Constitution protects Marriage Equality. An estimated two million children are being raised by lgbtq families today. An enormous body of Research Shows that stable and loving families are the foundation for childrens wellbeing and success and children do best when their families have the critical Legal Protections to care for one another. Thankfully, Marriage Equality remains constitutionally protected. And there is no indication that it will be overturned in the foreseeable future. It is and should forever be considered settled law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Courts recent decision in dobbs vs. Jacksons women health, which extinguished the constitutional right to an abortion, has raised concerns among some people that other rights in the constitutional right to privacy may be at risk, notwithstanding the courts assurance that dobbs was limited to abortion. This includes the right to Marriage Equality. In fact, in a concurring opinion in dobbs, Justice Clarence thomas explicitly called on the court to reconsider its decisions protecting other fundamental rights, including the right to samesex marriage. And although Justice Thomas did not mention the right to interracial marriage, that right relies on the same constitutional doctrines as the right to samesex marriage and, therefore, it could be vulnerable to legal challenge in the future as well. Even if we accept the courts assurance in dobbs, that its decision does not call other rights into question, congress should provide additional reassurance that Marriage Equality is a matter of settled law. All married people building their lives together must know that the government must respect and recognize their marriages for alltime. The respect for marriage act, which i introduced with the cochairs of the lgbtq Equality Caucus, the chairs of the congressional tricaucus and the House Democratic caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries is an updated bill i first introduced in 2009. The first provision would repeal the defense of marriage act, doma. The 1996 law that discriminates against married of samesex couples. It remains on the books and must be removed. The bill would also enshrine Marriage Equality and ensure that states give legal effect for out of state marriage regardless of state,ries, ethnicity of individuals in the marriage. This provide additional stability for the lives that families have built upon the foundation of fundamental rights. Congress must pass this to dispel any concern or uncertainty. And must pass the respect for marriage act to enshrine the equality and liberty that our constitution guarantees. I reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan i yield myself such time as i may consume. We thought the democrats were obsessed with President Trump, but Justice Thomas is a close second. This bill is the latest installment of the Democrats Campaign to attempt too intimidate the United States intime court. And started when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh and attempted to derail his nomination and saw schumer stand on the steps, a leader in the legislative branch and threaten Supreme Court justices, he said, quote, i want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell ucav no, you released a world wind and you will pay the price and wont know what hit you. Last month, a crazed individual attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in his home. An attempted assassination attempt on a sitting justice. For months the democrats have pursued this narrative that the Supreme Court is somehow illegitimate. Members of the committee have introduced a bill to pack the court to add four associate justices to our hiest court. The committee has held hearings that can be interpreted to lay the groundwork for an attempt to impeach Justice Thomas. Today they bring forward a bill that is completely unnecessary. Why are the democrats going down this path . Because they have nothing else. We are debating this bill today because it is an Election Year and inflation is at a level not seen in 40 years. Highest inflation rate. Price of gas, price of food and daily necessities have skyrocketed. We are debating this bill because illegal immigration is at unprecedented levels. We have already surpassed the prior years total for environs counters at southern border and we still have three months left. We are debating this bill because they cant talk about the fact that our country is gripped by Violent Crime every day. Americans are being assaulted, robbed and murdered in our cities. The democrats have no answers and hope that a manufactured crisis will help them in november. The democrats want the Supreme Court can step in. That is not true. The very decision that democrats say creates this threat explicitly denies it. Heres what the court said in the Dobbs Decision, should not be misunderstood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. The court condemned that Dobbs Decision stated, perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear in our decision that our decision will imperil other rights, closed quote. It is this unfounded fear. We are here for political messaging. Democrats cant run on their record or any accomplishments less than four months before an election and stoke unfounded fears. I hope we can defeat it and i hope it doesnt pass and it is expwrun necessary and wrong and mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemanreserves the balance of his time. T the gentleman from new york ties recognized. Mr. Nadler i now yield two minutes to the chair of the Equality Caucus, distinguished the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline. Mr. Cicilline mr. Speaker, todays vote is about love, love that couples have for each other and the governments role in respecting that love regardless of sex or ace. Same sex couples get married for the same reasons others, to make a lifelong commitment to the perp they love. Our government has rejected that love and that their marriage wasnt valid. The Supreme Court made clear that this rejection of interracial and same sex couples and commitment to one another was unconstitutional. We have the opportunity to uphold that and protect the right to make this commitment. We have the opportunity to send a clear message that the federal government will continue to recognize same sex and interracial marriages. And to mr. Jordans suggestion that this is not necessary, tell that to the millions of lgbtq families that are worried about Supreme Courts intention to rip away. They have taken away the rebrowedtive care. This is real for families and talk about inflation, all families are dealing with cost of food and fuel and there is another fear about the sanctity of your marriage. This is about femme fairness ensuring that people can marry the person they love. If it is not necessary, then vote for it. Reaffirm it. But dont hide behind that to justify your refusal to vote for Marriage Equality that every single american has the right