Open Competition and Fairness Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day for the House of Representatives and for the people that we serve. Once again, some in the leadership of this House, including and especially the majority leader, have brought a divisive, unnecessary, and just plain mean-spirited bill to the floor in order to advance their own partisan political interests.

Once again, they have decided to ignore unemployment, ignore the health care crisis, ignore record deficits, ignore national security, in short to ignore the real concerns of the American people. Why?

You can find the answer just by looking at the calendar. We are 5 weeks from an election and there are some, not all, but some Members on the other side of the aisle who have chosen to put aside the important work we need to do.

By today, the 13 appropriation bills should have been signed into law. So far, only one has the President's signature. Where is the Homeland Security appropriation bill? Can anyone really say with a straight face that a constitutional amendment beating up on gay people is more important than funding our Homeland Security needs? How about the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, or the transportation bill? How about funding for schools and hospitals and veterans? They are nowhere to be found. Instead, we get legislative gay bashing. Another sad day.

Today, we are being asked to consider H.J. Res. 106, which would amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage, to ban civil unions, and to abolish the ability of States to interpret their own State constitutions. So this is no small matter.

It is important to note at the outset that the Constitution clearly prohibits the government from interfering with the marriages performed by religious institutions. Our Founding Fathers were very clear about this. The government cannot force any church or synagogue or mosque to perform a religious marriage. That will not change, no matter what happens today.

Now, there are several fundamental problems with this amendment. First, it has long been the tradition in this country that States, not the Federal Government, have the right to regulate marriage and other issues of family law. And States are already addressing same-sex marriage. When the Hawaii Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the Hawaii constitution, the voters of Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment allowing the State legislature to limit marriage to different-sex couples.

The people of Alaska amended their constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman after an Alaskan trial court held denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples violated the Alaskan constitution.

States all across the country are moving in similar directions, but that is not good enough for the supporters of this amendment. They believe that the only way to address this issue is to add discrimination to the United States Constitution.

Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed by President Clinton and is already the law of the land. Under DOMA, States can already refuse to recognize marriages from States with different policies.

I guess that fact does not make for very good press releases or 30- second political attack ads.

Second, if this amendment becomes the law of the land, civil union and domestic partnership laws all across the country will be thrown out the window. Things like hospital visitation rights, family medical leave, and inheritance rights can be taken away.

According to the Coalition Against Discrimination in the Constitution, an organization of civil-rights groups, labor unions, and religious organizations, this constitutional amendment would likely prevent the civil unions enacted by the States of Vermont and California.

Now, we will hear a lot of talk from people on the other side of the debate today about Massachusetts, so let me talk about my home State. Our State Supreme Court decided in favor of same-sex marriage last year. And right now there is a legislative process underway in which the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to change our own State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, if they so choose.

The interesting thing is that I doubt that it will succeed in Massachusetts. Starting on May 17, 2004, gay men and women in Massachusetts got married, and guess what? The world kept spinning on its axis, the sun came up the next day, people went to work, sent their kids to school and cheered for the Red Sox. So we are doing just fine in Massachusetts, thank you very much. And we certainly do not need anyone from Colorado or Georgia or Texas telling us how to handle the marriage issue in our own State.

The impeccably conservative Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, said it well in 2000, and I have his words right here, and I quote, ``The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behaviors in that regard. I think different States are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a Federal policy in that area.''

And those are the words of the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. The Vice President speaks from very personal experience. He loves someone who is gay, not because she chose to be gay but because that is just who she is.

Mr. Speaker, if this amendment passes, discrimination against a group of people will be written into the Constitution of the United States. If this amendment passes, we will be taking a step backward in our march toward equal protection under the law. All of us take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution not to use it as a political weapon.

There are some who say that this is about protecting future generations, our kids. Well, let me tell you in this chamber today, I have two beautiful children, a 6-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter, who I love more than anything, and I do not want them to grow up in a country where an entire group of people is treated as second class citizens.

