Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has been an eloquent, true conservative on the question of the entanglement of religion and government, because he expresses what every religious leader ought to share, the distrust of government if it seeks to intervene in religious matters.

Religion needs no protection from government in this country. Yes, there are times when you may need protection if there are people trying to interfere physically with your right to worship, but in a free society like ours, religion flourishes independently. It does not need the government's stamp of approval. What theology says is that for religion to be freely practiced, the government has to say it is okay, the government has to put forward a symbol.

So my friend from Texas has expressed a true conservative vision, but he did not fully describe how flawed this bill is. I guess he could not fully understand the reasoning. He said that, even if you win to decide attorney's fees. No, only if you win. Let me read from the bill.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition against the establishment of religion brought against the United States.''

Now, this is not the most actually honest piece of legislation I have ever seen. They describe some of what they are talking about: a veterans memorial, not a veterans cemetery. By the

way, there is no prohibition anyone has ever thought of the families of any veterans to put any religious symbol he or she wants on that grave, except there was an effort to block a victim who wanted to put the symbol on, but they prevailed as, of course, they have to under this theory not just of this bill but of freedom of religion.

But it says the Boy Scouts, a Federal building containing religious words, but it also says this bill shall include but not be limited to these examples. In other words, the examples are there because they kind of add a little spice to the bill because, understand what this bill would purport to do.

Any violation of the Establishment Clause, any activity by a State or a Federal agency to establish a religion, to favor a particular religion, this is not limited to signs in the cemetery. It says any violation of the Establishment Clause, if you win you do not get your attorney's fees.

Now, the gentleman from Georgia correctly said this bill does not take away rights. I understand that. I also understand that there is a lot of frustration on that side of the aisle that they cannot. They would like to take away the rights. This goes as far as they can diminishing them.

The gentleman says, well, the ACLU will be able to do it. Has he become an agent of the ACLU, Mr. Speaker? Is he interested in giving the ACLU a monopoly on bringing these lawsuits? I am not. Whether or not the ACLU is bringing the lawsuit is not determinative. What about the right of an average citizen who might disagree with the ACLU and who would not be able to pay the attorney's fees? And, again, it only applies if you win.

Now, I know people on the other side have had a phrase that they like in tort law called ``loser pays.'' That may be controversial, but this one is a lulu. This is winner pays. Bring a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, not limited to the examples here. It is what the language says. Bring a lawsuit against a State or a city or a county or the Federal Government that favors a particular religion, that says we are going to teach this particular religion's tenets in the school and win the lawsuit and get no money.

Well, now, obviously that is because they do not trust the courts. They think the courts cannot be given the freedom to do this. The United States Supreme Court consists of nine members, seven of them appointed by Republicans. Six, because I know they do not count Gerald Ford, Mr. Speaker. He is kind of suspiciously liberal by Congress Republican standards. But Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush have appointed six of the nine justices.

Now, what this bills say is if the appointees of George Bush, George Bush and Ronald Reagan decide that there has been a clear-cut violation of the Establishment Clause, the person who brought the lawsuit cannot get legal fees. It is probably right that the ACLU would not be retarded, but, as I said, I agree with the ACLU on many issues. I am not interested in promoting them a monopoly over litigation in the United States.

I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be religious does not exist is appalling to me.

The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a distortion of the principle of freedom is that?

The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means, literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not the American Constitution.

What we have here is not going to pass, we understand that, and I have to say I do not fully agree with my colleagues when they lament the fact that we are wasting time. Because given the penchant of the majority for atrocious legislation, I would rather have them waste their time than use it on something that might become law. Because when they do make laws, they make bad ones. So wasting time is better.

Although I do find it very offensive that in defense of constitutional principles we once again have a closed rule. Democracy to them is a spectator sport. They want to look at it somewhere else, they want to watch it in other countries, but not practice it on the floor of the House. A closed rule on a fundamental matter of constitutional principle is an abomination.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is not for keeping these things from going to court. Am I incorrect, I had thought that the gentleman from Indiana, when we were on the committee together, before I took leave and on the floor, had supported legislation in the area of church and state taking jurisdiction away from the courts.

Would the gentleman reconcile for me his support of legislation that would remove jurisdiction from the Federal courts, in many cases, with his support for letting the cases go to court?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana did not reconcile the position. He said, we are Congress, and if we want to take these cases away, we can. I understand that, but that is not consistent with saying they ought to go to court.

Secondly, there are two parts to this bill. One says you should not have monetary damages. That is relevant to his argument about intimidation. But the other section says if you bring a claim based on a violation of the establishment clause, no matter how blatant, if a county or city or any other government entity formally prefers one religion over others, one denomination over others, and provides funding for that, if you bring a lawsuit challenging that and you win, you don't get attorneys fees.

And the answer again is, well, the ACLU can do it. Again, I am not letting only the ACLU be involved here. And that has nothing to do with intimidation of the county. The question is, and, again, it is only if you win. Let me read what it says: ``No court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses to the prevailing party on the claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition of the establishment clause.''

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

That is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Absolute nonsense.

There is nothing that keeps the county or the city from defending because the other side will get attorneys fees. The gentleman is trying to collapse a couple of things. The threat of monetary damages arguably would keep you from going to court, but a denial of attorneys fees to an individual plaintiff who does not happen to have an organization, that is not the fact that the other side may get attorneys fees if they win.

And, remember, the gentleman suggested that people were being deterred from bringing lawsuits that they could win, or defending lawsuits they could win by the threat of what would be the expense. But in this case, you only get the fees if you win. This only denies successful plaintiffs the fees.

So that is what this bill does. It has nothing to do with keeping it from going to court. It is trying to discourage things from going to court. I guess what they say is, you can't bring such a lawsuit unless you get the ACLU. If you are an individual that has a different theory about this, and you don't have the money for an attorney, you can't go to court. And the gentleman said, well, that is whatever happened before the 1976 act. Singling out one class of cases for the denial of attorneys fees when every other one gets them does seem to me an odd way to

run a constitution. This right and that right.