to marry the person they love. Eye yield back. Mr. Jordan we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, ms. Jackson lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Jackson lee i thank the response senior of this legislation and leadership of our chairman and as well, the millions of families that are families. My good friend from ohio started out with the litany of violence of which none of us, none of us stands for. Believe in the freedom of speech, the right to petition. But there are countless acts of violence against those who are seeking reproductive freedom and countless acts of violence against the lgbtq. Listen to the violence against transgender parents or the violence that started in the early days of this community seeking freedom and rights. I know it well from the lgbtq and the caucus and the leaders who started out. I know that they suffered from just a simple position that they were different. So i rise in support of the constitution of the United States of america because that is what the respect for marriage act exemplifies, it exemplifies a recognition of the constitution and as the legislation says, the full credit and faith to on Marriage Equality. I believe that our friends have gotten it wrong. There is a constitutional right to privacy and moraley there is a right to love who you love and establish a family as you desire. It is horrific to believe that with the elimination of the precedent of 50 years of roe v. Wade, one justice said wait, there may be more, there may be an ending to Marriage Equality. There may be an ending to any number of con constitutional rights. I support h. R. 8404 respect for marriage act cod tying the constitutional right to privacy and the constitutional right to marriage. I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan the gentlelady used the word violence, violence, 50, 50 Crisis Pregnancy Centers and churches have been attacked in the last 11 weeks. 50 in 11 weeks. You think about that, as i said in my opening statement, the leader of the senate stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and said to two specific justices, you have unleashed a whirl wind and will pay the price. The speaker of this body waited four weeks to give protection to Supreme Court just ises families after she posted where their kids go to school and church. After that bill came out of the senate unanimously, we had the assassination attempt on one of the very justices that the Senate Democrat leader had referenced on his comments on the steps of the Supreme Court and the attorney general of the United States refuses to prosecute anyone who has protested indirect violation of a statute while the case was still pending in front of the court, directly on point. So violence, yeah, we have concerns. We all have concerns about violence but i want everyone to understand what is going on as we speak, 50 Pregnancy Centers and churches in 11 weeks. I dont know if we have seen anything like that that attack on the prolife community and even a witness who came in front of our committee, came back a second time had to bring security with her threats against her life. I yield to my good friend and the Ranking Member on the constitution subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, my friend, mr. Johnson, as much time as he may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Johnson i thank my good friend, champion for freedom from ohio, mr. Jordan. There you is a lot to talk about today but i have to comment on what he led in with and this violence we decry. It is a double standard, because these care Pregnancy Centers are a vital institution. They are in all 50 states and they are doing vital work every single day and help millions of american women every year and employ and work with over 10,000 medical professionals and you know what their goal is . It is to help women who are in difficult pregnancy situations, to help the women, to help them care for their unborn children. Who in the world could be opposed toe that . Senator warren came out and sleeked they need to be put out of business and need to get rid of these centers. It is incredible and the debate on the floor, i went down of all those 50 occurrencees, and there are more where violence has been perpetrated against these centers, these people who are do doing extraordinary worng. I could not list all of them and the vandalism and the destruction and the molotov cocktails and spray painted on the facilities and these individuals who care about sanctity of human life in america and yet there is complete silence on the other side. That is a sad statement about where we are. I used to be legal couple for a number of those care Pregnancy Centers. Let me get to the issue of the day, this bill is another exercise which is completely clearly unnecessary. And the sponsors know that that we are in a divisive time in our country and doing this any way. This bill is more of the same. Yet another effort to delegitimatize the Supreme Court and been doing it in earnest. Not only did senator schumer call down the whirl wind on justices gorsuch and kavanaugh and led to a planned assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, all the lawless protests on their lawns, threatening their families. It is unconscionable and yet crickets from the other side. Its a lawless approach to the lawlessness of the radical left. This is another effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Its also a continued disregard, utter and total disregard for the regular order in this bill. And ill explain in just a moment why thats so perilous with a bill like this. Its also more desperation to focus on anything other than their policy failures, which mr. Jordan articulated just a few moments ago. Nonetheless, there is a bill before us today and its simple fear mongering. There is a partisan bill to make partisan arguments and to run ads in election cycle. You know why we say that . Because its very clear, as mr. Jordan said, in the dobbs opinion which supposedly precipitated all this, its clear if you read the opinion this is not only an unnecessary piece of legislation its divisive and misleading and they know it. Anybody can read the opinion for themselves. Justice alito wrote the majority opinion, of course, and he clarified. Im a constitutional law attorney. I used to litigate cases about the constitution and what it means and how it should be applied. I did that for 20 years before i got to congress. Scarcely, is this ever language written in a Supreme Court opinion. Let me give you the quote in case you missed it. Justice alito said in the majority opinion, quote, and to ensure our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. He continues, nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion, unquote. Did everybody hear that . Ill say that again. