[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8827-H8838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1510, I call up
the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure
respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, with
the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendment.
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it
embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion,
sacrifice, and family.
(2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage
are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and
honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore,
Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs
are due proper respect.
(3) Millions of people, including interracial and same-sex
couples, have entered into marriages and have enjoyed the
rights and privileges associated with marriage. Couples
joining in marriage deserve to have the dignity, stability,
and ongoing protection that marriage affords to families and
children.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES
CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.
SEC. 4. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B
the following:
``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the
effect thereof
``(a) In General.--No person acting under color of State
law may deny--
``(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a
marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex,
race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
``(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the
basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the
law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity,
or national origin of those individuals.
``(b) Enforcement by Attorney General.--The Attorney
General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United
States district court against any person who violates
subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
``(c) Private Right of Action.--Any person who is harmed by
a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the
appropriate United States district court against the person
who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive
relief.
``(d) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' has
the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.''.
SEC. 5. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 7. Marriage
``(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or
regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual
shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is
between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the
marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage
entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2
individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and
the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
``(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
other territory or possession of the United States.
``(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining
whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where
entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the
jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered
into may be considered.''.
SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made
by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a
religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise
available to an individual or organization under the
Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
(b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment
to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations,
including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples,
nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and
ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based
social agencies, religious educational institutions, and
nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study,
practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of
such an organization, shall not be required to provide
services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or
privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a
marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such
services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or
privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of
action.
SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.
(a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a
Marriage.--Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this
Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status,
or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does
not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax
treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract,
agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license,
certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.
(b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.--
Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall
be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of
marriages between more than 2 individuals.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision to any person,
entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment
made thereby, or the application of such provision to all
other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall
not be affected thereby.
Motion to Concur
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Nadler of New York moves that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 8404.
[[Page H8828]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1510, the
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 8404.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R.
8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I first introduced a version of
this legislation in 2009, and I am very proud that after a long journey
it will soon be headed to the President's desk and marriage equality
will be enshrined in law.
The House took an important step in July when it passed the bill with
the support of 47 Republican Members. Now that the Senate has passed an
amended version, also with bipartisan support, it is up to us to finish
the job.
I find it deeply poignant that as we prepare to bring the 117th
Congress to a close, we are on the cusp of a great bipartisan moral
victory in defense of a fundamental right of all Americans, a victory
that will provide stability and reassurance to the millions of LGBTQ
and interracial families that have come to rely on the constitutional
right to marry.
The Respect for Marriage Act does three things: First, it repeals the
so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly discriminates
against same-sex couples, and which still officially remains on the
books.
Second, it enshrines marriage equality for Federal law purposes,
requiring the Federal Government to consider a person to be married if
the marriage is valid in the State where it was performed.
Finally, it prohibits anyone acting under color of State law from
denying full legal effect to a valid out-of-state marriage based on the
sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the two individuals in the
marriage.
The Senate amendment does not change any of these substantive
provisions. Rather, it adds language that explicitly affirms that
existing constitutional and other legal protections for religious
liberty remain in effect. The Senate amendment does not create any new
substantive legal rights, but rather, it clarifies that the bill does
not affect the existing legal rights or benefits of religious persons
or entities. It also explicitly clarifies that the bill does not
require or authorize the Federal Government to recognize polygamous
marriages.
It is because of this compromise--the result of the hard work of
Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins--that the amended bill passed
the Senate by a vote of 61-36 with 12 Republican Senators voting in
support.
While marriage equality remains constitutionally protected today, we
have learned in recent months that rights once thought to be
fundamental and forever secure can, in fact, be taken away. Indeed, in
the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization--a decision overturning nearly 50 years of precedent
recognizing a constitutional right to abortion--Justice Clarence Thomas
went out of his way to write a separate concurrence calling on the
Court to reconsider all of its substantive due process decisions,
including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing a right to
marriage equality.
In light of this concurrence, even if one accepts the Dobbs
majority's assurances that the constitutional right to marriage
equality is settled law, Congress must use this opportunity to provide
additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to
rely on this guarantee. After all, we were told that the right to
abortion was settled law.
The Respect for Marriage Act cements respect for married couples,
which all Americans--including those in this Congress--should support
and value.
I thank the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of
the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader
Hakeem Jeffries for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also
thank my chief of staff, Amy Rutkin, who helped to do so much to guide
this legislation through the House.
I urge all Members to support this Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme
Court at any moment--in fact, the chairman just referenced this--at any
moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and
Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to
overturn its opinions in either of those decisions.
Just look at what the Court has said. The Dobbs opinion does not
undermine other substantive due process rights in any way. Just in case
anyone is not clear on the meaning of does not undermine them in any
way, the Court later reiterated that the Dobbs decision should not be
misunderstood or mischaracterized `` . . . to cast doubt on precedents
that do not concern abortion.''
The Court condemned the alarmist idea that the Dobbs decision would
lead to the overturning of other cases as ``perhaps . . . designed to
stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights
. . . ''
It is that unfounded fear that brings us here today.
Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line
in Justice Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, and they are misunderstanding
or deliberately misrepresenting what Justice Thomas wrote.
Justice Thomas made the same point that he has made for years: that
the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due
process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution's
privileges and immunities clause. That is it.
From his statement that a body of law should flow from one place in
the Constitution instead of another comes the hyperbolic arguments that
we have heard about the necessity of this bill.
After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was
forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those
changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.
For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity
that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they
provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption
agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious
organization under contract with a city or State.
Across the country, people of faith serve their neighbors and their
communities through these charitable efforts, but this bill could force
them to abandon their faith or abandon the service. That is an
unacceptable outcome in the United States.
For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the
Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency
and struggles with its ethics. That is simply not true.