To those, like the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Musgrave), who say this is about protecting marriage, let me ask, just whose marriage are you trying to protect? I am happily married, and I do not need Members of Congress to protect my marriage. Please do not use my marriage to promote homophobia and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is wrong. And to those of my colleagues who support this amendment today, let me state clearly that you are on the wrong side of history. It is wrong to tarnish our most sacred document, our Constitution, with discrimination. It is wrong to take a beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of division and hostility.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Help secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would like to point out one thing which I find particularly interesting, and that is at the recent Republican National Convention in New York City, all of the featured prime-time speakers that the party decided to put on display for us, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all oppose what is trying to be done today. They all oppose this constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first say to the gentleman who just spoke, I guess I must obviously have more confidence in our State legislatures across this country than he does because State legislatures all across this country are acting on this issue. I think they are closer to the people of the States than in many respects we are. It seems to me that this process is working. When he says that we are forced to be here, that we cannot talk about getting a real highway bill, that we cannot talk about health care, that we cannot talk about national security issues or veterans benefits or education, but we have to be here and debate this right now, the fact of the matter is this debate is going on all across this country, and we should let that process make its way through.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a very well-known group to all of us here in the Congress, a group that voted to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush again in 2000, has issued a statement entitled ``Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Their Endorsement from President Bush.''

The statement says that it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti- family constitutional amendment. It goes on to say that using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin, and they conclude by saying that this year they will withhold their endorsement of President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that there is no law in this country that forces any given religion to recognize any particular marriage. Religions are separate from what we are talking about here today. I just want to remind the gentleman that there are non-Christians who live in this Nation as well, and I would hope that he would believe that this country is equally theirs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to read a Q and A between Vice President Dick Cheney and a questioner in Davenport, Iowa, on August 24, 2004, because I think it helps to kind of put this in perspective, and maybe some of my colleagues should listen to this.

The question was: ``We have a battle here on this land as well. And I would like to know, sir, from your heart, I don't want to know what your advisors say or even what your top advisor thinks, but I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?''

And the Vice President responded: ``Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynn and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.

``With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to be free, ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the States. The States have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear 4

years ago, when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman, that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the States to decide and that's how it ought to be best handled.''

I very rarely agree with the Vice President of the United States, but I think he makes an awful lot of sense on this issue, and I think he makes a compelling case why we should not be moving forward with a constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to read a couple of other quotes here which I think are enlightening. One from John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona where he said: ``The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.'' He added, the amendment ``usurps from the States a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most States do not believe confronts them.''

Let me read one other quote here. ``It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States.'' And that is from the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in U.S. v. Lopez.

Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. We have the opportunity to reject the politics of division and discrimination. We have the opportunity to protect the Constitution of the United States, to stay on the path toward equal protection under the law for every single American. We have the opportunity to act in a way that reflects well on this institution and the people we are elected to serve.

I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Republicans who will vote ``no'' on this misguided constitutional amendment today. And I am proud to stand with them.

We will hear a lot about Massachusetts today. A son of our State named John F. Kennedy once said, ``The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.'' Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the heart of the question.

I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity, vote ``no'' on this constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin as the majority leader leaves, I must say when he says that the timing of this, 1 month before an election when the issue has been pending all year, when he says the timing was forced upon him and is not effected by political considerations, he violates what I would recommend to the gentleman is an important rule of political debate: No matter how advantageous one thinks it is, try hard to believe something no one believes; it does not really help your cause.

Beyond that, we have the most seriously misdescribed constitutional amendment I have ever seen. Actually if the Republicans go forward with their proposal, having created the largest deficits in our history, to require a balanced budget some time in the far distant future, that may be an even greater one at variance with reality. But here is the problem: They describe an amendment very different than the one they bring forward.

We have heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Texas say this is aimed at preventing judges from forcing one State to do what another State does. It does far more than that. At its core what it does is say that no State, by whatever process it chooses, may find that two women being willing to commit themselves to each other legally as well as emotionally is a good thing and not a bad thing, because that is the core of the issue.

