Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Under the unanimous consent agreement entered into prior to our recess for the August break, we entered into a unanimous consent agreement on a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. Under the time agreement, it called for bringing this act up on Thursday of this week with each side permitted to offer up to four amendments. Those amendments must be submitted, each side, by 5 o'clock today. This Senator, on behalf of Senator Lott and others, submitted three amendments. But I want to tell the minority leader and others it is our hope there will be no amendments adopted to the Defense of Marriage Act. We submitted those basically so we would have those in as possible amendments, should an amendment on the other side by adopted. So I wanted to make sure that the minority leader, that Senator Kennedy and others, who have an interest in this--at least it is this Senator's hope and desire there will be no amendments adopted to the Defense of Marriage Act. Under the unanimous consent agreement that was called for, we did just submit three amendments for their consideration. But, again, it is this Senator's hope that we will consider the bill and pass it expeditiously. The House passed it overwhelmingly. Hopefully, the Senate will as well, without any further amendments, so it can go to the President for his expected signature. I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Maryland and North Dakota for their willingness to let me make this statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we have finally passed the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. I introduced this bill last year. It is a bipartisan bill that has the support of the administration as well as 14 State Governors who represent 99 percent of all Federal onshore production, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and industry trade associations who represent virtually 100 percent of all Federal lessees. This bill amends the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 and applies to leases issued by the Secretary of the Interior on Federal onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill's objectives are to provide greater certainty, simplicity, fairness and administrative efficiencies in the laws that govern Federal royalties. Over time, serious problems have developed with the ways courts and consequently the Minerals Management Service [MMS] have interpreted the Federal statute of limitations governing royalty collection. Basically the issue is: At what time does the statute of limitations begin to run on the underpayment of royalties? Some courts claim that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the MMS ``should have known about the deficiency'' in the amount the producer has paid [Mesa versus U.S. (10th Cir. 1994)]. Other courts have held that the current 6-year statute ``is tolled until such time as the government could reasonably have known about a fact material to its right of action.'' [Phillips versus Lujan (10th Cir. 1993)]. Either of the above interpretations subjects producers to unlimited liability--a period that well exceeds the statute of limitations on other agency actions regarding producers. This situation has created a climate of deep uncertainty in the payment of royalties that was not intended by Congress and that is not in the best interests of consumers, producers, or ultimately the U.S. Government. Oil and gas producers pay billions of dollars every year for the opportunity to drill on Federal land. The payment of royalties is a routine part of doing business with the Federal Government. There is no attempt here to alter that obligation to pay. However, as in all other businesses, oil and gas producers need certainty in their business relationships and in their business transactions with the Federal Government. That certainty is not now present in the MMS's regulations or in numerous court decisions interpreting the applicable statute of limitations. Certainty can be achieved only through legislation. For that reason, I introduced the Royalty Fairness Act of 1995. The main objective of this legislation is to establish a clear statute of limitations and identify the time when the statute of limitations begins to run on royalty payments. This bill establishes a 7-year statute of limitations and in most cases, the statute will begin to run when the obligation to pay the royalty begins. In addition, this bill permits the Secretary of the Interior to delegate royalty collections and related activities to the States, it provides for adjustments or refund requests to correct underpayments or overpayments of obligations, it authorizes the payment of interest to lessees who make overpayments, and it provides alternatives for marginal properties including prepayment of royalties or regulatory relief. In conclusion, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury by $36 million over 6 years, and cumulatively to the States by $9 million during the same interval. I am confident that passage of this bill is much needed to create a climate of certainty in the oil and gas industry as well as being very much in the national economic interest.