This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrat's campaign
to intimidate the highest court in our land. They have engaged in a
smear campaign against sitting Justices and nominees. Democrats have
stood on the steps of the Court and threatened Justices by name for not
ruling the way they want in high-profile cases. Democrat members of the
Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to
pack the Court; to add four Justices to our highest court--not one, not
two, not three, but four, because they simply want to take it over.
Democrats have held hearings to showcase fringe legal and conspiracy
theories about the Court and its rulings.
In fact, later today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to
again suggest that the Court has somehow been compromised based on a
totally unsubstantiated allegation that Justice Alito leaked
information 8 years
[[Page H8829]]
ago about an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.
There is just one problem: Justice Alito denies this allegation. The
individual who allegedly was the conduit for the leak denies it ever
happened. Even the media admits there are holes in the story.
Politico said this:
We spent several months attempting to corroborate the
allegation but was unable to locate anyone who heard about
the decision directly from Alito or his wife before the
release of the case.
The New York Times reported that there are ``gaps'' in the
allegation. The New York Times is the one who broke the story. They
reported there are gaps in this allegation about a leak from Justice
Alito 8 years ago. Gaps in an allegation.
Do you know what that is? That is liberal-speak for that story
doesn't add up. But the Democrats are determined to not let the truth
get in the way of their story and their intimidation tactics on the
Court.
This is not the way we are supposed to operate. I hope that we can
vote this bill down. I hope it does not pass because I think it is
dangerous and takes the country in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote for equality and
against discrimination by finally overturning the exclusionary,
homophobic Defense of Marriage Act and guaranteeing crucial protections
for same-sex and interracial marriages.
By passing the Respect for Marriage Act, we will ensure that all
Americans continue to be afforded the same rights by the government--no
matter what the Supreme Court may decide in the future.
As we take this vote, we can take pride in the progress that we have
made but also must acknowledge the work that lies ahead.
The idea of marriage equality used to be a farfetched idea; now it is
the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Marriage bans used to be a partisan tool. Now, the Respect for Marriage
Act has received strong bipartisan votes in both Chambers.
Protecting marriage equality is now a bipartisan idea that I hope all
my colleagues will embrace. I urge all those here today who previously
voted against this bill to reconsider, be part of history, and join us
in voting for its passage today.
Today's vote is a monumental win in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality,
but the work does not stop here. We remain the only minority group in
America where in a majority of States it is still legal to discriminate
against us in several key areas of life.
We must continue to work for full equality for the LGBTQ+ community,
including by enacting additional protections at the State level and
finally passing the Equality Act to ensure explicit Federal protections
against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.
I want to end by thanking Chairman Nadler for his extraordinary
leadership. He has been a champion of this bill for more than 13 years.
I was proud to join him and others in introducing the Respect for
Marriage Act again this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' vote for equality,
and vote to be certain that we live in a country where all Americans
have equal access to the important institution of marriage.
{time} 0930
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to adamantly oppose H.R.
8404, the disrespect for marriage act. This unnecessary and misguided
legislation not only disrespects the importance of traditional marriage
for the health of a family, but also disrespects people and
organizations of faith who have the constitutional right to carry out
their mission in accordance with their most deeply held beliefs.
With a crisis at the border, inflation skyrocketing, and a Federal
budget that is nowhere to be seen just a week before Christmas,
Democrats have made it abundantly clear that this disrespectful policy
is their priority.
Let's be clear: Obergefell is not in danger, but people and
institutions of faith are.
This bill only serves to further demonize biblical values by
establishing a private right of action against organizations who
believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory
lawsuits against people of faith. The bill's only purpose is to hand
the Federal Government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of
faith out of the public square and to silence anyone who dissents.
Sadly, the Senate rejected three amendments that would have
eliminated the private right of action and prevented the government
from infringing on the freedom of religion.
Instead, a flimsy amendment that includes vague language unlikely to
protect anyone was included.
Unfortunately, and likely intentionally, this hollow amendment
provides no tangible protections for religious schools, no protections
for faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, no protections for
Christian businesses who contract with the government, and no
protections for civil servants who justly believe marriage is between
one man and one woman.
The bill's implications: submit to our ideology or be silenced.
This is yet another step toward the Democrats' goal of dismantling
the traditional family, silencing voices of faith, and permanently
undoing our country's God-woven foundation. This is the Democrats'
priority.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you my priority: Protect religious liberty,
protect people of faith, and protect Americans who believe in the true
meaning of marriage.
I hope and pray that my colleagues will find the courage to join me
in opposing this misguided and dangerous bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).
Mr. ALLRED. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that we received
amazing news this morning. Brittney Griner is coming home.
This is a huge relief for her, her wife, Cherelle, and her family
after months of uncertainty in Russia's sham justice system. I thank
President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and all at the State Department who
made this happen.
Today, in a strong symbol of the stark differences in the freedoms
between our two Nations, the U.S. Congress will vote in a bipartisan
way to pass the Respect for Marriage Act enshrining marriage equality
into Federal law and protecting marriages just like Brittney's.
I am proud to vote today to say that love is love no matter who you
are or where you live and no matter what any future extreme or out-of-
touch Supreme Court may say.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes''
and standing up for freedom.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. Honestly, this bill should
be called the disrespect for marriage act.
This bill certainly disrespects God's definition of marriage, a
definition that has served His creation well for more than 5,000 years
of recorded history. And His definition is the only one that really
matters.
This bill would codify into Federal law the Supreme Court's wrongly
decided Obergefell decision and ensure that the marriage laws in the
most liberal State--irrespective of how more radical they might become
in the future, think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage, or
whatever--must be legally recognized in all States.
It was wrong when the Supreme Court made law in the Obergefell
decision requiring that the marriage law in Massachusetts had to become
the law of the whole country when Massachusetts approved gay marriage.
This was overriding the will of the people and their elected
Representatives as no other State to that point had been able to pass
through referendum or State legislature a gay marriage law.
