in the world believes that this is not
political. We are told we must do this because the Hawaii Supreme Court
is threatening them. The Hawaii Supreme Court decision in question came
in 1993. The process in Hawaii, which is now still going on, does not
end until, at the earliest, in late 1997 and probably 1998. There is a
trial that has to take place that has not even started. Why, when the
decision came in 1993 and the process will not end until 1997 or 1998,
are we doing this 3 months before the election? Oh, it is not
political, sure.
Second, there is a very false premise, the notion that this is to
protect States from having to do what Hawaii does. Every Member on the
other side who sponsored this bill believes that that part is
unnecessary. Every Member believes that the States already have that
right. What is being protected here is not the right of States to make
their own decision but the right of States to vote Republican in the
1996 Presidential election.
We will be told time and again that we have 3 weeks left in this
session until August and then we will have a month. We have an enormous
amount of undone work. The leadership is talking about abandoning the
appropriations process, the Republican leadership, and doing continuing
resolutions on issue after issue after issue. We will be told we do not
have time to debate it. Why? Because we have to protect America from
something that will not happen until 1998.
And what are we protecting, as my colleague and friend from
Massachusetts has just said? This is the most preposterous assertion of
all, that marriage is under attack. I have asked and I have asked and I
have asked and I guess I will die, I hope many years from now,
unanswered: How does the fact that I love another man and live in a
committed relationship with him threaten your marriage? Are your
relations with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that I have
a committed, loving relationship with another man jeopardizes them?
What is attacking you? You have an emotional commitment to another man
or another woman. You want to live with that person. You want to commit
yourselves legally.
I say I do not share that commitment. I do not know why. That is how
I was born. That is how I grew up. I find that kind of satisfaction in
committing myself and being responsible for another human being who
happens to be a man, and this threatens you? My God, what do you do
when the lights go out, sit with the covers over your head? Are you
that timid? Are you that frightened?
I will yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma if he will tell me what
threatens his marriage.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LARGENT. Absolutely. I would just submit, Mr. Speaker, that the
relationship of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] with
another man does not threaten my marriage whatsoever, my marriage of 21
years with the same woman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, whose marriage does it
threaten?
Mr. LARGENT. It threatens the institution of marriage the gentleman
is trying to redefine.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It does not threaten the gentleman's
marriage. It does not threaten anybody's marriage. It threatens the
institution of marriage; that argument ought to be made by someone in
an institution because it has no logical basis whatsoever.
Here we go, I keep asking people, whose marriage is threatened? Not
mine, not his.
No one on the other side yielded once. People on the other side
mentioned other Members, distorted their arguments and never yielded
once. I certainly will not yield again, because I think the nonanswer
is clear. I have asked it again and again.

{time} 1145

What is it that says, and people have said this, I have had people
when I was in my district for 9 days last week saying, I am worried. I
cannot afford my college tuition. I am worried about public safety. I
am worried about Medicare. No one said to me, oh, my God, two lesbians
just fell in love and my marriage is threatened. Oh, my God, there are
two men who commit to each other and they are prepared to be legally
responsible for each other. How can I possibly go on with my marriage?
What we see is very clear. There is no reason for this in terms of
time. There is no reason for it legally, because the States already
have that right. This is a desperate search for a political issue by
hitting people who are unpopular. And, yes, I acknowledge the notion of
two men living together in a committed relationship or two women makes
people nervous and uncomfortable. I want to talk about that. But
threaten your marriage?
I will make a prediction that between now and the end of this debate
tomorrow we will hear not one specific example of how this threatens
marriage because no one who believes that the bonds between a man and a
woman who love each other and care for each other and are prepared to
commit to each other for a lifetime or 3 years or whatever the pattern
may be, is somehow threatened because two other people love each other.
What about the love that two others have for each other threatens
your own love? What an unfortunate concept.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the last speaker's
comments and say that, first, we need to step back from trees and look
at the forest and try to take a long view of our culture, and we can
look at history and show that no culture that has ever embraced
homosexuality has ever survived.
Second, I would say that what this same-sex marriage is seeking is
State sanction of their relationship. There is nothing that prevents
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] right now from having a
loving relationship with his significant other, no matter what their
sexes are.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out about this yielding and not yielding. The gentleman
from