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I have been here a little while, and I cannot remember anybody objecting to moving to an appropriations bill because they did not get a judge confirmed. I will give one example. I remember we had a judge in Oklahoma that I was trying to get confirmed in 1992 and the Democrats were in control of the Senate. George Mitchell was the majority leader. I kept trying to get the judge moved, the nomination moved. The nominee was Frank Keating. There was no opponent, but we kept having a hold. To make the story short, we never could get his nomination placed before the Senate. He would have been an outstanding judge. There was kind of a roving hold on it, primarily inspired by my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Metzenbaum, who is no longer with us. The point being, we had an outstanding person, but we did not hold up any appropriations bill. We did fuss about it, and we groaned about it, and maybe griped about it, but I want to thank Senator Metzenbaum for putting a hold on Frank Keating because he is now the Governor of Oklahoma. Judges have been held for different reasons, maybe good reasons, maybe bad reasons, but a lot of times it happens. However, I am not familiar with the holding of major pieces of legislation, particularly appropriations bills, hostage. I hope we are able to work through this and do our bills. We know we have to do the appropriations bills, and I am hopeful we will be able to move forward. I congratulate the majority leader and the minority leader. I think this week has been a very constructive week. The welfare bill that just passed is certainly historic, and the legislation that we will have before the Senate tomorrow dealing with health care, dealing with small business tax relief, is also very important. I hope we will be able to complete that as well.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate and compliment our colleague from New Mexico for his leadership on this bill. In addition, I compliment Senator Roth, Chairman Archer in the House, and Chairman Clay Shaw for putting this bill together, as well as Chairman Kasich in the House. I would like to go back a little farther and also compliment Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich for laying the groundwork for fundamental welfare reform, fundamental welfare reform that is long overdue, fundamental welfare reform that today will have bipartisan support. I am very pleased with that and I am pleased the President said he would sign this bill. He is correct in making that decision. I know he agonized over it. He was not sure what he was going to do. That is evidenced by the fact he vetoed two similar bills earlier. He actually vetoed a bill in January, a bill that passed the Senate with 87 votes. I thought that veto was a mistake. I thought that veto was a repudiation of his campaign statement when he said we need to end welfare as we know it. When candidate Bill Clinton made the statement, ``We need to end welfare as we know it,'' I applauded it. I thought he was exactly right. Unfortunately, I think welfare had become a way of life for far too many families. Maybe that was their fault, maybe it was Congress' fault. I think most of the welfare programs that we have were well- intentioned, but many have had very suspect results. In addressing the issue of welfare, on January 4, 1935 Franklin D. Roosevelt said that: The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimicable to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America. That was in his second annual message to the country. He was right. Maybe he was a little bit prophetic because, if you look at what has happened in our welfare system, we now have under the Federal Government 334 federally controlled welfare programs. The Federal Government determines who is eligible, for how long, and for how much they will receive. We have 156 job training programs stacked on top of each other, all with good intentions but a lot with results that are not very desirable, results that in many cases have not helped a lot of the intended beneficiaries and certainly have not helped taxpayers. This Congress has done several historic things. I have been around here now for 16 years. This Congress, for the first time, has actually passed some reform and some curtailment of the growth of entitlement programs. We passed it in the Balanced Budget Act, but the President vetoed it so that did not become law. We passed it in the welfare bill, but the President vetoed that and it did not become law. We passed entitlement reform in the farm bill, a historic rewrite of decades of farm policy. That was a good bill. The President signed it. I compliment him for signing it. Now we are passing welfare reform. Is the bill perfect? No. But it is a good, giant step in the right direction. I am pleased the President will sign it. Mr. President, this bill does change the way we do welfare. The so- called AFDC, aid to families with dependent children, will no longer be a cash entitlement. We are reforming its entitlement status. The current program says that if you meet eligibility standards--in other words, if you are poor--you can receive this benefit for the rest of your life. There is no real incentive to get off. There is no real incentive to go to work. We are really falling into exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. We are destroying human spirit. So now we have a chance to fix that in this bill today. This is a giant leap. Again, I mentioned that I am pleased President Clinton is signing this bill. But if you look at the bill he introduced, his bill was a continuation of the entitlement of aid to families with dependent children. They would go on continually. It was a