And, by the way, no one should think that if this ever became law, which, of course, no one thinks it will, that it would stop here. There would be other unfavored rights where a minority would be at risk, where you would be denied legal fees. So let's not collapse two issues. This has no deterrent effect, the part about attorneys fees. It is an effort on the other side to keep people out of court in case they might win.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, I appreciate this eloquent defense of his bill that it doesn't do very much, but I do question that. And I understand your concern about monetary damages; but if the restriction on attorneys fees only for the party that wins in a case doesn't do anything, what is it in here for?

I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful dodger is apparently about to leave.

I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause, which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What is it in there for?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Would the gentleman please answer the question? He asked me to yield. Why are you banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause? Why are you doing that?

But the gentleman is for letting it go to court, I thought.

And only under this bill, if you bring a lawsuit and you win, and the court decides that you are correct and there was a blatant violation of the establishment clause, you don't get your attorneys fees, and I still don't understand why.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Historically, I know the gentleman from Indiana previously had a location issue on Mr. Jefferson, but he was in France during the debate on the Constitution. You said he was in France during the debate on the Bill of Rights. I don't think that is accurate. I know there were slow boats then, but I think he had gotten back by that time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. History gets misused and used as a tool, but I think one

thing is very clear. The people who are pushing this, had they been contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been great fans of his.

Mr. Speaker, the Boston Globe Editorial on Friday, September 22, accurately describes the antics of Venezuelan President Chavez at the U.N. He was simultaneously outrageous and outlandish, using the great forum of the U.N. General Assembly for a semi-coherent diatribe. He gave a clear example of why his support in elections in Latin America has been toxic to those who've received it. Recently, in Peru and in Mexico, being tied to Chavez by their opponents, accurately or not, was very damaging to presidential candidates.

I hope Americans will also make it clear to Chavez that his crudity and disrespect for democracy will find little support here.

Mr. Speaker, in my representation of the City of New Bedford, I have of course spent a significant amount of time on matters affecting the fishing industry that is so vitally important to that community, economically, culturally, and in every other relevant way. In doing so, I have benefited from the wisdom and experience of a number of people involved in the fishing industry, one of whom is Deb Shrader, the executive director of an excellent organization called Shore Support Inc.

As part of a very useful series that the New Bedford Standard Times is carrying on the fishing industry, Deb Shrader published an article in the Standard Times for September 20, which gives an excellent summary of the difficult economic position in which current fishing policy puts so many hardworking people and their families. I hope my colleagues will read this because they will understand why I am working as hard as I am for amendments to the Magnuson Act, which will thoroughly recognize the legitimate economic interests of people in the fishing industry and will do so in ways that do not jeopardize any valid environmental concerns.

Mr. Speaker, no one should be voting on fishing issues without having a full understanding of the matters that Deb Shrader discusses so well, and for that reason I ask that her article from the Wednesday, September 20, Standard Times be printed here.

[From the Standard Times, Sept. 20, 2006]

Fishing Rules Take Their Toll

(By Deb Shrader)

How fishing regulations affect the people in a fishing

community is nearly a taboo subject. Though the Magnuson Act

of 1976 requires that the social and economic impact of

fishing regulations be studied, in fact the impacts are

rarely measured, the information that is gathered is

considered anecdotal or it's ignored. Measuring the

cumulative effects of these omissions is impossible, much

like retracing the steps of a dinosaur after their

extinction.

Presently, Shore Support, Inc. is working with UMass

Dartmouth and its School for Marine Science and Technology,

and economics Professor Dan Georgianna, to study the most

recent effects of regulations on groundfishermen. We have

been meeting with fishermen, aboard their boats, to talk with

them. I recently spoke with members of a crew who, after

spending 10 days at sea, working two nine-hour shifts with

three hours rest in between, came home to a paycheck of $750.

If you work out the 18 hour day, multiply by 10, and then

divide the $750 by the 180 hours worked, these fishermen

worked for well below minimum wage at about $4 an hour. The

high cost of fuel, coupled with the low prices for fish make

me wonder why they still ``go down to the sea in ships,'' and

I'm not afraid to ask that question of groundfishermen. The

answer is usually that they are fishermen through and

through, and with most of the men in their mid to late

forties, the idea of starting at the bottom of a ladder in a

new trade is more than depressing. They are used to the

unique lifestyle of commercial fishing with its sense of

independence, competitiveness and chance to work close to

nature.

In 2005, Professor Georgianna and I published a study

called ``Employment, Income and Working Conditions in New

Bedford's Offshore Fisheries.'' As part of this study, we

visited and spoke with the captains and crews from more than

half of the offshore scallop and groundfish boats that call

New Bedford home port, and are 50 feet or longer.

In this study, working with fishermen and settlement

houses, we put a human perspective on the industry. After

meeting with crew from more than 200 boats, we found that the

workers in the industry are rapidly aging. The average age of

a scalloper is 40 with 19 years at sea; the average age of a

groundfisherman is 46 with an average of 26 years at sea.

These fishermen are professionals with many years of

experience, in some cases more than half their lives. During

our entire process, we spoke with only four groundfishermen

who were 25 years old or younger. We attribute this to the

fact that fishing is so very dangerous, that considering the

difficulties and insecurities created by a regulatory system,

young men are not choosing to fill their father's boots, a

practice in previous generations that has kept our port so

strong. In fact, many fishermen discourage their children

from joining them on the boats. Instead, they discourage

their sons from being involved in an industry that has become

too complicated and laden with bureaucracy.