The fact is that traditional, biblical marriage is the foundation of
a strong society and a strong culture.
[[Page H8830]]
I will say it once again: almost everything that plagues our society
is a failure to follow God's design for marriage, morality, and the
family. The perfect, omniscient, and immutable God knows what He is
doing.
But this legislation repeals the correct definition of marriage in
Federal code and requires the Federal Government to recognize any
marriage if the marriage was valid in the State where it was performed.
Perhaps even worse, this bill eliminates all religious freedom
protections for churches or other faith-based organizations and
requires everyone to participate in and recognize gay marriage.
It empowers the IRS with their newly hired 87,000 agents who
apparently need something to do to go after the religious institutions
that simply seek to operate according to their beliefs. In fact, the
bill does nothing to prevent the IRS from attacking and harming the
religious organizations that have made an incredible impact in our
communities across our Nation.
It is simply designed to undermine marriage as a union between one
man and one woman. God's perfect design is, indeed, marriage between
one man and one woman for life, and it doesn't matter what you think or
what I think. That is what the Bible says.
This proposal is yet another Democrat attempt to undermine the
fundamental values which formed our Nation and continue to hold our
country together: recognition of the institution of marriage as between
one man and one woman and respect for the freedom to operate according
to your sincerely held religious beliefs.
The legislation we are considering today is a sobering indication of
the erosion of the moral values that made this Nation great.
As President Reagan once said: ``America is great because America is
good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be
great.''
All great nations in societies fall from within. With Democrats
threatening all sense of values and decency and family today by
sexualizing kids in school, redefining sex and gender, and trans-
surgery and mutilation of minors, it makes no sense for any Republican
to support their efforts to codify their views on marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues in this body to join me in
strongly opposing this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to do the right thing.
Thanks to bipartisan work in the Senate, the Respect for Marriage Act
comes back to the House with added language that should allay anyone's
fears or misunderstandings, yet still ensure we can legally recognize
marriage as it is currently recognized in this country.
It would be wrong to say that my husband, Phil, and I have a marriage
that is any different from anyone else's marriage here in this body. My
workplace health insurance should extend to my husband just like yours
extends to your spouse. I should be able to visit my husband in the
hospital, if need be, just like you can visit your spouse. My earned
benefits for retirement, Social Security, our property rights, our
benefits through our taxes, and so much more should be no different,
regardless of if your spouse is named Samuel or Samantha.
That is what we will do today. With the revised Respect for Marriage
Act, denying legal recognition to any legally married couple would be
so far out of the mainstream that it would actually be discrimination.
I am sure no one here would intend to discriminate against me and my
spouse, as I would never against you and yours.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone's support for this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Respect for
Marriage Act. Over my time in Congress as the first openly gay Member
of color elected in history, the fight for LGBTQ equality has remained
a critical and personal focus of mine. Last week, the Senate took long-
overdue action to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and when my
colleagues and I pass the Respect for Marriage Act in the House today,
it will mean the world to me, my loved ones, and to millions of
Americans.
Nearly 10 years ago, at the start of my career in Congress, the
Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that marriage equality is a
fundamental protected right. We took to the streets in fervent
celebration of this cornerstone victory for our community.
This bill will pass today, but it is a reminder of the necessity of
our vigilance in the fight for human rights and the need to hold the
judicial branch accountable. We must rise to the challenge, and we will
prevail.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I believe is
the inappropriately named Respect for Marriage Act because if what my
colleagues have just said were actually all that was here, it would be
a different story to some degree. But that is not what we are talking
about.
The bill betrays our country's commitment to the fundamental right of
religious liberty by depriving religious and faith-based organizations
of their tax-exempt status and depriving individual people of faith of
being able to carry out fully their faith without repercussions.
Licenses and government contracts are also put at risk here with this
legislation.
As a result, religiously affiliated and faith-based organizations
will be at risk of being compelled to make hiring decisions in
contradiction to their tenets. And I am not just talking about
Christian religions. We are talking about all that are impacted by
this.
It puts us at risk for Catholic Charities' ability to find foster and
adoptive homes for children in need; or a gospel rescue mission's
ability to serve the homeless; and it would likely be the end of the
school choice initiatives that rely on religious schools--schools of
faith--to serve at-risk children trapped in failing schools.
Additionally, businessowners across the country who conduct their
businesses based on their sincerely held faith, beliefs, and principles
would be subject to lawsuits simply because they have a traditional
view of marriage.
Again, if all that my colleagues have just even recently said were
the only thing about this legislation, it would be another story; but
it isn't, it goes way beyond. A deep appreciation for and commitment
to following science in the positive endeavor of continuing the human
race is important.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for opposition to this legislation and a more
thoughtful approach.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, my wife, Cheryl, and I were married 14 years
ago when one of the first States in our country allowed us to do so. It
took years and a Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge and grant the
legal protections that come with marriage across this great land. In
the ensuing years, we raised our four sons, and we expanded our family
of six to nine, adding two daughters-in-law and a grandson to that mix.
I am standing here today because in the year 2022, families like mine
are, once again, concerned that an activist, out-of-step Supreme Court
is going to take those rights away. Just so we are clear, that Supreme
Court and the Members in opposition of this legislation today are out
of step with the American people.
Today, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Respect for
Marriage Act, a bill that takes the longstanding and overdue step of
repealing DOMA and ensures that same-sex and interracial marriage is
recognized in every State, no matter who is sitting on the Supreme
Court.
We have made progress. Mr. Speaker, let's not go back.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker
talked about being out of step with the American people.
Are you kidding me?
The Democrats are the party who think men can use women's restrooms;
the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls'
sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of
an unborn child
[[Page H8831]]
right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who
actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could
get pregnant.
And we are the ones who are out of step?
You have got to be kidding me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, what is our job here?
We are going to take an oath in a couple of weeks here really
outlining our job: supporting and defending the Constitution of the
United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I took that oath as a member of the military; I have taken that oath
numerous times as member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S.