continuation of an entitlement. Today we are breaking that continuation. We are going to say that we trust the States. I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Wait a minute. What about the kids?'' What we are doing is taking this money and we are going to give this cash welfare program to the States and let them determine eligibility. I happen to think that the States are just as concerned, maybe even more concerned than we are about kids in their own territory. What makes people think that the source of all wisdom comes from Washington, DC, that Washington, DC, should determine who is eligible and who is not? Who can make the best determination of those requirements? I believe the individual States can. In this bill we have work requirements. We have time limits. We have a 5-year lifetime limit. I think we have taken some big steps in the right direction. So I want to compliment Senator Roth and Senator Domenici, Senator Dole, and others. Also, I would like to make a couple of other comments. I have heard the President say we have cut too much in food stamps. In this bill we require able-bodied adults age 18 to 50 with no dependents, no kids, to work 20 hours a week, with the exception that they have 3 months in a 3-year period when they can receive food stamps. Other than that they are going to have to work at least 20 hours a week. That is real reform. I know my colleague from North Carolina thinks that is right. Under current law you can receive food stamps forever. Eligibility is pretty easy. If you meet these income requirements, you can receive food stamps. There is not a time limit. Under this bill we are telling able-bodied people, now you are going to have to get a job. There are now going to be work requirements in order to receive welfare. You are going to have to get a job. We turn the money over to the States, yes, but it is a transition. We call it temporary assistance for needy families. It is temporary assistance; it is not a way of life. It is not a system that we are setting up where people can receive this income forever, as many families do under the current system. There was an investigation in areas of my State that had drug problems and crime problems, and I learned a little bit about the drugs and the crime. But I probably learned a little bit more about welfare. This area had a very high incidence of crime and drug problems but had an even higher incidence of welfare dependency. As a matter of fact, I talked to a young person who had a couple of kids and found out that, yes, she had been on welfare for a few years and her mother had also been on welfare for several years. I was thinking, we have to break this cycle. What about the kids? I looked at her kids, and I really felt sorry for them, and they were growing up, now the third generation of a welfare family. We have to break that trap of welfare dependency. This bill will help give people a hand up and not just a hand out; to where they will be able to go to work; where we provide job training; where we have child care; where we have an opportunity for people to climb up out of this welfare dependency cycle. This is a giant step in the right direction. With the old system, if they met the income standards, then they kept getting the cash. There is no limit whatsoever. So this bill is, again, a very positive step in the right direction toward rewarding work, encouraging work, encouraging people to become independent, and not dependent on taxpayers. I compliment Senator Dole and others who are responsible. I want to correct some misstatements that have been made by the President and other people. The President stated yesterday that the reason why he is signing the bill is that it allows States to use Federal money for vouchers for children and for parents who cannot find work after the time limit has expired. The President says he lobbied for this. To clarify, we did not put money in specifically under the welfare bill, but we have said they can use money under title XX, the Social Services Block Grant, for those purposes. That is the same policy we had in the bill H.R. 4, that unfortunately the President vetoed. There was not really a change in that area. President Clinton made a statement saying the congressional leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily important bill a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in America, people working hard for their families, paying taxes and serving in our military. Well, the President is wrong. Just to state the facts, noncitizens who work for their families, pay taxes, can become eligible for welfare in two ways under this bill. First, they can become citizens. If they become citizens, they can qualify for any benefits any other American can. Second, even if they decide not to become citizens, they can become eligible for welfare by working and paying Social Security payroll taxes for 40 quarters, basically 10 years. Third, and this is most important, noncitizens who serve in our military are eligible for welfare under this bill. The bill explicitly exempts them from the bans on welfare to non-Americans. It is in the bill. I was surprised by the President's statement. His statement was this: ``You can serve in our military, you may get killed for defending America, but if somebody mugs you on a street corner or you get cancer or get hit by a car, or the same thing happens to your children, we are not going to give you assistance anymore.'' Mr. President, President Clinton