It has been predicted that the Port of New Bedford will

lose approximately $15 million due to the changes presented

in the most recent Framework 42 (a framework is a process for

amending a fisheries plan) of the groundfish regulatory

system. Please keep in mind that because we have an offshore

fleet, our boats are larger and carry more men than some of

the coastal fisheries in other areas. Each groundfishing boat

carries three to five men. At the end of each fishing trip,

the boat owner and crew split the proceeds. The boat owner

usually gets 50 percent of the value of the fish caught,

while the crew splits the remaining 50 percent (after

expenses like fuel, food, and ice are deducted). Each

groundfishing boat represents four to six families'

incomes. If this community loses $15 million in commerce

from these regulatory changes, $7.5 million will be

removed from fishermen and their families, which has a

wider spread effect than a corporate loss. This would mean

$7.5 million less to pay mortgages and auto loans held by

local banks, less to buy groceries in local markets and

home goods at the local mall. If you think this crisis

will not affect you because you are not involved in this

noble industry, you are wrong. These types of losses in a

community with rampant unemployment will be devastating to

all.

New Bedford is also one of the last great ports as far as

what is available for shoreside support industries. The

failing of the industry in Gloucester, and other smaller

ports, has already caused a collapse of the net makers,

dredge builders, welders, ice makers, chandlers, and other

support industries in those ports. New Bedford has become one

of the last remaining sources for supplies and labor on which

all the boats depend. The big question is whether these

crucial support industries will survive this regulatory

process. Many of these are small businesses and are presently

carrying a great deal of debt owed by the boat owners who

have a difficult time

paying for expenses due to changing regulations (limited days

at sea, catch limits and gear restrictions). Support

industries are crucial to the survival of the fleet. And the

survival of the fleet is crucial to the survival of the

support industries. This interdependence puts our port city

in danger of losing not only our fishing fleet, but these

businesses as well.

While we all know that money does not bring happiness, not

being able to support your family will take the joy out of

life. Recently implemented regulations and those proposed in

Framework 42 have added a new degree of insecurity to an

already difficult industry. Fishing has always been

physically demanding and dangerous work.

Fishermen's wives have always worried about whether their

husbands would return safely to port. But today, because of

these regulations, with each trip, groundfishermen wonder

whether they will be able to provide for their families.

Mr. Speaker, for years now I have had the honor of sharing with our colleagues the news of the awards being presented by the organization ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center. ROFEH International is an extremely important organization helping make the first-rate health facilities that are available in Boston to people who might not otherwise be able to benefit from them. The health profession constitutes one of the great assets of Greater Boston. It is at the same time an extraordinary source of benefit to those who receive the world-class treatment that is available, a major engine for our region's economy, and through the people it employs a significant contributor to the vibrant cultural life of our region. ROFEH International, ably led by its founder, Grand Rabbi Levi Horowitz, works closely with these institutions in many ways, and annually honors leaders in the health fields, both health professionals and those who have supported the important work that these health professionals do.

Mr. Speaker, this year the recipients are Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn and Mr. Michael P. Albert. Dr. Goldwyn receives the International Distinguished Service Award. Mr. Albert is the recipient of the ROFEH International-New England Chassidic Center ``Man of the Year'' award. Both are extremely well deserved, and reflect the commitment to both improving our health facilities and making them widely available that marks the work of ROFEH International.

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of sharing this news and perhaps inspiring others to take similar actions, I ask that the biographies of Dr. Goldwyn and Mr. Albert be printed here as examples of the people who work with project ROFEH and the good that they do.

Robert M. Goldwyn, MD, ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award

Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn is Clinical Professor of Surgery at

the Harvard Medical School; Division of Plastic Surgery at

the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston,

Massachusetts.

Distinguished surgeon and educator, Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn

has authored or coauthored more than 350 articles, more than

50 chapters and has edited many books. Dr. Goldwyn was among

the first to perform experimental microsurgical transfer

flaps and limb transplantation. Early in his career, he

investigated the use of cryotherapy in the treatment of

vascular tumors, of palliation of unresectable recurrent

breast cancers of the chest wall. He developed new techniques

for reduction mammoplasty, a major focus of his clinical

activity. He was a founding member of Physicians for Social

Responsibility and has written numerous articles on world

peace, opposition to chemical and biological warfare, medical

ethics, and medical history.

Awards include the Dieffenbach Medal, the Honorary

Kazanjian Lectureship, the Special Achievement Award, and the

Presidential Citation of the American Society of Plastic and

Reconstructive Surgeons.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I speak strongly in support of this bill. I have not yet had anyone explain to me why it is our strong policy to ban the products of prison labor that come over in trade, but we then encourage them to compete with American workers if it is domestic prison labor.

I agree it is a good idea for inmates to have work opportunities, but I am hoping that marketing is not one of those things in which prisoners engage. That is, it is the actual process of making the product that has its rehabilitative effect. And as the gentleman from Michigan just mentioned, it is the intention of many of us to increase the extent to which prisoners could be used to make products that could be distributed to various entities in our society in a way that wouldn't be competitive with the market.

But I do not understand how you tell low-wage workers, because the level at which the prison products exist is at the low-wage level, how do we tell low-wage workers they are going to lose their jobs because of prisoners? How do you tell people who have been hardworking people trying to support themselves and their families that prisoners are taking their jobs because of the inherent subsidy that is involved?

Now, the way to resolve that, it seems to me, is to leave the market, to the extent that we can, to people who are in the market, in the private sector; and try, as the gentleman from Michigan said, as we try in this legislation, to increase the extent to which prisoners can be employed and learn skills and make products that will be distributed to the nonmarket segment. And there is no loss there. Again, the marketing is not part of the prison experience and shouldn't be.

So it is entirely possible to have prisoners learning skills, improving their skills by producing things that can then be distributed to a nonmarket segment. But the fundamental principle that we should not allow prison labor to take jobs away from hardworking people, particularly at the low-wage level, is at the core of this bill.

My problem with my friend from Virginia's argument, well, there are two; first of all, if there are 9,000 fewer jobs in Prison Industries, that means there are 9,000 more jobs in the private sector.

So the second point is that he concedes that if we funded this it wouldn't be a problem. Well, rather than put the burden on lower-wage working people in the garment industry, the furniture industry, et cetera, then let us work to get the funding. It is not a huge amount. But there is, to some extent, a replacement of prison jobs and private sector jobs.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Well, then I would say this. Then that furthers reinforces the point. Because what you are then saying is the underpayment, the subsidy element is such that you are still losing private sector jobs to prison jobs.