House of Representatives, a bicameral body, 435 of us, are meant to do
the work of protecting we the people of the United States of America
who elect us, and I want to quote our colleague on the other side, Ms.
Scanlon, who was talking about what we don't have time for here as our
colleague, Chip Roy, was asking for amendments to ensure that we the
people's religious freedom was not prohibited, that the free exercise
thereof was not prohibited.
{time} 0945
Adopting an amendment by our colleague, Chip Roy, she said, would
unsettle the Senate. God forbid the work that we do here in the House
of Representatives unsettles the work that is done in the Senate. Our
job must be to just do their bidding of what they decide in the Senate
and not represent as 1 of 435.
But, no, that is not the real case. Our job is to represent our
constituents, we the people, not to worry about whether we unsettle or
don't unsettle the Senate.
Let me give you another quote from our colleague about why we don't
have the time to prohibit or to prevent prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. She said that this Congress is coming to a close, and we don't
have time to make changes to this legislation.
We don't have the time? Wait a second. In the U.S. House of
Representatives, our oath is to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States of America. It is our singular job here, and we don't
have the time to do it?
That is what the majority is telling us: We don't have time to make
changes to the bill, to ensure that the free exercise thereof, of our
people's religions, is not infringed upon. They are saying we don't
have time.
What the hell are we doing here if we don't have the time to do it?
What the hell are we doing?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, why are we here this morning? We are
here because dignity should be part of life in America. We are here
because the Founding Fathers, imperfect as they were, said we are here
to create a more perfect union.
We are specifically here because a Justice on the United States
Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, appallingly stated that other
cherished, fundamental rights should be subject to abrogation, writing:
``In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive
due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
It is shameful that we would have to be here today, but I proudly
stand with my community, those who understand and recognize that it is
crucial for the Respect for Marriage Act to pass so that respect can go
for the loving relationships, the families, the daughters, the sons,
the aunts and uncles, and all the husbands and wives that come as
family.
Let me be very clear: I am the only Member in the Texas delegation
that voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. I voted against it.
DOMA was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I continuously stand with
all of you to pass H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support for H.R. 8404, the
``Respect for Marriage Act'' and the collaboration in the Senate last
week that enabled it to pass the Senate and return to the House for
today's vote.
I am very concerned that the archaic dictum that the Supreme Court
used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to justify
overturning the well-established and reaffirmed right to abortion could
be further weaponized in the future to strip away other fundamental
rights, including the right to marriage equality.
Specifically, in his concurring opinion to the Dobbs decision,
Clarence Thomas appallingly stated that other cherished, fundamental
rights should be subject to abrogation, writing, ``. . . in future
cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process
precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
Thomas left no doubt about his regressive, byzantine intentions,
adding, ``. . . we have a duty to `correct the error' established in
those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __x-8 __
(2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling
these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain
whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights
that our substantive due process cases have generated.''
To prevent Thomas's dream scenario from inflicting a nightmare on the
rest of the country, the Respect for Marriage Act would codify in
federal law our essential rights conferring marriage equality for same
sex and interracial couples, protecting the rights of Americans to
marry who they choose.
It would also repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) of 1996 that problematically defined marriage as being between
one man and one woman.
I am always concerned when someone's rights are being infringed,
which is why I wholeheartedly supported the version of this bill that
passed the House earlier this year.
Even with the Senate amendment, I still recognize the great strides
that will be achieved with passage of this bill in its current form.
The Senate's embrace of this legislation, with strong bipartisan
support, demonstrates the bill's alignment with bedrock American values
and its strong support among the American people, across political
ideologies.
After witnessing the Senate's passage of the Respect for Marriage
Act, I am proud to say that we are on a path to guaranteeing marriage
equality for every American.
The Supreme Courts' rulings in Loving v. Virginia, and Obergefell v.
Hodges were founded on the promise of unenumerated rights and due
process for all American people as guaranteed in the 9th and 14th
amendments of our nation's Constitution.
The 9th Amendment states that the federal government does not retain
final authority over rights not listed in the Constitution--which, in
effect, includes the right to marry someone regardless of their sex or
race. That very personal and intimate right is retained by the people.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment ensures that no right afforded to
the American people can be taken away without due process of law, while
also guaranteeing to all Americans that they shall have equal
protection under the law.
The same law that applies to a Black man wishing to marry a Hispanic
woman must be applied equally to an Indigenous woman wishing to marry a
White woman, a nonbinary individual wishing to marry a man, and so on.
That is the Constitutional promise in the United States.
Marriage Equality is not a right that can be stripped away by a
conservative faction of the United States Supreme Court, nor by
extremist Republican legislators.
It is a fundamental aspect of our democracy.
The assurances of the 14th Amendment became part of our national
governing documents as a protection against those who would use their
power to wipe away the freedoms of others without restraint or consent
of the governed.
It is unfortunate that we must rely on its strength again today.
We cannot and will not allow Republican lawmakers and conservative
Justices to continue to toy with the rights of the American people.
That is why I strongly support the Respect for Marriage Act and
commend my friends in the Senate for garnering bipartisan support for
this act.
This Act would ensure that an individual be considered married as
long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.
This ensures that same-sex and interracial couples would continue to
enjoy equal treatment under federal law--as the Constitution requires.
This bill would go further by officially repealing the Defense of
Marriage Act.
While the Supreme Court effectively rendered DOMA inert with its
decision in Obergefell, this unconstitutional and discriminatory law
still officially remains on the books.
H.R. 8404 would repeal DOMA once and for all.
The Respect for Marriage Act would also prohibit any person acting
under color of state
[[Page H8832]]
law from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage
based on the sex, race, ethnicity or national origin of those in the
marriage.
It would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to enforce these
protections and would allow recourse for any person harmed by a
violation of this provision.