[[Page H7279]]

Massachusetts tried to make a point, as frivolous as I felt it was,
that our side was not yielding. Both sides are allocated a fair amount
of time, 30 minutes each. We each get 30 minutes.
Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts criticized or lectured the
gentleman from Colorado because I would not yield time to him, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts claims the reason we will not do it is
because we do not like debate. As soon as the gentleman from Oklahoma
begins his debate, the gentleman from Massachusetts claims his time
back.
I think we need to be very civil and very professional on this House
floor. We each have 30 minutes, let us use our 30 minutes.
Let us talk, and I think first of all understand this is not an issue
between the parties. President Clinton supports this. President Clinton
says now is the time to address it. And let me quote directly from his
press agent. ``He believes this is a time when we need to do things to
strengthen the America family, and that is the reason why he has taken
this position in support of this bill.''
What is the rule? The rule is fair. What is especially interesting
about it is the gentleman who says this side of the aisle will not or
is afraid to debate him. It is this side of the aisle who voted
unanimously up in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentleman from
Massachusetts and his side of the aisle, to allow the gentleman from
Massachusetts 75 minutes on his first amendment and a certain period of
time for his second amendment. He is going to get lots of debate time
coming up.
What is it that this bill does? I think we need to take our
collective arguments here in the last hour and focus in on exactly what
does this bill do. It does not impact the Clean Water Act, it does not
have anything to do with domestic relations, as far as the gentlewoman
from Colorado suggested as no fault, fault, et cetera, et cetera. It is
very specific. It is very simple. First, it upholds the long-held
tradition that a marriage is defined as a union between one man and one
woman.
Second, it declares that one State will not be bound by the decision
of the Supreme Court of another State in regards to a marriage. In
other words, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii cannot mandate
upon the State of Ohio or upon the State of Colorado or upon the State
of California that they recognize same-sex marriages within their State
even if their State wholeheartedly rejects that type of concept.
Third, it does not obligate the Federal Government for financial
requirements or financial obligations because a State chooses to
recognize it. For example, if the State of Hawaii, through their
Supreme Court, recognizes same-sex marriage, it does not immediately
obligate the Federal Government to pay for benefits.
If a Member wants those kinds of benefits, and the other gentleman
from Massachusetts spoke about that, and I thought his words were well
spoken, if he wants those benefits, introduce a bill and run it through
the regular process of the U.S. Congress. That is how he can get those
benefits, not through a mandate from the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawaii.
So, in other words, every State preserves their right. We preserve
the long-time tradition of marriage between one man and one woman. And
I will reaffirm once again, and I have no shame in standing up here in
the House of Representatives saying that I support wholeheartedly the
traditional interpretation, the traditional recognition, and I hope for
all time the future recognition of the definition of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns], my good friend.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues, when we
hear from that side of the aisle that this is a political issue, we
have heard the President of the United States indicate that he would
sign this bill, so I think the President is almost saying that he
agrees with what we are doing and he would like to see as soon as
possible the bill brought to him for his signature. So we really cannot
say it is a political one when the President of the United States, who
represents the Democrats, says he wants the bill, too.
I rise in strong support of this rule. I commend the gentleman for
bringing this rule forward. And I might point out to my colleagues that
it is our party that brought this bill here; that this bill probably
would never have seen the light of day if it had not been for the new
majority in Congress, and I think it is important to point that out.
I would like to conclude by saying that we all know that families are
the foundation of every civilized society, and marriage lies at the
heart, the core, of what a family is. If we change how marriage is
defined, we change the entire meaning of the family. So what we are
doing today, I say to the gentleman from Colorado, is extremely
important and all of us should realize we must pass this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 290,
nays 133, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 300]

YEAS--290

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson

[[Page H7280]]

Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--133

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klink
Kolbe
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates

NOT VOTING--10

Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Riggs
Thornton
Young (FL)

{time} 1212

Messrs. GEJDENSON, GUNDERSON, GENE GREEN of Texas, and HORN changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SCHUMER and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________