And I would say to the gentleman, let us end on a note of approval. Yes, I look forward to working with the gentleman for better funding, and if things go well in November it will be easier than it has been.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation recognizing one of the truly great advocates of human rights in our time, a man who in the face of enormous adversity generated by the People's Republic of China's oppression has really held forth the banner of human rights.

I therefore am delighted to yield as much time as he may consume to our champion of human rights here in the House of Representatives, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations who has for his entire life been a very vigorous defender of the cause of freedom in a variety of also adverse circumstances, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to another staunch defender of human rights throughout the world, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And to close out our side here, and I think the debate, I yield such time as she may consume to a woman who has not only been a leader in human rights but was an early advocate and personal friend of the Dalai Lama.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago when he spoke at Brandeis University in the district of my colleague, Mr. Markey and I were there to meet him, and he had taken a stand that may have been a little controversial. And the first thing he said to me was, this was years before the gentlewoman from California had ascended to leadership. He said, ``Congressman, please tell Nancy Pelosi not to be angry; I am going to explain this to her.'' So when the Dalai Lama is concerned about her opinion of him, I think that says a great deal about her own commitment and dedication. And, of course, he did explain; and, no, she was not angry. She respected him then, she respects him now, and I am delighted to yield to her such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume just to express to the government of the People's Republic of China, on behalf I think of this entire House, a plea that they understand that their desire to be recognized as a great Nation, their security in this world will be enhanced, not diminished, if they reach out to this great leader who has moved in a direction beyond what some would want him to go to try and reach a compromise involving autonomy for the people of Tibet.

It is simply unbecoming for a Nation with the economic might of China, with the potential military might of China to appear to be frightened of this gentle, loving advocate of human dignity.

So we urge the Chinese Government, the entire House does, to reconsider its unwillingness to meet halfway as the Dalai Lama has agreed to do, and to give him the ability to return to Tibet, to a people that yearns for him, to reconcile with the people of Tibet and with the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese Government will be the beneficiaries, not the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House is able to pass this bill, unanimously I believe we will be doing it

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

Mr. Speaker, on September 12th, the Annual Hispanic Recognition Awards Ceremony will take place in New Bedford, Massachusetts. These awards express the admiration and appreciation of the community for outstanding individuals who have shown leadership in a variety of ways. Unfortunately for me, we will be in session when this awards ceremony takes place, and I will not be able to attend in person, which I would have liked to do so that I could express directly my admiration and gratitude to the winners of these awards for the work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, since I cannot be there and because the work that is being recognized is so important not just for the Hispanic Community but for the Greater New Bedford Community and indeed all of Southeastern Massachusetts, I wish to take the opportunity here to commend Mayor Lang, elected officials and the committee, led by Director Emilio Cruz, who have done the work that is culminating in this important ceremony and to express my deep appreciation of the winners of the awards.

Mr. Speaker, the list of the awardees is: Reverend Eva Amaro, Senior Pastor of the Christian Revival Temple, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, MD, renowned psychiatrist, Mr. Anibal Lucas, Director of the Maya Kichee USA, Ms. Raquel Tejadas, businesswoman.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the yielding by the ranking member from the Education and Workforce Committee. I hope we are going to set some good examples for the body today.

First, my friend from Illinois correctly noted that I am the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, which under this bill will lose jurisdiction over the program. And I cheerfully get up here to thank my colleagues for doing this.

We are too consumed by turf in this body. I must say, having served on a number of committees, there is not a committee in the Congress that does not have more to do than any rational human being can handle. I wish people would be less concerned about turf.

I agree here: this is a program that makes more sense in the Workforce Committee. It will also resolve a problem we have had in which the appropriation for this program was bounced back and forth between the appropriations subcommittee that deals with HUD and the appropriations committee that deals with the Department of Labor.

I do note parenthetically, I guess, I am surprised that my Republican colleagues have not yet changed the name of the Secretary of Labor to the Secretary of Workforce. They let that nasty word ``labor'' survive longer than I think they meant to.

The point is that there was a tension that was there. I want to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues, including those on the appropriations committee, for dealing with it. And my understanding is that once this bill, which goes from here to the President's desk for what I know is a sure signature, it will free up a contingent appropriation that we have, that is, an appropriation was in, I think, the Labor-H bill contingent on this being done.

So this is a good example, I hope, of cooperation between committees about how to do things. It is also a very good example of bipartisanship. I want to particularly express my appreciation and admiration to the gentleman from Delaware. This was a subject that should not have been hard, but for a variety of reasons it became hard. It involved two appropriations subcommittees, two standing committees, and then it involved that wondrous place, the United States Senate, where very little is simple.

And I want to express my admiration for the extent to which the gentleman from Delaware navigated between shoals in the Senate. I do notice that the Washingtonian magazine listed him as a ``bridge builder.'' And I have to say that in getting all of the various pieces together, and he was able to take the lead in this, he built a bridge that rivals the Delaware Water Gap Bridge in terms of what he was able to do. I am very appreciative.

Because what we have here, as both of my colleagues have said, is a wonderful program. It does what a lot of people talk about doing, but we are rarely able to do. It goes to young people, including many young people who have had troubled pasts who have been not only troubled, but let's be honest, troubling to others. And it takes some of those who are willing to make an effort to straighten out their lives and gives them a framework in which to do it. I have experienced this program in the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, which has had some problems.

I see my colleague from Georgia here, who did us the great honor of coming to New Bedford and was very well received. We have a situation there with young people who were in those circumstances, and this program has been a wonderful program.

It is actually kind of a two-in-one program, because it provides great help to the young people, and we also get some affordable housing out of it. It is not primarily a housing program, that is why it belongs in this Committee on Workforce, but it does have a housing benefit. And so what we have is a very good program tangled up in jurisdictional issues.

Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Delaware, and it was a fortuitous circumstance that he serves on both of the committees, Financial Services and Education and Workforce, and the great enthusiasm of the gentleman from Illinois who has been a strong advocate of this and has helped when we tried to save it a couple of times.

Because of this ambiguity, it was in nobody's appropriation bill. Given the limited allocations that appropriators have, they have the reverse turf issue, because the more you have to cover a program, the less you have got for your other programs. So for a couple of years now, we have had this problem where this program became orphaned in the appropriations process. It was the subject of an unusual custody: both parents were insisting that the other one take responsibility.

We finally resolved that. And so what has happened is that the legislative situation has caught up with an excellent substance. And I now am very pleased that we are going to pass this bill. It is going to be signed by the President. The appropriation will go forward. I have to say the appropriation is not what I would like it to be. Like a lot of other good programs, it has suffered from being squeezed by the, I think, the distorted priorities of this Congress. I do not want to be wholly bipartisan about all of this.

But at least we have saved the program to fight again for a better day. For that I thank the gentleman from Delaware for his leadership, the gentleman from Illinois who has been a strong supporter, and let me say, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, and we had jurisdiction over this program, I say good-bye to it cheerfully, because I understand that in its new home it will be very well taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I have served here 26 years. Eight years before that I was in the State legislature. And before that, I studied legislatures. They are a subject of fascination to me because I believe deeply in democracy. I have never seen democracy so degraded in a purportedly legitimate institution as by this bill today.

It is solely intended to allow Members of your party, Mr. Speaker, to pretend to be for an increase in the minimum wage to get them safely past an election. There are plenty of ways, if they were really for increasing the minimum wage, they could join and give us the majority to do it. But you are allowing them to be dishonest.

This proposal that links the estate tax and the minimum wage in a bill that you know is not going to pass the Senate is the most ethically repugnant, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt ploy I have ever seen in a legislative body. For you, Mr. Speaker, and your party to perpetrate this conscious, deliberate deception, not just on the American people, but particularly on the poorest and hardest working among them, is something I would have thought previously even you would have been ashamed to do.

Apparently, shame has become entirely irrelevant to you and your party.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his honesty.

He is against the minimum wage, so he is going to vote for this bill. I would simply point out that I am for the minimum wage so I am going to vote against this sham.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. She and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and others on our committee on both sides of the aisle worked constructively on a good bill. I appreciate the kind words of the majority whip.

There was a threatening climate towards foreign direct investment a few months ago as a result of the reaction to the Dubai Ports. I thought it was a mistake to allow Dubai to be able to buy those ports, but I did think that the reaction against that threatened to jeopardize a very important source of support for the American economy, and that is foreign direct investment.

There was among some of our colleagues a kind of reaction to say, ``We don't want them bringing their money in here and investing in America.'' That was unwise, and I think cooler heads on both sides of the aisle have prevailed, and we have a bill that recognizes that foreign direct investment, the foreign investment in building plants and running enterprises in America, is a good thing.

Many Americans complain when American corporations invest their money in physical facilities overseas. Well, it then does not make sense to complain about the reciprocal. Yes, we want to make sure that nothing is done that jeopardizes our security.

I think we have a bill today that improves the situation without any kind of drastic change of a sort that would have endangered foreign direct investment, and I have to say there was a terrible mistake made by the Bush administration, in my judgment, in not shutting down the Dubai Ports thing before we got to it.

I do think we should be very clear, though, we have to differentiate between laws which are badly administered and laws which are badly structured. We have had cases, in my view, where this administration has messed up on a number of occasions. I think they badly handled Katrina. They made a terrible mistake with Dubai, but if we were going to drastically wrench out of shape every law that this administration administers poorly, we would not be taking an August recess. That would keep us busier than we already are.

What we have to do is make a separation. We have to be able to differentiate between the incompetence of an

administration and a structural failing in the law.

Now, we have done that in this case. I understand the bipartisanship extends here to the restructuring, in a reasonable way, in the law and not to recognition in my part on the incompetency of the administration. I do not mean to include my colleagues in saying that, but I do think this is the principle we have tried to follow on our side.

When this administration messes something up, we should not overreact and wrench the structure out of shape. We should make those structural changes that might be called for. That is what we are doing here, and we are preserving the role that foreign direct investment can play in the United States. We can express the hope that this administration in its remaining time will not misadminister this as badly as they did before.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that I agree with what the chairman has just said. But this is not the first example of a bill coming out of the Financial Services Committee on a subject which could have been very contentious but, in fact, came to the floor in a form that reflected a very good process, a very open process, with hearings and subcommittee, committee markups, and full participation and, as a result, received overwhelming votes.

We saw this on the GSE bill, we saw it in the bill dealing with the extension of credit, called the FACT Act, and we have seen it on a number of bills, and the chairman deserves a great deal of credit on this. And as his career here draws to a close, I just want to note that this is a very good example of the chairman's willingness to help us bring out the best in ourselves in this process.

And he is correct, this could have been the source of a lot of demagoguery, a lot of political sniping, of frankly some destabilization to the economy because of the negative impact a badly handled bill could have had. So I just want to acknowledge that as the ranking member, it has been my privilege to work with the gentleman from Ohio, and this is only one of a series of bills where we have worked together, under his leadership, to take subjects that, as I said, could have been contentious and destabilizing, and brought the House a product with overwhelming support.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of our Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California, for filling in for me as I came over.

Mr. Speaker, we have a national goal of increasing homeownership. Homeownership is very important. I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters. It is a good thing if we can help people become homeowners, but we should not neglect the legitimate interests of renters.

In this case, however, we are talking not about renters, we will deal with them in some later parts of our program today, we are dealing here with extending the ability to own homes to people who would economically not otherwise be able to make it.

We have gotten to a pretty high percentage of homeownership. But if you look at the economics of land, of zoning, of building, if you look at what people earn, if we do not make manufactured housing more easily available to people, we will not be able to break out of the current percentage levels of homeownership. That is, significantly extending homeownership so we get to maybe an 80 percent range or so requires us to make full use of manufactured housing.