We will not back down from demanding marriage equality.
We will not back down from demanding racial justice.
We will not back down from demanding equal rights for all of the
American people.
I strongly support H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, and
encourage my colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my strongest support for
the Respect for Marriage Act.
It is hard to believe that today, in 2022, we are still fighting to
protect the right of all Americans to marry the person they love.
The Supreme Court's actions this summer have shown us that we cannot
take our rights for granted. No one should have to live in fear that a
Supreme Court decision could invalidate their marriage in the blink of
an eye.
The Respect for Marriage Act enshrines the right to marry the person
you love, regardless of gender, race, or identity, into Federal law.
It finally repeals the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act from
our lawbooks, and it reaffirms our commitment to a promise of equality
for all by ensuring critical Federal and State protections for same-sex
and interracial marriages.
I have spent my career fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+
community, both at the State and Federal levels, and so I am proud to
stand on the House floor today in support of the Respect for Marriage
Act.
Sending this bill to the President's desk sends a powerful message
that love is love, that family is family, and that this Congress stands
together against hate and discrimination.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support people's
right to love and their equal protection under the law. The Respect for
Marriage Act will reaffirm marriage equality as the law of the land.
All Americans, no matter who they are and who they love, deserve
dignity and equal treatment under the law.
Madam Speaker, back home in my State of Texas, people are literally
scared. Entire families are considering fleeing Texas for fear of what
the MAGA GOP will do to their partners and their loved ones.
Earlier this year, the far-right Texas GOP declared homosexuality as
an abnormal lifestyle choice in their official platform. Yes, they put
it in their platform.
Last month, Texas Republicans pre-filed 17 bills targeting the LGBTQ+
community for our next legislative session in Texas.
To my LGBTQ constituents and neighbors back home, know that I am here
for you. House Democrats will not waver in our fight for human dignity
and equality under the law.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Respect for
Marriage Act.
Growing up in New Hampshire as a gay person, I wasn't sure if there
would be a place for me or if I would be able to have a family of my
own. I was lucky to be surrounded by people who embraced me for who I
am and to live at a time when hearts, minds, and laws were changing for
the better.
Next year, I will marry the love of my life. It is unthinkable that
if the Supreme Court heeds Justice Thomas' call that our marriage might
be recognized in New Hampshire where we live but not across the
country.
That is the reality that many couples fear, one that will jeopardize
their ability to visit a spouse in the hospital or access all the
benefits that couples do, one that would strip millions of Americans of
their rights and their dignity.
That is a threat that we can't ignore. I hope my colleagues will heed
the calls of their constituents and the call of history and cast a vote
in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act to say that love is love and
to respect people's individual freedoms in this country.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crow).
Mr. CROW. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8404, the
Respect for Marriage Act, a bill to ensure critical protections for
same-sex and interracial marriages.
Madam Speaker, 19 days ago, Coloradans woke up to the news of yet
another mass shooting impacting our community. This violence was the
direct result of intolerance and discrimination. It was the direct
result of efforts by some elected officials to seize on hate and
villainize the LGBTQ+ community.
Today, we have the opportunity to reject the ugly vitriol and stand
with the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and nationwide. Today, we have
the opportunity to protect all Americans, regardless of how they
identify or whom they love.
The Respect for Marriage Act will uphold marriage equality under
Federal law, repealing the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. This
bill ensures that the Federal Government won't stand in the way of a
person's right to marry whom they love.
I thank Chairman Nadler for leading this effort and the Congressional
Equality Caucus for their ongoing work to promote equality for all,
regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Torres).
Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, I dedicate my remarks to two
civil rights icons, Edith and Judith Windsor.
Today, we repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which degraded marriage
under the pretense of defending it. Today, we put the equality of same-
sex love in its rightful place under the protection of Federal law.
We will not leave it to the forces of hate and the relics of the past
to be the final word on the fate of love.
We, in the LGBTQ community, will be the arbiters of our own legal
equality and the authors of our own marital destiny, our equal right to
marry the people that we love in the country that we love with the
pride that we love.
Today, that right makes America a more perfect union.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support
of the Respect for Marriage Act.
In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my
support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first
legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to
same-sex couples.
When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in 1996, I was one of
67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then what I know now: DOMA
was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a problem that never existed.
It never made sense that I, or anyone in this body or in this
country, could get in a cab and marry the cabdriver that same day or
some stranger on the street, but a bold, brave New Yorker and a friend
of mine named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage recognized.
She sued. She won in court. Today, this law will codify her court
case. I dedicate my remarks to her and thank her for her lifelong
commitment to LGBTQ rights and equality.
Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8833]]
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
Respect for Marriage Act because every American deserves to have their
union recognized and respected in law.
Since the Obergefell and Loving decisions, millions of families rely
on the constitutional guarantee that marriage equality affords. Yet, we
just saw what happens when half our population relies on this High
Court to protect our sacred rights.
Recent far-right Court nominees broke their pledges to respect the
precedent of Roe, and look at the legal chaos, unequal treatment, and
financial and physical ruin they have unleashed.
We can no more rely on their word than we can their apologists who
say these legal extremists will uphold marriage equality.
This bill ensures that by guaranteeing that same-sex and interracial
couples have a legal right to build a life with someone who shares
their love.
I am honored to stand with the LGBTQ+ community to make this a more
just, equal, and perfect union. Without these rights and this
legislation, America can never truly aspire to that.
Madam Speaker, I remind all of my colleagues that history is
watching, and I urge them to vote ``yea'' on the Senate amendment.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Respect for
Marriage Act. Today, we celebrate equality, fairness, and love.
Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, all loving couples
have had a right to marry across our country. However, if the Supreme
Court won't protect Americans, especially in light of the repeal of
Roe, we in Congress must do everything in our power to defend those
freedoms.
