Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3313, Marriage Protection Act of 2004

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3313, MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - July 22, 2004)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 is quite simply a mean-spirited, discriminatory and misguided distraction. It does not belong on the floor of the House of Representatives, not when there are so many important issues facing Congress and the American people.

Nearly 900 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, but the House is not talking about that today. Today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issues its report on what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, but we are not talking about that on the House floor today.

This Republican leadership has failed to pass a budget, but we are not talking about that. Today we learn that, according to the GAO, the Pentagon has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to find $12.3 billion more from within the Department of Defense to make it through the end of the fiscal year. We should be talking about that.

We still do not have a transportation bill. The minimum wage has not been increased in years. Millions of Americans are unemployed and without health insurance. Homeland security needs are going unmet, but we are not talking about any of that in the House of Representatives today.

According to the New York Times, conservative activist and Republican adviser Paul Weyrich's solution to the bad news coming out of Iraq was to "change the subject" to gay marriage. I quote, "Ninety-nine percent of the President's base will unite behind him if he pushed the amendment," Mr. Weyrich said. "It will cause Mr. Kerry no end of problems." As for gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might lose, Mr. Weyrich wrote, "Good riddance."

So instead of addressing the real concerns facing American families, the leadership of this House has decided to throw their political base some red meat because we all know exactly what is going on here.

Mr. Speaker, we can at least be honest about it. Last week the Republican leadership got beat badly in the other body. Not only did they not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Republicans could not even agree among themselves what to vote on. So the Republican leadership, including the White House, decided they needed a win on something that beats up on gay people and they needed to do it fast, so here we are. They could not amend the Constitution last week so they are trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week.

The intent of this bill is quite clear, to close the door to the Federal courthouse for an entire group of American citizens simply because of their sexual orientation. It is enough to take my breath away. One of the most fundamental, sacred principles of our system is that every single American should have access to equal justice under the law, not some Americans, not most Americans, not just straight Americans, but all Americans. But not any more. Not under this bill.

Under this bill for the first time in our long history, a person can be denied access to the Federal courts when that person claims that a Federal statute violates the Constitution.

Further, this bill takes 200 years of jurisprudence based on the separation of powers and throws it in the trash.

Why? Because of the latest craze in Republican fund-raising appeals, the dreaded "activist judges." To all of those listening to the debate today, I would encourage you to count how many times the phrase "activist judges" is thrown around. Make sure you have your calculator.

The problem is that the Republican leadership only goes after the so-called activist judges they disagree with. They had no problem in activist judges in Bush v. Gore. And make no mistake about it, if this bill passes its proponents will be back for more.

Every time there is a court decision they do not like, they will attempt to prohibit the courts from exercising their constitutional oversight. Other issues will be on the table, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, choice, environmental protection, worker protections, all will be at risk if a political majority in Congress disagrees with a Federal court decision. This bill would set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

Finally, we hear a lot of rhetoric today from supporters of this bill protesting that they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Well, the supporters of this bill have even named it the Marriage Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side, but my marriage does not need protection, and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House.

This bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no urgency, no credible court case challenging DOMA.
So let us work on the issues that matter most to our constituents. Let us tackle health care and education and homeland security and jobs, let us not change the subject for political reasons, let us not desecrate the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Cast your vote with an eye toward being on the right side of history. Look further than tomorrow's headlines, think about more than 30 minutes from now, think about 30 years from now. Remember that Members of Congress opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Remember that Members of Congress denounced a decision in Brown v. Board of Education in part because of activist judges. History has not been kind to them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman's comments, in his concern for activist Federal judges, I just want to state for the record that seven of the Supreme Court justices right now have been appointed by Republican Presidents, and pretty conservative Republican Presidents at that.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the other body was in violation of the rules referenced on the floor. Let me just clarify the record there. It is perfectly legal to write into a piece of legislation that one goes to a certain place for a point of review but not another place. Nowhere in the Daschle legislation did it say one has no right to the courts or no right to the Supreme Court of the land. That is simply misstating the facts.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 ½ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what this bill is all about. It is a mean-spirited, unconstitutional, dangerous distraction. No matter what Members may think about gay marriage, the issue here today is whether or not we will take away people's fundamental constitutional rights.

Gay men and women pay taxes, serve in the United States Congress and in legislatures across the country, serve in our military, raise families that participate in the political process. The idea that they should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their constitutional rights is not only wrong, it is appalling.

Now, I am from Massachusetts and my colleagues will hear supporters of this bill talking today about the alleged catastrophe that has occurred in my State in the last few months; but you know what, Mr. Speaker, the world did not come to an end in Massachusetts when the State Supreme Court made its ruling. People got up and went to work and took their kids to school and paid their bills and lived their lives. The world kept spinning on its axis.

In the end, I think that is what is driving the supporters of this bill crazy. The outrage, the mass hysteria, the political momentum they expected from this issue just have not materialized. The American people are a lot smarter and a lot more tolerant and a lot more reasonable than the Republican leadership gives them credit for, which is why, Mr. Speaker, even if this bill passes today, I still have hope.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House took an oath that they would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I hope we will do that today. I urge all my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.