One of the things I am pleased about, when I first came here there was a kind of a war going on, or at least a battle between people of conventional homes, stick-built homes, as they are called, and manufactured housing. I think it is now clear that the demand for housing is such and the economic range is such that these are not competitive entities. There is room for more of the stick-built housing, of the site-built housing; there is room for more of the manufactured housing. We need to give a full range of choices for people.

It is also clear that manufactured housing hits a price range that we have to make available if we are going to extend homeownership.

Now, what we found was, as many of us began to push for this a few years ago, we were pushing, I pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do more in manufacturing housing. The gentleman from Ohio is nodding, because he and I have worked together on this. We intend to continue.

Part of our effort with regard to the GSE legislation is to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do more in manufactured housing. We have worked harder to make sure that manufactured housing is safer. And this goes back to the former chairman of the committee, then called the Banking Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) who helped to make sure that we had legislation that made manufactured housing safer, particularly in those areas where there are hurricanes. We have done that.

And then we found that one of our own entities, the Federal Housing Administration, was not as responsive to the manufactured housing issues as they should be. So this bill does that. Obviously, manufactured housing is somewhat different than other forms of housing. The problem is, of course, our laws, our loan procedures, our property laws, our title laws were all drawn up with the model of a site-built home on a piece of land owned by that homeowner.

You need more flexibility when you are dealing with manufactured housing. This provides it. So I am very pleased to join in this bipartisanship effort with my colleagues on the committee to put forward a bill that will be a substantial step forward in making housing available.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Ohio who is the main author of this bill for giving us all a chance to work together on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), is, as has been announced, retiring. I do want to say that I am very proud of the extent to which our committee has worked together cooperatively.

There are obviously points of difference. There are legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives.

But without subsuming those or without anybody sort of abandoning his or her principles, we have been able to find that area where there is common ground like this. I do think that the chairman of the full committee deserves an enormous amount of credit for creating the atmosphere in which we were able to both pursue our differences in a civil way and then come together where we did not have differences, but had common ground.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. And I must say, I am very pleased that, having worked together, that the relationship of ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee or chairman of a full committee and the chairman of a subcommittee, nobody planned that to work as smoothly. You have to work at it, and with kind of overlapping responsibilities. I am very proud of the very constructive work we have done together, along with our counterparts on the other side.

I agree with what has been said about this bill. It takes the FHA and makes it a more important entity.

On one issue, the high cost loan limits, for much of the district that I represent in Massachusetts, the FHA might as well be on the moon because the median house prices in my district are beyond what the FHA could do. And I was glad to work with my colleague, the gentleman from California, who has joined us, Mr. Miller, to make it realistic. People have said, well, you are creating homes for the wealthiest. No. What we have is a situation where, if you don't do it by median house price, middle income borrowers are priced out of the market because of the price of the house.

And, of course, people said, well, you are going to be squeezing out lower income people. No. When the FHA makes those loans to people at the median income in the high-cost areas, that makes money for the FHA. And I want to stress that. This is a money maker bill. This is a bill that expands housing, but it will make money for the Treasury. The FHA, in our accounting term it is called a negative subsidy. A negative subsidy means you put money in. And, the FHA is a net contributor. I think at some point we might look at expanding some of what we do at the FHA without further increasing the cost to the Treasury. But this is a bill that expands housing opportunities and makes money for the Treasury.

There is one particular part I want to address, and the gentlewoman from California generously mentioned it and the gentleman from Ohio was helpful on this. We do, in this bill, extend FHA's authority to lend to people who have lower credit scores, people who are bigger risks. And when that happens, you have to worry about higher defaults.

I did not think we, the Federal Government, should be in the position of saying that, as we lend to people who are bigger risks, we should take that risk pool and make those people who are higher risks who meet their obligations pay for the people who are higher risks who don't. In other words, yes, we understand that. As you reach down into a lower credit sector, and there is a correlation with income there, obviously, you are going to have more defaults and we have to pay for the defaults. But it is not fair, and we the Federal Government should not set the principle that one low-income person or 10 low-income people who meet their responsibilities are the ones who have to make up for the low-income person who isn't able to.

Now, this bill doesn't entirely meet my desires in this respect, but it does set this important principle. Yes, it says if you are of a low credit score, you will have to pay some more. But after 5 years under this bill, if you have been meeting your obligations, you then no longer have to pay more on the annual basis. Thus, it seems to be both an incentive for people to keep their payments but also a matter of fairness. I don't see why, if I am someone with a low credit score and I am making my payments in a responsible way, I should have to shoulder the burden of those people who aren't able to make their payments any more than anybody else.

Now, as I said, this doesn't go as far as I would like, but it sets that important principle. And the other thing I would note is this: We give FHA the authority to go up to certain levels for the borrowers with lower credit, but they are not mandated. And I would urge my friends in the FHA, and they have worked with us and I appreciate it and some of them are here today observing, as is fitting given the cooperative effort we had here.

As we go forward, given that the FHA makes money, let's refrain from penalizing the responsible low credit people. And they are the great majority, by the way. Nobody thinks that you are going to have a majority of them default. Let's say to those lower credit borrowers who meet their obligations that we are not going to try to make them be held responsible for others who can't make it. That is something, if it has to be done, could be more fairly done across the board.

So I am very appreciable of the things in the bill, the increase in the loan limits, the reaching out to other entities to be able to function and reaching out to give people an alternative to predatory lending, and it is important that we set the principle. As we give people an alternative to what might be predatory loans in the purely private sector, we do it in a way that will give people of lower credit recognition that if they are responsible and meet their payments, they will no longer be put under the gun. I think we have further to go there, and as experience works out, I will be pushing for that.

But it is very important that we set that principle, and I am grateful to the gentleman from Ohio, to my good friend from California who has done such great work in the housing area, and to the people in the administration who worked out an agreement with us to get this principle set forward.