The Respect for Marriage Act ensures Federal marriage equality by
guaranteeing the Federal rights, benefits, and obligations of
marriages. Today's legislation provides certainty for those couples,
and all future couples, that the Federal Government will continue to
recognize their marriages, no matter where they live or who they are
married to.
I am proud to support this historic bill alongside members of both
parties to protect the rights of San Diegans and Americans across the
country.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of marriage
equality.
The bills we write and pass regularly affect millions of lives.
Rarely is the legislation we vote on so personal as the bill we are
voting on today, the Respect for Marriage Act.
My daughter and her wife are two of the estimated 26 million
Americans whose freedom to marry will be protected by this bill. Their
son, my 1-year-old grandson, Reza, can now grow up without risk to his
family. Love is a precious thing.
Madam Speaker, I know my daughters will now know our Nation respects
their marriage. You cannot legislate love, but you can give love the
protection of our laws. I thank the gentleman and I urge my colleagues
to vote for this.
{time} 1000
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with our LGBTQ+
community who have fought for equal dignity under the law for decades.
For far too long our LGBTQ neighbors have been discriminated against
simply for being who they are and loving who they love. Today, if that
case is overturned, same-sex couples would not be allowed to marry in
the State of Michigan.
Every single American, no matter their faith, race, gender identity,
or sexual orientation has the right to marry the person they love.
I am proud to be here today in the people's House as Congress takes
this historic vote to send this legislation to President Biden's desk.
Today, we take one more step toward equality and justice for all. May
we continue to build upon this progress by ensuring that all LGBTQ+
neighbors have what they need to thrive and be protected under law.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and
the soon-to-be Democratic leader.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding and for
his leadership.
The founding document of this country, the Declaration of
Independence, reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equally, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
Those words were eloquent in their articulation and complete in their
application.
As the great Barbara Jordan once pointed out, initially they didn't
apply to enslaved Africans or women, Native Americans, poor people of
every race, and certainly it didn't apply to the LGBTQ+ community. But
through a process of constitutional amendment ratification, court
decision, and legislation, those words have increasingly been brought
to life as we journey toward a more perfect union.
That is the work that is being done today with the Respect for
Marriage Act, particularly because of a radical, right-wing, reckless,
and regressive Supreme Court majority that threatens freedom and
marriage equality.
Madam Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support the
Respect for Marriage Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Craig). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I support the Respect for Marriage Act,
I respect freedom, liberty, and justice for all.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and joyful support of
the Respect for Marriage Act.
As the mother of an incredible trans daughter, I am here to fight for
her rights and those of all LGBTQ+ people, who for too long have been
denied the dignity and the respect that they deserve. And as someone
who is myself in an interracial marriage, it is far past time that we
codify those rights.
An extremist Supreme Court and hateful State legislators want to roll
back the hard-won progress that we have made. But we are here to say in
a bipartisan way, we will not tolerate this, we will codify these
rights once and for all.
This is the beginning. I also call on the Senate to pass the Equality
Act to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can enjoy the same rights as everyone
else in the country.
But today, Madam Speaker, let's get this bill done. Vote ``yes'' on
codifying the right to marry the one you love. Vote ``yes'' on the
Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me
tell you that.
This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this
past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act,
which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us.
Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply
sorry by the violent attack on an
[[Page H8834]]
LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a
manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of
bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that
somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the
eyes of God.
It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so
many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that
as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly,
which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14
years, Jeremy.
What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our
legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes
I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the
miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled
that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a
White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian
or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our
own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by
their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator
with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that
you can love whom you chose.
The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a
basic emotional instinct that makes us all human.
Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony
and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and
safely in same-sex and interracial marriages.
In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty,
equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution.
Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the
Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that
sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking
nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices
said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived
women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to
control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to
Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia,
which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color.
The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage
have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that
the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am
shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that
somehow we ought to get involved in this.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which
I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to
choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's
business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is
her business.
The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55
years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that
is found in the Constitution.
After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn
Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to
marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all
women, and men and women together.
Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a
constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and
interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their
government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any
moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as
Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character.
They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages
will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city,
county, or State.
Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to
deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting
American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us.
This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in
this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to
the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate.
We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage
equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took
swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through
the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the
committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of
the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a
country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness
issue. This is justice for all.
I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr.
Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman
Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill.
Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in
supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I
would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is
not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not
the government making these decisions.
I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came
together to advance this critical legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all
435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country
that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the
representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws
would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose.
It is not our choice.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, what happened in Colorado, as the
gentleman referenced, was wrong as wrong could be. We all understand
that.
But you know what else is wrong?
The 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked in
the aftermath of the Dobbs decision--actually, when the leak happened.
Dozens and dozens of those attacks happened between the leak of the
opinion and the opinion itself, all designed to intimidate the Supreme
Court.
And what did this body do while that was happening and Supreme Court
Justices' homes were being--protests, harassed, all kinds of things
said about their family, an assassination attempt on one of those
justices, Justice Kavanaugh--what did this body do?
They waited a month to pass legislation to give our highest court
members the protection they needed. This body did that.
There is no place for violence. But let's be clear: Let's condemn all
of it. Let's do what we can to protect against it, and let's not stay
on this concerted effort to intimidate the Court.
By the way, Madam Speaker, we have yet to have a hearing on the leak
of the Dobbs decision, but in 1 hour and 15 minutes we are going to
have a hearing on the fake leak that was brought up about Justice Alito
in the Hobby Lobby case.
Why can't we get to the bottom of what happened earlier this year
with the Dobbs decision that resulted in all that violence--over 100
churches and crisis pregnancy centers attacked?
I would like to have a hearing on that. I hope at some point the
chairman will--we will look into doing that next year when we convene
the new Congress.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
{time} 1015
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman
indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had
full protection. The issue was the families and the families of
Members, but it ought to be on the public record that
[[Page H8835]]
the Supreme Court Members were protected.
