PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3396, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (House of Representatives - July 11, 1996) [Page: H7270] 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: H7272] 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. 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 ? [Page: H7273] 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? [Page: H7274] 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. [Page: H7275] 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. [Page: H7276] 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 . [Page: H7277] [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. [Page: H7278] 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. [Page: H7279] 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 [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 [Page: H7280] 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.