Mr. Speaker, first, this Israeli retaliation did not come in the abstract. Let's be clear what happened. I speak here as someone who has been critical in the past of Israeli Governments that were, in my judgment, sufficiently willing to take risks for peace. I have been an advocate of giving up land in the interests of a comprehensive settlement.

What happened tragically in the last couple of weeks is that Israel was attacked by entities who do not think there should be any Israel at all. It was attacked by people dedicated to the abolition of the Jewish State in the Middle East from two territories from which it had withdrawn.

What was attacked was not just individual Israelis, but those in Israel within that democratic nation who have pushed for peace. In April, after the withdrawal from Gaza, very controversial, the people willing in Israel to withdraw from territory in pursuit of peace won an election. Those in Israel who would reject that approach lost. Sadly, the rejectionists then won in the Palestinian Authority. So you have people who had risked themselves in a democratic nation for peace now being undercut by those who use those very territories from which they withdrew for attacking them. And again these were not disputes over specifics.

Hamas and Hezbollah both agreed there should be no Israel. These are people who want to return not to the borders of 1967, but to the borders of 1947 when there was no Israel. Now, no democratic nation can be expected to not respond, and that is what we have, a response to attacks across the internationally recognized border of Israel by people committed to destroying its very existence from territories from which they withdrew. So the attacks were clearly justified.

Then the question is, well, how have they conducted the war? I think there were things that they should not have done. I wish they had not bombed the power plant in Gaza. But, you know, I look at what Israel is doing in Lebanon, and I must tell you what it most resembles in my recent memory, the American action in Yugoslavia when we bombed and bombed and bombed Belgrade and much of Yugoslavia, much of Serbia, to get them to withdraw from Kosovo. That was not a conventional military action. Now, I must note that Israel has not at this point taken out any embassies. We in the Yugoslav war took out the Chinese Embassy. We bombed convoys.

Sadly, when people go to war, innocent people die. That is why I am very reluctant to vote for war. But that happens. But what happened in Serbia was America punishing the Serbian territory to get them to withdraw from Kosovo, and it worked.

Now, I understand the pride of the Lebanese Government, but let me say this, first of all, in response to my friend from West Virginia. The resolution does not demand that the Lebanese Government disarm Hezbollah. It demands that the Lebanese do everything within its power, within its power, to change things.

In contrast, the resolution does make an unconditional demand of Syria and Iran that they do the right thing. So it does differentiate between Lebanon and Syria and Iran.

Now, let me say, with regard to Lebanon, I am struck by the pride of the Lebanese people, but I have to say this. Many of those who are now critical of Israel and say, what do you want from poor Lebanon, where were they when poor Lebanon needed them? Where were they when the Lebanese were unable to get Hezbollah to move? Why did they not get involved then?

In defense of the Israelis, what they are saying is this: Look, a U.N. resolution said get Hezbollah away from us, because if they keep this up, we will have to retaliate, and nothing happened until they started killing Israelis inside Israel, and then Israel retaliated.

So those who now say, well, you know what, do not blame the poor Government of Lebanon, I do not. I blame those in the Arab world and elsewhere who could have gone into that situation and avoided this.

So now the question is what do you do? A simple cease-fire that leaves Hezbollah on the Israeli border, in violation of a U.N. resolution, free to continue to kill across that international border in their pursuit of their effort to destroy the State is not good enough. I would like to see us be involved.

What the resolution says is have Syria and Iran be pressured by the rest of the world, including those great humanitarian nations of Russia and China and elsewhere that have expressed opinions here; let them intervene not simply to stop the shooting, but to get Hezbollah away from that border. Then it will be reasonable to ask Israel to stop, and I believe they want to.

So it is not simply release the soldiers today so four more can be captured and more people killed tomorrow. Let the international community show its real concern for the Government of Lebanon by providing them with the assistance they need to move Hezbollah away.

Let Hamas honor the fact that Israel withdrew at great political internal cost from Gaza and not use that as a lunching pad for their efforts to destroy Israel.

So I must say, I think it is justified in terms of the response, in terms of the way it is conducted. Yeah, it is messy and bloody, and innocent people die, and that is why you try to avoid those situations, and why Syria and Iran should be pressured to get Hezbollah to move back so we can put an end to it.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen, I am struck anew by the ability of preprogrammed rhetoric to resist the facts. We have heard talk about activist judges, Federal judges. No Federal judge has been involved here. There is not a pending decision that is now in force by a single Federal judge. That doesn't stop people from invoking it, because facts are irrelevant to this kind of rhetoric.

In fact, this amendment is being described in ways that are not accurate. It is not an amendment to prevent judges, activist judges, pacifist judges, any kind of judges, from deciding. It is an amendment to prevent anybody from deciding.

In the State of Massachusetts, we have had same-sex marriage for over 2 years. None of the negative consequences that people have predicted came true.

In consequence, I believe the political community of Massachusetts is prepared to say, if two men love each other and are prepared to be committed to each other legally as well as emotionally, that is rather a good thing and we will say it's okay.

If the voters of Massachusetts, in a referendum in 2008, which we might have, were to ratify same-sex marriage, this amendment would cancel it out. It has nothing to do with activist judges. It has to do with a decision that says no State by any political process can make that decision. The legislature of California, not judges in California, voted to allow two women who love each other to be legally responsible for each other.

That, if it were to be ratified by a Governor after the next election, would be cancelled out. So this is not an amendment about activist judges. This is an amendment that says no State by whatever process, including a referendum, can make this decision.

Why? I also feel strengthened in my advocacy of a cause when people won't tell me their real arguments against it. I think this is motivated, frankly, by a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian on the part of those who are the main motivators.

You know, we are told don't take things personally, but I take this personally. I take it personally when people decide to take political batting practice with my life, when people decide that they would demonize, not just me, I am old, I am over it, but young people who are just starting out, who find themselves, for reasons they can't explain, attracted to someone of the same sex, and they are demonized in this House of Representatives as if they are a threat to marriage.

That is the biggest nonsensical statement of all. Yes, marriage between a man and woman who are in love is a good thing. How does allowing two men who love each other to become legally committed endanger these marriages of 37 or 38 years? Let me tell you the logical structure, or the illogical structure, of the argument on the other side.