Mr. JORDAN. Reclaiming my time, the fact is, the Senate passed the
bill and you guys waited a month before we passed it on the House
floor, and you know that is accurate.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented
that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.
Mr. JORDAN. Justices' families; I will correct that. But you guys
waited a month to do that when they were being threatened. That is my
point.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is
self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell
is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has
decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to
Obergefell.
On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change
things.
Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going?
This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow.
Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage,
especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to
continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.
I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that
contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every
church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a
list in my closing statement.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the
Respect for Marriage Act, an historic step forward in Democrats' fight
to defend the dignity and equality of every American.
Let us salute those who have legislated and advocated relentlessly to
make this bill the law of the land. I thank the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, Equality Caucus Chair David
Cicilline, and all of the members of the Equality Caucus, and the
grassroots activists out there, without whose mobilization so many
pieces of legislation to expand freedom in our country would not be
possible.
I say that because when I came to this floor 35 years ago, my first
speech on the floor, after I was sworn in, was to talk about--say that
I came here to fight HIV and AIDS. What I learned after that is we had
to fight against discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS.
Two people who were so significant in that are Phyllis and Del, Del
Martin and Phyllis Lyon, champions in our country. Well, I will talk
about them in a moment.
First, I want to salute the Senate for its strong bipartisan
legislation, the leadership of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and
Senator Tammy Baldwin, and the bipartisan, strong support that this
House gave the legislation to send it over to the Senate.
Marriage equality has been law across our country since 2015 and,
proudly, even longer in the State of California. Indeed, my thoughts
today are with Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, two dear friends and iconic
trailblazers. I have brought their picture to the floor time and time
again to talk about freedom and dignity and respect so many times.
Nearly two decades ago, their enduring love made history as they
joyfully, joyfully said their vows in San Francisco City Hall, the
first. In the years since, the same euphoria has blessed couples and
bonded families in every corner of America.
Yet, since the Supreme Court's monstrous decision overturning Roe v.
Wade, rightwing forces have set their sights on this basic personal
freedom.
In his concurrent opinion, Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the
Court to reconsider its ruling in Obergefell. While his legal reasoning
is twisted and unsound, we must take Justice Thomas at his word and the
hateful movement behind him at their word.
We must act now, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to combat bigoted
extremism and uphold the inviolability of same-sex and interracial
marriages.
Once signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act will help prevent
rightwing extremists from: Upending the lives of loving couples,
traumatizing kids across the country, and turning back the clock on
hard-won progress.
This legislation takes several steps to uphold marriage equality
under Federal law.
First, it tears the bigoted, unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act
off the books for good. When that bill was passed, our colleagues
understood that it was not constitutional. Why else would they have
tried to strip the judicial review of the Defense of Marriage Act if
they thought it could take the test of judicial review?
Today's vote will codify a legal reality already handed down by the
Supreme Court and ensure DOMA can never again be used to justify
hateful discrimination.
Second, the Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine married couples'
right to equal protection under Federal law, from tax filings to Social
Security, to bereavement and veterans' benefits.
Third, this legislation will require that every State recognize all
valid out-of-state marriages, regardless of any heinous restrictions
imposed by particular State law.
This legislation is the latest step in House Democrats' fight to win
full equality for LGBTQ Americans and forge a more perfect union that
our children and their children, all of our children deserve.
Fighting alongside tireless advocates, we transformed the fight
against HIV/AIDS, here at home and around the world; and I thank
President Bush for his leadership in that regard as well, all of our
Presidents--well, up until a certain point.
We tossed Don't Ask, Don't Tell into the dustbin of history. We
enacted fully inclusive Federal hate crimes legislation, protecting
Americans from the scourge of bigoted violence, with the Matthew
Shepard Act; our friend, Barney Frank, our former colleague, was so
instrumental in passing that legislation.
Today, we will include marriage equality into Federal law now and for
generations to come.
I am just going to speak personally for a moment because, as I
mentioned earlier, my first words on the floor of this House were about
fighting against HIV and AIDS and discrimination that goes with that.
My final bill as Speaker the first time, one of the final bills that
I signed was the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, one of the final
bills that I will sign in the enrollment will be this beautiful
legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act that we are passing today.
Today, we stand up for the values the vast majority of Americans hold
dear, a belief in the dignity, beauty, and divinity, divinity, spark of
divinity in every person, an abiding respect for love so powerful that
it binds two people together.
San Francisco's--when we talk about freedom, I think of Harvey Milk.
He once told his supporters: ``I have tasted freedom. I will not give
up that which I have tasted.''
Thus, today, this Chamber proudly stands with the forces of freedom,
not going back, and justice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a resounding bipartisan ``aye'' vote in favor of
the Respect for Marriage Act in loving memory of Del Martin and Phyllis
Lyon, my dear friends, and iconic pioneers, and I urge a strong
bipartisan vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York). The
Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as
guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or
disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote based on
arguments we have made on the floor today. I think this is--I just urge
a ``no'' vote. I think this is the wrong way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a
carefully negotiated compromise that
[[Page H8836]]
maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage
equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience
protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill.
For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the
bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human
Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.
In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the
Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church
USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for
Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate
amendment to this bill.
This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it
with a big vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I am in strong opposition of H.R. 8404,
the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.
I remain steadfast in my longstanding belief that marriage, as has
been the tradition in this nation and around the world, is between one
man and one woman.
To my colleagues who may be swayed by the inadequate attempts made in
the Senate to increase religious protections in this flawed piece of
legislation: The changes simply do not do enough to protect those that
could face the harmful effects of this bill.
The overly vague provisions of this bill leave far too much to be
interpreted and decided by the courts. We, as Members of Congress,
should be compelled to protect the religious freedom of Americans and
should not leave this cornerstone of our Constitution to the whim of
the courts.
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .''
In passing this bill, our government IS making a law that prohibits
the free exercise of religion. These are not just words. They are
fundamental to our country and who we are as a people.