In the State of Massachusetts, it is true we began with a court decision. Since then, it has been debated in our legislature. The legislature of Massachusetts very narrowly approved an amendment that would have said no to same-sex marriages but would have mandated full civil unions, which may also be thrown out by this amendment. That amendment will now be debated next year.

An election is going on in Massachusetts today in which how people voted on this is a major issue. We just had a change in the leadership of the Massachusetts House. A speaker who opposed same-sex marriage has been replaced by a speaker elected by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in turn elected by the people, who support same-sex marriage.

I think the question is very much in doubt, but the point is undeniable; the political process in Massachusetts, the democratic process in Massachusetts, is now deciding whether or not to allow same- sex marriage.

Mr. Speaker, the other side comes with an amendment that would cancel any decision made on this that they do not like by the people of Massachusetts. This is not an amendment that says one State cannot do something to another State. There would be an amendment possible. I would not be for it, but if that is really what is meant, then we would have an amendment that took DOMA and made it a constitutional principle. Such an amendment would be possible. I think it would be a mistake. I do not think it would be a good idea to freeze that, because then we would have some real difficulties, but it would be at least in accordance with what the other side is saying because this amendment does far more than has been described.

It has been a rule that I have found when people in political debate will not

be completely open about what they are trying to do, it is because they really know it is not defensible. Why do you not acknowledge that this amendment would cancel a democratic decision by the people of Massachusetts? Indeed, if the legislature decides to get rid of this, there will be a referendum. If the legislature does not decide to get rid of it, then a fairly small number of people can force a referendum and we will have a referendum, very likely, in 2008.

We will have had by that time the benefit of 4 years in which same- sex marriages happened. I understand why the opponents of same-sex marriage are so upset. They have made a number of predictions about what will come after same-sex marriage, none of which will be proven true, so they are desperately trying to cut this off before it happens. We have already had nearly 5 months of same-sex marriage. None of their predictions were proven true, as none of their predictions were proven true when they talked about the chaos in Vermont.

But let us understand what the House is being asked to do. If the concern was to say judges could not decide this, if the concern was to say full faith and credit does not apply, there would be amendments that could be narrowly drafted to deal with that, although I would not support them. But that is not what is here. This amendment says no State, Vermont, Massachusetts, by whatever process, by referendum, by vote of the legislature, by whatever process, can decide that it would like to have same-sex marriage for its own citizens.

I will say that on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, who do not share the distaste for love that is expressed in a way in which you do not disapprove that Members of the majority have, please do not impose your views on the people of Massachusetts. If your concern is genuinely to prevent one State from forcing another, deal with that. But this is an undemocratic effort to say no State may differ in this intimate matter of public policy with your views.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule before us and in support of the marriage protection amendment itself.

I am well aware that this is not a day many of us in this House relish. Many of us who support the marriage protection amendment are saddened that the need for this amendment exists at all. The definition of marriage seems to us, and the vast majority of the American people, as a matter of common sense and social reality. And many who oppose the amendment, most I would say, see the movement to protect marriage as mean spirited and unnecessary. In either case, most of us in this House would prefer not to have this debate. We would prefer to live in a society in which such debates were unnecessary, but, unfortunately, we do not.

The question of the future of marriage in America has been forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench and forced upon us in such a way that the only remaining answer is to amend the Constitution of the United States. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The majority of the American people want to protect traditional marriage for reasons ranging from the political to the religious to the practical. But a minority of our citizens, a vocal and sincere minority, wish to alter the definition of marriage to include relationships outside the union of one man and one woman.

In response to this minority opinion, the American people asserted their consensus in 1996 when a Republican Congress and a Democrat President worked together to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Its support was and remains bipartisan and overwhelming across the country.

DOMA says two things: First, that for the purposes of Federal law, the term marriage describes a union between one man and one woman. And, second, it says that no State, including Massachusetts, can force their will on the rest of us. And no State under its own laws can be required to recognize homosexual unions licensed in other States.

That is the law as it currently stands: fair, straightforward, and representative of an overwhelming consensus among the American people.