People will remember the commercial for V8 juice years ago in which a cartoon character who was feeling poorly drank various juices to see if he or she could be energized. None of them worked. Tomato juice didn't work. Apple juice didn't work. Pineapple juice didn't work, and then someone gives him a V8. The cartoon character gets pumped up, literally, and steam comes out of his ears. He is literally now raring to go, because he had a V8.

He says to himself, wow, I could have had a V8. Note for the record, I just smacked myself in the forehead to represent what happened in the commercial. Now, that is apparently the logical structure of same-sex marriages. Apparently there were these 37-, 38-, 42-year-long marriages all over the place.

There are happily married men all over America, and they are content with their wives. They are heterosexual, and they feel this physical and emotional attraction to each other. Then they read in the paper that in the State of Massachusetts it is now possible for there to be a same-sex marriage.

How is a marriage endangered? Apparently, people happily married in Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Mississippi read that we have had same- sex marriage quite successfully in Massachusetts, and they look in the mirror and they say, wow, I could have married a guy.

So, apparently, same-sex marriage is the V8 juice of America. And apparently there are people who fear that knowing that two men who love each other, want to be committed to each other, somehow will dissolve the bonds of matrimony between two heterosexuals, it is, of course, nonsense. I will do my friends the credit of acknowledging that they don't believe it. There is a political motive here. Now, there are people who are genuinely concerned that there would be negative social consequences.

I understand that. I have heard that every time we deal with discrimination, when we dealt with the Americans with Disabilities Act, with gender, with race, with ethnicity, with age. I understand their fears. We have had same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for over 2 years.

Thousands of loving men and women have been able to come together and express their commitment to each other, and no one, not even the most dedicated opponent, has been able to point to a single negative consequence.

So I understand the people who are afraid. We have disproven the fears, and what is left is only dislike of many of us. It simply is not appropriate to score political points by demonizing or seeking to minimize the lives of your fellow citizens.

Will the gentleman yield?

This is a question, and I appreciate the civil spirit in which he discusses it. Would the gentleman explain to me does how the fact that two women in Massachusetts who are allowed to be legally committed to each other in any way endanger or threaten marriages between heterosexuals elsewhere?

But how does it hurt?

How does it hurt? How does the existence of a same-sex marriage in any way threaten a happy heterosexual marriage?

Mr. Speaker, first, let's be very clear: this is not an attempt to restrain judges.

There have been two sources of opposition to same-sex marriage. A large number of people who bear those of us who are gay and lesbian no ill will have been opposed to it because they have heard that it would lead to social disruption. That is a common theme when we deal with issues involving particular groups in our society against whom there has been discrimination.

I invite people to go back and read the debates over the Americans with Disabilities Act to read what people like Pat Robertson said in opposition to it. I remember this debate 30 years ago in Massachusetts when we were talking about the Equal Rights Amendment. And so, yes, I understand that there are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage who do not in any way feel themselves prejudiced against gay men and lesbians, but who worry about the social consequences.

I think here we can point to the facts. We had full civil unions in Vermont in 2000. We have had same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for over 2 years. In no case is there the slightest evidence of social disruption. Let me say, though, that is one wing of the opposition.

There is another wing in the opposition, the people who are motivated by this, who really, frankly, dislike the fact that we exist; and disliking the fact that we exist individually, they are particularly distraught at the notion that we will associate with each other in various ways.

I want to address now the people who are worried about the social consequences, because I invite people to look at the evidence. There were no negatives.

But now let me go back to the point about the judges, because that is relevant to Massachusetts, and the points are linked. Because in Massachusetts what we have seen is that thousands of people have had their lives enriched by being able to love each other in a legally connected way, and it has been a good thing for them, and it has had zero negative consequences. I believe the political community in Massachusetts, through the elected legislature, maybe through a referendum, although I hope it doesn't come to that, will support this.

Be very clear: this amendment says that even if the people of Massachusetts, after 4 years of same-sex marriage being in existence, vote to ratify it by a majority, their vote does not count. This amendment cancels out a referendum.

In California, where the legislature voted for it, if a Governor should be elected in November who would sign that bill, this amendment says, no, legislature; no, Governor. We the Federal Government will decide. So it is not about restraining activist judges. It is about overruling any decision.

So then the question is, Why do it? Usually our view would be that if people are going to benefit from something, enjoy it, we would let that happen, in the absence of harm.

Now, clearly there is value to same-sex marriage. There are men and women, millions of us, who, for reasons we don't understand, nobody really does, in my judgment, feel an attraction to people of the same sex. What many of them have said is, you know what, we would like to have our love put into a legally connected context.

We want to be legally bound to each other, as we are emotionally and morally.

Who is that hurting? Well, we are told that it hurts marriage. And here is where the illogic comes in. People get up and say we have to be against letting two women marry because it is very important that men and women marry.

There is no connection. Nothing here threatens heterosexual marriage. It is just the most illogical argument I have ever heard. If two men are attracted to each other and want to live together legally, how does that endanger heterosexual marriage?

So the argument that we must ban same-sex marriage to protect heterosexual marriage literally makes no sense whatsoever. No one has shown me what the connection is. As a matter of fact, of course, people will have an example of people of the same sex living together, and if that somehow destabilizes heterosexual marriage, then it is going to happen.

If the gentleman wants me to yield, I would be glad to yield.

I would say to the gentleman this: no, I think we give preferential status to people who are married over people who aren't. What I don't see, what no one has argued, is how does allowing two men have that status interfere with the status. I assume you give a preferential status because you want to give people an incentive to marry. Okay, let's do that. Let's give people an incentive to marry.

But if you are a heterosexual strongly attracted to someone of the opposite sex and really not at all attracted to the idea of someone of your same sex, how does the existence of that undermine this?

Yes, I think we should give a preference to heterosexual marriage. We should incentivize it. How does the existence of same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage? Would anyone want to answer that for me?