Moving forward, court cases concerning private entities exercising
their religious freedom, much like cases heard this week at the Supreme
Court, will face new challenges. They will now be litigated under the
rubric of a national policy in which the court could interpret someone
not recognizing same-sex marriages, or even abstaining from providing
website design services for a same sex marriage, as akin to racial
discrimination.
This bill goes far beyond the protection of same-sex marriage.
Instead, it exposes private entities to government discrimination based
solely on their deeply held religious beliefs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this legislation
before us today.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of The Respect
for Marriage Act because everyone should be able to marry who they
love. This important law will protect same-sex and interracial
marriages.
When I was serving in the Oregon State Legislature in 2007, I helped
pass the Oregon Family Fairness Act to give same-sex couples many of
the rights afforded to married couples. In 2014, a federal district
court judge found that Oregon's ban on same-sex marriages violated the
Oregon Constitution, and in 2015 the United States Supreme Court held
in Obergefell that all people have the right to marry who they love.
It is imperative that we pass the Respect for Marriage Act because
Justice Thomas cast doubt on rights grounded in privacy, including
same-sex and interracial marriages, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Respect for Marriage Act
will enshrine this fundamental right into law and so it continues to be
protected.
Although it is essential that we pass the Respect for Marriage Act,
this legislation is a compromise. The bill as passed includes an overly
expansive exemption for faith-based nonprofit organizations. This
exemption is disappointing because it will allow legalized
discrimination and undermine the fundamental principles of fairness
this legislation is intended to uphold.
As Vice Chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, I am proud
to continue standing with members of the LGBTQI+ community and their
allies as we pass the Respect for Marriage Act. I remain committed to
continue fighting against discrimination, including by enacting the
overdue Equality Act to close gaps in civil rights protections.
No one should face prejudice and violence because of who they are or
who they love. I urge my colleagues to support the Respect for Marriage
Act and swiftly send this bill to President Biden's desk.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the crucial
importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for
Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these
provisions is crystal clear.
As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell
v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli
was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not-
for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S.
Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be
an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage
in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob
Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.
The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are
voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others,
providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when
combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage
Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States
decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from
successfully arguing that the United States now ``national policy''
favoring same-sex marriage use this national policy to deny tax-exempt
status to religious organizations.
Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on
the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and
honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all
views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.
Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal
Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our
national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was
explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case
relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable
to this bill.
Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to
rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm
and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section
2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are
held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable
religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy
between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about
race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy
respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.
I'd like to discuss another provision which is central this bill--
section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV,
Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in
each of our states, strengthening federalism and making our
constitutional structure work.
Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of
State law'' may deny full faith and credit to any ``public act, record,
or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage
between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or
national origin of those individuals.'' The phrase ``acting under color
of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to
the actions of state and local government officers and employees with
respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
Federal law.
It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the
bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's
interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendell-
Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.
I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no
church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a
marriage ceremony under this bill.
It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or
cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's
refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and
that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.
The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling
governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill
should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an
otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt
status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and
other agreements not arising from a marriage.
It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which
eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would
prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for
Marriage Act to
[[Page H8837]]
alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing
beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This bill is
intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views
surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious
liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in
1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have
more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls
of Congress.
Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the
crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect
for Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these
provisions is crystal clear.
As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell
v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli
was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not-
for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S.
Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be
an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage
in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob
Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.
The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are
voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others,
providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when
combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage
Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States
decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from
successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national
policy'' favoring same-sex marriage, and use this national policy to
deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.
Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on
the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and
honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all
views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.
Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal
Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our
national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was
explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case
relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable
to this bill.
Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to
rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm
and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section
2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are
held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable
religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy
between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about
race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy
respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.
I'd like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill--
section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV,
Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in
each of our States, strengthening federalism and making our
constitutional structure work.
Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of
State law'' may deny full faith and credit to any ``public act, record,
or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage
between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or
national origin of those individuals.'' The phrase ``acting under color
of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to
the actions of State and local government officers and employees with
respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
Federal law.
It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the
bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's
interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendel/
Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.
I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no
church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a
marriage ceremony under this bill.
It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or
cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's
refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and
that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.
The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling
governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill
should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an
otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt
status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and
other agreements not arising from a marriage.
It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which
eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would
prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for
Marriage Act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for
expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This
bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views
surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious
liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in
1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have
more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls
of Congress.
The SPEAKER. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1510, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258,
nays 169, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
YEAS--258
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Armstrong
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cammack
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Golden
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--169
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
[[Page H8838]]
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gibbs
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hudson
Huizenga
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Norman
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Steube
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Owens
NOT VOTING--4
Brady
Hollingsworth
Kinzinger
Zeldin
{time} 1111
Ms. LEE of California changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to concur was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Axne (Pappas)
Baird (Bucshon)
Bass (Cicilline)
Beatty (Neguse)
Brooks (Fleischmann)
DeFazio (Pallone)
Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
Gibbs (Smucker)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gonzalez (OH) (Moore (UT))
Gosar (Weber (TX))
Hayes (Neguse)
Herrera Beutler (Stewart)
Huffman (Levin (CA))
Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
Johnson (LA) (Graves (LA))
Johnson (OH) (Fulcher)
Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
Kahele (Correa)
Kildee (Pappas)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Beyer)
Long (Fleischmann)
Meeks (Meng)
Napolitano (Correa)
Newman (Correa)
O'Halleran (Pappas)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Peltola (Correa)
Pressley (Neguse)
Ruppersberger (Sarbanes)
Rush (Beyer)
Simpson (Fulcher)
Sires (Pallone)
Suozzi (Cicilline)
Swalwell (Correa)
Titus (Pallone)
Welch (Pallone)
Wexton (Beyer)
Williams (GA) (McBath)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in
violation of the rules of the House.
{time} 1115
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
____________________