One would think this would be the end of the story, but it is not. DOMA is under an incessant and coordinated constitutional attack in the Federal courts. Despite DOMA's obvious constitutionality, those activist judges, who feel a greater responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution, seem not to care. Indeed, inventing rights out of whole cloth, in direct violation of the will of the people, too often seems to be the coin of the realm on the Federal bench these days.

In such an environment, it is no surprise to me that legal scholars on both sides of this issue, from Lawrence Tribe to Robert Bork, all but concede DOMA will eventually be struck down because it contradicts the tortured jurisprudence of activist judges.

Mr. Speaker, in other words, the definition of marriage will be a matter of constitutional law one day very soon. The question before us is whether that definition will be radical and arbitrary, or based on the experience of human civilization dating back to the origin of our species; whether that definition will be written by individual judges imposing their political biases on the Nation or written by the people of the United States through their elected Representatives in Congress and State legislatures.

DOMA passed with broad bipartisan support. To date, 44 States have defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Consensus exists today. And yet the runaway courts keep coming, bent on replacing Congress as the legislative authority of the United States. Let me be plain: The status quo is not an option. Avoiding this issue is not an option, not anymore, not since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts invented a right to homosexual marriage out of thin air, and not since a State court judge invented a similar right in Washington State, not since 11 States face court challenges to their marriage laws. This issue is not going away.

Those who know me know I am not a fan of constitutional amendments in general. And at first I resisted this amendment in particular. But the fact can no longer be denied. If marriage is to be protected in this country, it can only be protected by a constitutional amendment. The timing, substance and necessity of the marriage protection amendment have been forced by the courts and their refusal to be bound by the clear and absolute limits of their constitutional authority to interpret the law. This amendment is the only way marriage will be protected.

Now I know it is a difficult issue, and I know it is an emotional issue for people across the political spectrum and across this country, but it is an issue that has been forced. The people must be heard. Congress must assume its responsibility and must respond. This debate today will begin with that response, and, I hope, do so as it should, with civility, respect and sensitivity to all points of view.

Mr. Speaker, for some time, I have believed that it is essential to transform our military so that the United States is better able to deal with the enormous security challenges of the 21st century. Since my first term in Congress, I have worked to develop a more flexible, adaptable military with a ``culture of innovation'' that will ensure that our security is protected as the threats against us, our allies, and our values grow in number and complexity. But at the same time, I recognize that American national security does not rest solely on the shoulders of the U.S. military.

Based on my work in defense transformation, I became convinced that homeland security was a vital area requiring not just more money, but a major reorganization of the government agencies charged with protecting the American homeland. I introduced the first bill creating a new organization to better protect the homeland on March 21, 2001, and that new Department is now up and running.

I also believe that a transformation is needed at the Department of State so that it is better able to formulate and implement American foreign policy in the coming years. On September 18, 1998, I introduced H.R. 4065 in the 105th Congress to require that an independent, non- partisan panel review all the facets and functions of the Department of State and to provide Congress with its findings and with a plan for reorganizing the Department. The bill was reintroduced as H.R. 106 in the 106th Congress and as H.R. 304 in the 107th Congress.

I believe that the events of the past two years only add a greater degree of urgency to the need for such a transformation. It is time for Congress to take action.

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Snyder, has also been working on these issues for some time. He has suggested a number of improvements in my previous proposals, and today we are introducing the revised version of the bill. It does not prescribe in legislative language exactly how the Department of State should be reorganized despite the many studies and reports which have recommended various actions. It does establish the framework for a serious study of all of the recommendations and requires that a proposal be submitted to Congress. We would then have to act upon the legislation in the normal order.

There have been a number of outside studies which recommend reform in very strong terms. For example, in January 2001, a study cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies and chaired by former Secretary of Defense and career foreign service officer, Frank Carlucci, issued ``a scathing report,'' warning that ``the United States will soon face serious dangers and enormous costs because its foreign policy establishment has not come to terms with global changes a full decade after the Cold War ended.'' (Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2001). ``No government bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of State,'' the report found.

