The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, h. R. 8404, the respect for marriage act, would reaffirm that Marriage Equality is and must remain the law of the land. Over the past several decades, millions of lgbtq people in loving and supportive relationships have married and formed families, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in oberkfell and hodges that the 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 i