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. You know why . Because abortion is a unique area of the law. Its about taking the life of another unborn person, a person. So the court recognized thats different and distinct and Everybody Knows that. Everybody recognizes that. Even, even Justice Clarence thomas who they have worked so hard to demonize. If you look at page 119 of the opinion in fact, would you turn in your him nationals hymnals to page 119, abortion is unique. No party has asked us whether to decide whether the 14th amendment juriprudence should be questioned. Nothing in the courts opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. You now what you know what, language is so clear. Anybody in this country can understand plainly what that means. Every civic student, every child. Apparently our friends on the other side dont like that language or they dont want to see it so they manufactured this crisis, this crisis, this demeaning, divisive debate trying to reopen a pandoras box that no one has opened except the democrats. This is Crystal Clear. We ought to take a moment to remember, too, what did not happen after the ruling after what happened after the dobbs ruling. Did anybody harass Justice Kennedy in his home after that was handed down . No. Did conservatives and those who adhere to judeochristians of the country, evangelicals, did they call to abolish the filibuster and add justices to the court . No. Because we respect the institutions of this nation. But that is exactly what were seeing from the left. A death threat on a justice, endless protests outside the homes of the justices. Threats on their children, threats to pack the court. Listen, we live in an extraordinarily divided time and reopening this policy with is under no threat of any judicial body anywhere seems the democrats is trying to stoke fear before the november elections rather than bringing the country together. Man, we could use an effort to bring the country together right now. To that end, since the democrats refuse to discuss what americans are most concerned with, ill just take one moment since we have the moment here to walk through the failures of the democrats time. I can tell you what my people are concerned about. Soaring prices at the grocery stores, gas pumps. They are worried about illegal immigration at the border, utter lawlessness that threatens the safety, security of our nation. Theyre deeply concerned about rising crime in our cities. Theyre concerned about the stu stunning inxe tension incompetence from the biden administration. This is what im hearing back home Holding Town Halls and talking to constituents. You know what, those constituents sent us here, the voters, the people sent us here to be their representatives, to work on their behalf, to work on behalf of them and their ability to provide for their families without little government overreach in their lives. From economic failures at home to failures on the border, the democrats have time and time again refused to work with republicans on how to address the issues at hand. You know what, today is another example. Its more of the same. Here we go. From one vote on an unnecessary bill thats only being used as a distraction from the failures that i referenced to a vote on a spending bill that will only make those failures worse. You know, i mentioned part of the problem here, too, is the democrats are rushing this bill to the floor outside regular order. I mean, they just completely defied regular order. They released the text for this bill only hours before its consideration in the rules committee. Its consideration in the rules Committee Last night. Democrats have held no legislative hearing, no markups on this bill. We serve on the Judiciary Committee. This would have been in our jurisdiction. Didnt bother to bring it to the committee. I remember from civics class, this is how a bill becomes a law. You go through the process. You go to the committee. We shouldnt even teach that to kids anymore because it doesnt happen anymore. You know what, that recklessness and that carelessness and that defiance of the rules and order and tradition here has real consequences. Because one of the consequences in the language of this bill just one by way of example is on page 3 of this private right of action clause. I mean, it raised a lot of eyebrows. We didnt have time to analyze that and debate it and thoughtfully talk about that approach. Would that declare open season on religious persons and institutions . I dont know. Its a question a lot of people are asking today scratching their heads. Again, we had no opportunity to delve into that, to talk about it, debate it. Nothing. And so they present this bill and they drop it on the country and, again, i just would reiterate in summary, people ask us back home, you know, whats the theres lots of problems with things going on there, but this particular bill, whats the problem . I summarized it by saying its unnecessary. Its divisive and its misleading. And whats worse is that the proponents of the legislation know that. I would yield back the balance of my time to mr. Jordan. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, much of what the prior two speakers said was absolute nonsense. Some was true. Unfortunately, Pregnancy Crisis Centers have been the targets of terrorism and that is deplorable. But so have abortion clinics. They didnt mention that. Abortion clinics have also been the target of terrorists. The murder of a doctor comes to mind and thats equally deplorable and we should stop both of them if we can. The rest of what they said was nonsense. The Supreme Court, the logic, the substantive due process logic by which the court overthrew roe v. Wade applies equally to obergefell, to loving, the right to interracial marriage. Justice thomas mentioned that specifically. Yes, he said this case doesnt involve that. We are not deciding that, yet, which is the portion of his concurrence that mr. Johnson read. Read the rest of his concurrence. He said, specifically, that we should overrule or reconsider obergefell and lawrence, which was consensual which is gay marriage, which is consensual sodomy. He didnt mention loving, for some reason, interracial marriage, maybe hes intermarried and so is senator mcconnell. The same logic applies there. I dont want to that is nonsense. And note there is no they offered no argument against this bill at all. We didnt hear anything about the merits of the bill. And with that i yield one minute to the distinguished justice from tennessee, a member of the Judiciary Committee, mr. Cohen. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cohen thank you, mr. Chair. Im in support of this bill and i think everybody should be supportive of it. It says each state shall recognize the other states marriages and not deny the person to marry based on race, gender, Sexual Orientation and urges the federal government to do the same thing. As far as what the Supreme Court said and we should listen to this and listen to that, the senate listened to gorsuch and kavanaugh when they said, roe v. Wade is precedent. You want to listen to them, alito when he was confirmed said roe v. Wade is important precedent. You want to listen to him . Listen to thomas who told you we need to look at these cases and we need to reconsider them and thats gay marriage. He didnt mention interracial which is on the same theory. Of course, hes involved with Justice Jenny but for that loving decision and he mentioned the other case, lawrence. Should so we should be concerned that the only reason to being against it is you wouldnt be i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan thank you, mr. Speaker. Id yield five minutes to the gentleman and my friend from texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, mr. Roy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Roy thank the speaker. I thank the gentleman from ohio. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they paint with a broad brush stroke, the language offered by Justice Clarence thomas, a justice i consider to be a friend and a great defender of the constitution, and a great member of the United StatesSupreme Court, despite being pillaried by the left and laid out as something other than the great patriot that he is. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote, after overruling these demonth strablly erroneous decisions the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guaranteed the myriad of rights that are substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we can consider any of the rights announced in this courts substantive due process cases are, quote, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, end quote, protected by the 14th amendment. Now, we can have a robust debate in the Judiciary Committee about this whole issue. We didnt do that. This bill was dropped on the body yesterday afternoon an hour and a half before rules. I went and testified before rules. But we had no benefit of the debate in Judiciary Committee about the implications of this nor did we have the ability to debate the reality that the words that this codifies obergeflell or obergefell or loving. Its a full faith and credit issue. The rhetoric from the left is it codifies those two opinions. It does not do that because those opinions recognized rights under various legal theories. One of which is substantive due process which Justice Thomas is pointing out he has concerns with. Because Justice Thomas has concerns with how we make law, how we recognize law. He has concerns about that. The how. It matters. It matters. And thats what Justice Thomas laid out. He never said anything about his conclusion on those specific questions. But rather the how. As my colleague from ohio, my colleague from louisiana, both adequately laid out, the majority opinion lays out very specifically their view about the implication of the dobbs opinion on these other recognized rights, under the previous precedents of the court. But i think it merits noting that were talking about the substance of the issue that it does matter when the court steps in and makes law. Because we end up where we are right here. We end up in this situation where difficult decisions, for example, when does life begin . When does it begin . And when do we have a duty to protect that life . We can have a very robust debate in this body if we actually debate it on the floor of the peoples house but we dont. When does life begin . Its a implicated complicated question. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle really dont want to have that discussion, right . Does life begin at its up to the mothert its not up to the mother a week after birth, we as a society protect that life, right . Do you protect that life a week before birth . These are difficult, complex questions involving faith, involving values, involving life. No. No. We cant have a debate about that here because the court plucked that out from the people and the courts manufactured an opinion to define when life begins and how we should deal with it. Now with are talking about other issues, talking about marriage. We have had opinions that deal with marriage. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to put forward a bill that is political in nature. They dont want to talk about inflation or wide open borders or rampant riel or the state of this country in decline heading into a recession where people are hurting across the country. They dont want to talk about that. So they bring forward a political bill. And want to take different issues and policy choices, marriage, marriage based on race, marriage based on sex that this body didnt define, that state legislatures did define in varying describable terms and the court in 2015 mr. Jordan i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. Mr. Roy the court steps in in 2015 and thousand we are seven years in to recognition of same sex marriage. We could have a debate about the policy of that decision, but the court steps in and says there you go. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to purposely for political reasons con flat different issues. And i think its important that my colleagues on this side of the aisle understand what we are doing here today, that we are going to vote on the recognition of marriage as a body, as representatives of the people, ok . Separate from whatever decision a court may make, we are going to make a decision the here about the recognition of marriages across state lines where there are differences of opinion still to this day about how one defines marriage. In the name of full faith and credit, you will go to the people of tech as by our elected representatives, to my republicans on this side of the aisle, republicans will be voting on this floor today on the question of whether the federal government should tell texas what marriages they have to recognize, irrespective of what the court has said. That is a vote, that is a choice, that is a decision and we should not hide behind the use of equal protection clause with respect to marriage not being impacted because of race, to then say that marriage must be recognized for samesex purposes by a vote by the body, by the people, its a choice and we should understand that today since we never had the luxury or the benefit or the responsibility of debating this in the Judiciary Committee where we should have debated it. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler much of what the gentleman from texas just said is iter but he made one correct point, he said the bill before us codifies the law and if it is not overruled by the Supreme Court, it is not. If it is overruled by the Supreme Court thomas said it might be, then passing this bill is vital. If you get married in texas and go to nevada, you dont get unmarried. Cant be married in one state and not married in another state. I yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas. Ms. Garcia thank you to the chairman and mr. Speaker, i want to say i think we do understand what we are doing here today and what we are doing is supporting peoples right to love and equal protection under the law, plain and simple. Extreme magga republicans weaponnize our government institutions turning them against the people they are called to protect. Respect for marriage act will make the law of the land. During pride month, the extreme texas g. O. P. Openly declared at their convention their home phobia and bigotry. And labeling samesex couples as having an abnormal lifestyle. We will not allow this rightwing obsession to impose on peoples private lives. To my colleagues and texas g. O. P. Marrying the person you love abnormal. It is none of your business. Abnormal is your obsession of what other people do in their private lives and in their homes. Love is love. Amore is amore. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan the chairman of the full committee is right this legislation would in fact codify the law, but what it would also do is reverse the law in 35 states where those states have said marriage should be what a traditional marriage. In 30 of 35 states, the people of those respective states went to the ballot and voted for that. So lets be clear. Codify what the court said in that decision, but it would undo what the people in the respective states, 35 states either in five of those states through their elected representatives through the legislature or 35 states where the people voted, it would undo that. I reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler the Supreme Court in that decision reversed the as of the decision of those people in those 35 states. I yield one minute to ms. Escobar. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Escobar the republicancontrolled Supreme Court havent just stripped women by overturning roe v. Weighed but Justice Thomas had attacks on private intimacy between adults. We voted to codify roe v. Weighed and this week the democratic majority is defending your right to marry who you love. I rise in support of the act. They are creating a group of secondclass citizens with limited rights. When they want to send these issues back to the state that is code that state legislative bodies can eradicate civil rights protection. Republicans are coming for you. Democrats, however, are with you. To the american public, take note of our votes and who is with you and who is not. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the speaker of the house, ms. Pelosi. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. The speaker thank you, im honored to see you presiding on this very important legislation and i thank the gentleman for yielding and for the leadership of bringing this important legislation to the floor. Mr. Nadler has been the lead on this for decades. Thank you, mr. Nadler. I rise in strong support for the respect for marriage act, bipartisan and bicameral legislation to enshrine into law a fundamental femme, the right to marry whom ever you choose. As radical politicians continue their assault on democratic rights, they believe government has no place between you and the person you love. The Judiciary Committee chairman for persistent leadership on this issue. It was is 13 years ago, chairman and senator baldwin and feinstein introduced a bill to repeal the defense of marriage act. Defense of marriage proposed by someone who was married three times and dont know what marriage she was defending. I dont care how many times, but i care how they try impose hypocrisy on others. Thank you to the lgbtq Equality Caucus chair David Cicilline and all the members of the caucus for being tireless voices in the fight for full equality. Mr. Chairman, we are here because threeweeks ago the republican controlled Supreme Court overturned roe v. Weighed ripping away a womans freedom. These radical justices took a wrecking ball to precedent of the court and privacy in the constitution and placed our cherished freedoms on the chopping block. Dont take it from me as associate Justice Thomas declared in his concurrence, this is what he said, these are his words, in future cases, we should reconsider all of these courts substantive due process precedent, griswold, lawrence and others because any substantive due process decision is erroneous. We have a duty to on correct the error established by those precedents in total defiance of the precedents of the Supreme Court, in total defiance of what some of the candidates for justice on the Supreme Court testified that they supported, precedent and they vote against it and now want to go after other rights of privacy. Make no mistake while his legal reasoning is twisted and unfound, it is ruble that we take Justice Thomas and the Extremist Movement behind him at their and the decision was clearly wrong, plainly suggesting rightwing interests in taking aim at Marriage Equality. We must act now to defend samesex and interracial marriage from the bigot dry and extremism. In the wake of the Dobbs Decision with marriage rights in republican crossfires democrats are fighting back. With landmark respect for marriage act we ensure Marriage Equality remains the law of the land now and for generations to come. Importantly, this legislation will repeal the unconstitutional and discriminatory defense of marriage act. The republicans knew that the defense of marriage act was unconstitutional. You know how i know that . Because shortly thereafter they introduced a bill to make sure that the defense of marriage act was not subjected to judicial review. Some of them proclaimed that marbury versus madison which is principle of judicial review was wrongly decided and wanted to rig the process of judicial review from the defense of marriage act, recognizing, admitting that they knew it could not withstand judicial review. Ok, so while it was the dense of marriage to the dust bin of history in United States versus windsor, our bill finally takes it off the books for good. That way no future administration or majority in congress can wield this appalling policy as a weapon against an lgbtq loved one. This legislation guarantees that no married couple can be denied equal protection under federal law. This is really very important from tax provisions, Social Security benefits and more, even if the court were to erase marriage freedom. Timely, this legislation blocks states from denying recognition to valid out of state marriages even if a state were to enact heinous restrictions. Bypassing the respect for marriage act today, House Democrats in a bipartisan, bicameral and i. Mr. Sablan lute you, take another step to defend freedom for the american people. Last week our proud prochoice majority passed two major bills to restore and protect health freedom. And it will ensure that the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed health care remains in the hands of the american people, not in those of extreme rightwing politicians which is future House Republicans desire. Later this week the house will pass the right to contraception act. So that every couple may determine the size and timing of their families as protcted by grizz woald vs. Griswold vs. Connecticut. People, couples, contraception. Can you believe they are going after contraception . Believe it because they have been going after contraception for decades in the congress. And now the chief associate justice has given us clear warning that this is in their sights. The contrast could not be clearer. While democrats work to protect and expand fleem our country, republicans seek to punish and control our most intimate personal decisions. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous and unconscionable that today a radical Republican Party seeks to wind back the clock on decades of hard fought progress. As we pass this landmark legislation today, we salute the generations of activists and advocates, organizers and mobile hizers mobilizers who fought the defense of the american ideal of full equality for all. I say often that our inside maneuvering can just go so far. The outside mobilization produces the best possible results. Personally, its with some emotion and i think about my close friends, the iconic phil lion and dell martin of San Francisco. They were an inspiration to so many of us in San Francisco and california and indeed the country teaching us that equality is not about tolerance. Its about respect. Its about taking pride. This bill makes Crystal Clear that every couple and their children imagine you if you are the children of Marriage Equality or interracial couple, and you see the congress of the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States making an assault on your parents marriage, how damaging that can be. This bill makes chris cal clear that makes Crystal Clear that every couple and their children has the fundamental freedom to take pride in their marriage and have their marriage respected under the law. With that i urge a strong hopefully strongly bipartisan vote for the respect of marriage act. I thank the chairman for his work and yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan mr. Speaker, the speaker of the house just said republican, quote, republicans knew defense of marriage act was unconstitutional when they passed it. Did the 118 democrats who voted for that legislation know the same thing . Did the president of the United States, president clinton, when he signed it into law did he know it was unconstitutional . I mean i have heard some ridiculous things said on the house floor in my home here in the United States congress, that one, that one was right up there. I yield two minutes to my good friend from i thank the gentleman from ohio. We have been treated to a master class of misinformation. The speaker also just said can you believe they are going after contraception . Give me a break. She knows thats not true. There is not a single republican even talking about that or any of these other categories of the law. This is designed to divide the country. This bill is a shameful effort of that. Mr. Nadler, when we were talking about our concerns about the care Pregnancy Centers being under assault, to make his case that prolifers are violent he referenced the terrible murder of an Abortion Provider in 1998. That was a quarter century ago. We are talking about the last 11 weeks. We have had 50 care Pregnancy Centers vandalized, attacked, molotov cocktails spray painted, threats being made to Supreme Court justices. There is no equivocation here at all. Mr. Cohen implied that the conservative justices misled the senate in their confirmation hearings. We got the receipts on that. Its demonstrably untrue. Justice alito, who wrote the majority opinion in dobbs said during his 2006 confirmation hearing that roe was, quote, an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So its been on the books for a long time. He declined to call the ruling settled law. Justice thomas in 1991, he declined to comment on his views on roe at all. He said, quote, do i not think at this time i could maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that specific case. Justice gorsuch, 2017 confirmation hearings, he said roe was vote, a precedent of the Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in casey in 1992 and several other cases a good judge will consider it as precedent of the court worthy as treatment of a precedent like any other. However, he refused to signal how he would rule in future cases on abortion. Justice kavanaugh, 2018 confirmation hearings, ecod gorsuch by saying roe was an Important Press department. He indicated during his confirmation he would be open to overturning settled law, including roe, citing a long list. Justice barrett, just reserved. She was much more reserved on the roe precedent. Another minute. In her confirmation hearings in 2020 she said this, she said she was committed to obeying quote all the rules of starry desighsy, promising if a question comes up before me about whether casey or any other case should be overruled will i follow the law applying it as the court is articulating it. Applying all the factors reliance, workable, undermined by the later facts in law just as all the standards. I promise to do that for any other issue that comes up. She said that she had to remain neutral on it as an unpyre. The record is umpire. The record is clear. Anybody can google this. What they are presenting on the floor is not treuvment it is demonstrably untrue and doing it for partisan purposes. Every time they talk they reaffirm our position on that. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, a member of the Judiciary Committee, mr. Jones. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Jones thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today because the far right 63 majority on the Supreme Court is on a rampage against basic freedoms currently enjoyed by the american people. And is comparing opinion in dobbs Justice Clarence thomas gave us a heads up that the court is next coming for the ability of same sex couples to get married. I am one of only nine openly gay members of this body. For me, this is personal. I still remember where i was on june 24, 2011, the day the new York State Legislature passed Marriage Equality. I was living with my friends in new york city, but i was still closeted. I was so afraid, still, that someone might find out the truth about my being gay. Someone said i closed the door to my room and cried tears of joy by my lonesome. Finally my home state of new york had recognized me as a full human being. Affirmed all of those scary yet beautiful feelings that i had bottled up inside for decades. Wondering, hoping one day that the world would change. Four years later the Supreme Courts decision in owe beggar fell obergefell sent this message to millions. I remember being struck then by the words of Justice Kennedy who authored the opinion. Quote, it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is they do respect it. Respect it so deeply they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope not to be condemned to live in loneliness excluded from one of civilizations oldest institutions. They ask only for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. Since obergefell nearly 300,000 samesex couples have been married. Imagine telling the next generation, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry who we love. Congress cant allow that to happen. Im proud to introduce along with my colleagues including representative nadler the respect for marriage act which would codify the right to Marriage Equality under federal law. We have to do more than that. We have to expand the Supreme Court of the United States to protect fundamental rights once and for all. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. The gentlewoman from new, mr. Maloney. Mr. Maloney mr. Speaker, the republicans want to talk about anything but Marriage Equality today. Its almost like they dont have any good arguments to make on Marriage Equality. Mr. Speaker, my husband randy and i have been together for 30 years. We have raised three remarkable kids from diapers to college dimas diplomas. During all those years, all that time together we have only been legally married since 2014. We had a 22year engagement before an eightyear marriage. When i was elected as a member of congress in 2012, my husband, randy, couldnt have Health Insurance through this body. His spouse i. D. Said companion on it. And we had to fight to get him on the security pins we all wear. But through hard work and historic coalition, through great allies and partnerships, love, won. On the day the Supreme Court decided we had equality rights for marriage in this contry, a bunch of us stood in front of the court and sang the national anthem. Because its a beautiful thing when your country catches up to you. And today we are going to vote for the respect for marriage act to decide and to make clear whether or not we will go back. Whether or not every american despite their race or their sexuality has the freedom to marry the person they love. Its a simple choice. I know where i stand. And every member of congress will get to stand and be counted today and you can choose betweee between you can choose between equality or discrimination. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan reserve, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. Chu. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Chu mr. Speaker, i rise today in strong support of the respect for marriage act. To enshrine the right to marry the person you love under federal law by repealing the discriminatory defense of marriage act. In the wake of the Supreme Courts overturning of roe vs. Wade, the doors have been swung wide open for unelected judges to further strip protections from the american people. This crucial bill reaffirms our commitment to a promise of equality for all, erasing further discrimination still on the books against samesex marriage. And protecting the constitutional right to Marriage Equality, including interracial marriage. We will not allow the clock to be rolled back even further. Mr. Speaker, its imperative we pass the respect for marriage act. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan mr. Speaker, we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized mr. Nadler i now yield one minute to is recognized. Mr. Nadler i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin , mr. Pocan. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Pocan this is a simple bill. Whether or not you support current law on marriage in this country which includes for the lgbt and interracial couples across the nation. My friend from ohio said this bill is unnecessary. This bill is very necessary. Because the extremist packed Supreme Court recently took away a half century of law on roe n that decision Justice Clarence thomas said they should revisit on Marriage Equality. We have people in this house and senate, like senator ted cruz who said the same thing. Heres what i want, i want to make sure my husband, phil, can visit me in the hospital should i have to go back again like when i had a triple bypass a few years ago. I want to make sure my husband has my earned benefits for retirement and Social Security. I want to make sure that my husband is taking taken care of just like your spouses are taken care of. If i was the entity on the other side of the aisle i would be more concerned when my own members accused of having cocaine fueled orgies than worrying about the morality of my marriage. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan mr. Speaker, we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. Allred. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Allred we hold these truths to be selfevident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the fur suit of happiness pursuit of happiness. With these words our founders summed up the entire theory of what has become our constitutional republic. Since the Supreme Courts ruling overturning roe v. Wade, we have seen unalienable rights, like the right to choose how and form a family with, openly questioned by justices on the Supreme Court and rightwing politicians. Mr. Speaker, love is love. It took us far too long to recognize the right for samesection couples to marry. Since it was, millions of americans came to expect they could fall in love and marry the person of their choosing. Their marriages, their i family, right, to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is worth protecting. I will proudly vote for this. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Norcross. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Norcross before is a bill, the respect for marriage act. I woke up this morning got ready to come over to the capitol and i glance over to pictures of my family. And i glanced to a picture of my ninemonthold grandson. Couldnt be happier. I couldnt be prouder of the two people who brought him into the world, my daughter and her wife. When my daughter told me she wanted to get marry, i said whatever good parent told her, if this is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, i couldnt be happier. Shortly after that announcement when she told me she wanted to get married, her fee answer a had breadth cancer. Given all the complications with marriage and treatment, the decision to get married quickly was incredibly important. And as i stood at their wedding at a u. S. Court with a federal judge presiding over their union, i knew it was only made possible because of a recent Supreme Court decision. And today we consider that legislation, that same court has opened the door to dismantling families, like mine, splitting this guys family apart. We cant let that happen. We are talking about marriage, two committed people, to make sure they have a secure family and all we have to do is vote yes. Dont complicate the issue. It is that simple. I dont speak about religious beliefs of my colleagues, but what god would find fault in this . There is nothing wrong with this and pure love and what should all aspire to. I urge my colleagues to vote yes so we are equal in all states and i yield become. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from ohio. The gentleman from ohio reserves. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Langevin. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Langevin i rise in strong support of h. R. 8404 respect marriage act. I was deeply disturbed by Justice Thomas opinion in dobbs versus jackson which made Marriage Equality that he is intent on destroying. Marriage equality is at risk in america and we must pass legislation to enshrine the right to mary the same couples and interracial couples. When i was a state representative, i supported legislation to ban discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and discussed this bill with my late father who grew up during the civil rights movement. He firmly believed that all americans should be entitled to equal civil rights just like the jim crow laws that held discrimination, he said the mistreatment would mark a shameful chapter. When the Supreme Court legalized Marriage Equality, i fear that future is no longer guaranteed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so Marriage Equality remains the law of the land. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan we reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler im prepared to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan as i said in the outset and we think this legislation is unnecessary. Justice alito was clear, the Dobbs Decision should not be miss characterize doubt. The court the obergefell decision undid what 35 states have in their respective states. And this is going to go after that decision of the respective states and as i said the voters in those states and we have indicated this is an intimidate the court and senator schumers statement on the Supreme Court steps. And protestors at justices homes and we have had the democrats introduction to add four associate justices to pack the court and not focus on some of the things that are so pressing. I mean, mr. Johnson was right, when we talk about 50, 50 attacks on churches and prolife Pregnancy Centers in 11 weeks. In that short of time frame that sustained effort to go after the prolife community and places of worship is as wrong as it gets. I would love to have a hearing on that issue and what actions we might be able to do and to take to help stop that because thats not supposed to happen in our great country. I urge a no vote and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio yields. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, respect for marriage act provides additional stability for millions of married couples and families that devoted their lives around the guarantee of Marriage Equality. Nothing to do with attacks on abortion clinics or Pregnancy Crisis Centers, it has to do with marriage. This repeals a discriminatory statute that the court has rendered in inoperative but remapes on the books. We need to fix the mistake that congress made a generation ago. As i pointed out before, the obergefell decision is the decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision is not overturned, this will bill is unnecessary, but harmless. If that decision is overturned, this bill is crucial. And we dont know what this court is going to do despite what Justice Alito said. Justice thomas has suggested that the decision on gay marriage ought to be overruled and we have seen them overrule precedent in dobbs. Who can be confident that the court will not overturn the lawrence decision or rather than the obergefell decision. Who can be confident of that . The answer is no one. And as to mr. The gentleman from ohios comment that the people i think he said 33 states or whatever have decided that gay marriage should not be and should be up to the people of each state, thats absurd. You cant be married and thats why we have one of the provisions in this bill and cant be married in texas and not be married in new york. You cant lose your marriage status by crossing the state line. This legislation is very necessary to make sure that people have the right to remain married, that people have the right to get gay couples have the right to get married and have the right to stay married and thats why leading National Organizations including the aclu, family equality, freedom for all americans, land of legal, leadership conference. The National Center for lesbian rights, National Womens law center and pflag. They know whats going on and what is at stake. Announcer in march 2020, a cruise ships experienced a covid19 outbreak. No port would allow them to dock. Tonight on q, journalist Michael Smith and Jonathan Franklin recount what happened on the stranded ship with their book, cabin fever. The eventual safe harbor given in south florida. The virus really started becoming apparent about a week into the cruise. Some of the people we talked to, looking back, say that they noticed certain people were getting sick. Some people were coughing. It kind of felt like the crew gambled that one last cruise could go out. These 2000 people really is a journey that symbolizes a lot of the horrors we went through. Announcer Michael Smith and Jonathan Franklin with their book, cabin fever, cotonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. You can listen to q a on our free cspan app. Announcer former Vice President mike pence is on the campaign trail as he contemplates a president running 2020 four. He traveled to South Carolina to talk about policy proposals after the Supreme Court struck down roe v. Wade. Watch his remarks tonight at 9 50 p. M. Eastern on cspan. There are a lot of places to get political information. But only at cspan do you get it straight from the source. No matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, cspan is americas network. Unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. If it happens here, here, here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on cspan. Powered by cable. Announcer this week on the cspan networks, wednesday morning, ceos of some of americas leading firearms manufacturers will testify for the House Oversight committee on the practices and profits of gun makers. Thursday morning, the house Judiciary Committee conducts an Oversight Committee on the Justice DepartmentNational Security division and the Veterans Affairs committee will examine the progress made by the department of Veterans Affairs on ending sexual harassment. The Senate Returns to the hills monday to vote on the u. S. Computer ship industry and health care to veterans exposed to toxins. The houses back tuesday with plans to take up the computer chip just laois and expected to be passed by the senate. Members will also vote on a wildfire bill. Watch this week live on the cspan networks, or cspan now come our free mobile video app. Had to cspan. Org, or to stream video live or ondemand any time. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. And during a visit to the capitol, the first lady of ukraine urged lawmakers to supply more weapons toai