In March 2001, the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, found that ``The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking (p. 47).'' Other studies and reports have reached similar conclusions.

This bill requires a serious study of the organization of the Department of State and our diplomatic structure. The Commission created by the bill will examine all levels of the Department, from the organization chart of bureaus and offices to staffing at embassies around the world. It will also look at issues such as public diplomacy--whether we are organized to wage the battle over ideas, which is so critical to the ultimate success of the war on terrorism-- and use of foreign assistance--whether we are prepared to use effectively innovative new programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

There may be a variety of opinions on what the Department of State should be doing and on exactly what organizational and process changes should be made, but we should all be able to agree that how decisions are made, and especially how they are implemented, needs drastic improvement.

Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, and we should not impose change without a good reason for doing so. We also have an obligation, I think, to seek better, more effective ways to advance American interests, and no Department should be exempt from penetrating examination in pursuit of those larger interests.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this piece of legislation rapidly to the floor. As my kids went to school yesterday, I got a chance to drop them off and in front was a big banner saying ``Lutheran Schools Week.'' So I got to do it officially yesterday and I get to do it, I guess, officially now on the floor today; but I rise today in recognition of National Lutheran Schools Week, which began on March 2 of this week.

Mr. Speaker, I am a graduate of a Lutheran school, Holy Cross Lutheran School, in my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois. My father also attended this school. And a known fact is that my first grade teacher was my father's first grade teacher, a patriarch of education in Collinsville, Miss Bohland. It is a story I like to tell quite a lot. I also had a fifth grade teacher, Mrs. Richter, who taught me and who I tried to keep from retiring so that I could tell the same story for my sons, or so they could tell the same story. But she retired to an enjoyable life and is still very active in the church.

That is really something to be said, when you have that longevity in a teacher in a grade school. Two generations. And it is something that makes Lutheran schools a critical aspect of our society. My three sons now attend. David is 10, Joshua is 7, and Daniel will be attending next year in the preschool program, but who does get involved in the Sunday school program on Sunday and the weekends. My wife even teaches music at Holy Cross Lutheran School with the church programs and the choirs and all that stuff. So Lutheran schools have been a key component of my life for many, many years.

Before I became a Member of Congress, I returned to Illinois to teach government history at a Lutheran high school, Metro-East High School in Edwardsville, Illinois. As a teacher, I had the opportunity to instill the fundamental values and morals of the Christian faith, which is involved in the total educational aspect of the school. Parental involvement is key in Christian education; and Lutheran doctrine talks a lot about law and gospel, how we are condemned by the law but saved through God's saving grace, which is a critical aspect of the Christian faith, but it ties very neatly into the educational program.

In teaching kids to achieve all they can achieve, we know that you can never get 100 percent all the time, and there are failures along the way. That is where in the law and gospel aspect of education, the foundational principle of what makes Lutheran schools an exciting place to be, is that the constant love and compassion and actually the gospel aspect of forgiveness is involved in the educational setting.

Today, approximately 572,877 students attend Lutheran schools; and over 40,000 teachers provide an environment that encourages honesty, trust, respect, and responsibility. This also is a benefit to society because that are half a million kids that are not burdening, if we would call it a burden, to society. It is not an additional cost to the public school system. So the parents who choose Lutheran education, or perhaps Catholic education or other types of private schooling, take these kids out of the public school arena where more of the tax dollars can then work in public education, which I think is an additional benefit. Sometimes we forget that.

I am proud of the education that the students are able to receive from dedicated parents and teachers because of the efforts of Lutheran educators. Students throughout my district in central and southern Illinois receive spiritual guidance through an outstanding learning environment. I would like to congratulate the Lutheran schools, parents, teachers, administrators, and congregations across the Nation for their outstanding work in educating our youth.

One of the primary aspects of Martin Luther, when he changed the course of history, in essence the Protestant revolution, was education of the great masses, actually the education of children and youth. That is why the Lutheran faith education has a critical pillar in what we do on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also thank the sponsor for bringing this legislation forward.