is wrong. As I mentioned, people who serve in our military, veterans and their dependents all continue to be eligible for assistance under this bill, this is title 4, page 5. So are refugee and asylees and people who pay Social Security taxes for 40 quarters, title 4, page 5. People mugged on a street corner or hit by a car, whether or not they are citizens and whether or not they work and whether or not they are in the country legally or illegally, qualify for emergency medical assistance under this bill. I think it is important we stay with the facts. President Clinton also said yesterday, ``I challenge every State to adopt the reforms that Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, and other States are proposing to do.'' Fact: On May 18, President Clinton spoke favorably of the welfare waiver application submitted by the State of Wisconsin: ``Wisconsin is making a solid welfare reform plan. I pledge my administration will work with Wisconsin to make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare. States can keep on sending me these strong welfare proposals, and I will keep on signing them.'' That was May 18. Guess what? Wisconsin's waiver was proposed on May 26, over 2 months ago, and he has not signed it yet. President Clinton, before a speech of National Governors' Association in 1995, told the Governors he would act on their waiver application within 30 days, some of which have taken well over a year, some almost 2 years. It has been 60 days since the Wisconsin waiver. We tried to put the Wisconsin waiver into the bill to make it applicable. We get a message, according to Speaker Gingrich, that if it is in the bill, the President will veto it. At the same time he was bragging on Wisconsin's waiver and their new approach yesterday on national TV, he was telling us if we put it in the bill, he would veto the bill. Mr. President, I could go on. I think it is important we not try to scare people, that we stay with the facts, that we do try to do what is right. Let me make a couple of other comments. I heard the President and other people saying this bill is too hard on noncitizens, on legal aliens. We eliminate benefits for illegals; what about noncitizens who are legally here? We make some changes. The President and others say we went too far. Let's look at what we did. Our legislation has a priority that says fundamentally we should take care of Americans. When aliens come to this country, their sponsors pledge to support them and they sign a statement that says they will not become a public charge. People come to this country voluntarily. If noncitizens want to stay in this country, they sign a statement saying they will not become a public charge. We will start holding them to that statement and hold their sponsors who also signed the statement saying, ``We will make sure they do not become a public charge; we will make sure they do what they committed to do.'' I think that is very important. I might mention a couple things about taxpayers. If you look at the number of noncitizens currently receiving SSI, Social Security supplemental income, in 1982 there were almost 128,000 noncitizens receiving SSI; in 1994 that number had increased by almost sixfold, and there were 738,000 noncitizens receiving SSI. The program has exploded since 1982--almost six times as many. What happens is a whole lot of people determine they can come to the United States not asking for a land of opportunity to grow and build and expand, they come to the United States for a handout. What did they do? They received SSI and Medicaid. They received a lot of Government assistance. Thank you very much, taxpayer, and the sponsors who signed statements saying, ``We will take care of them and make sure they do not become a charge to the Federal Government.'' But who have not done their share, they have not held up their side of the bargain when they said they would not become a charge to the American taxpayers, and they did. We are saying they have a couple of choices. If they want to become citizens, they will be eligible for benefits. If they do not become citizens, that is certainly their option, but they do not have the option to say, ``Yes, take care of us, taxpayers.'' If they pay taxes for 40 quarters then they could become eligible for benefits. A couple of other comments. We deny noncitizens from receiving food stamps until they become citizens or pay taxes for 10 years. We did the same thing with food stamps. Why should someone come to the United States as a noncitizen and say, ``Give me food stamps''? Some people have criticized this by saying, ``Wait, cuts in food stamps are draconian.'' We spent $26.2 billion this year in food stamps. In the year 2002, if you listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think we cut that in half. That is not the case. In the year 2002, 6 years from now, we will spend over $30 billion in food stamps. So we are spending more money in food stamps every year, but we are saying to the people who are noncitizens who come to the United States, they are not automatically entitled to continue receiving benefits forever. Mr. President, I have several charts to be printed in the Record, and I compliment my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his leadership. I mentioned food stamps, and I will mention SSI, the growth rates in SSI. In 1980, SSI cost the taxpayers $6 billion; in 1996, it costs $24 billion, four times as much. This program is exploding. The growth rates in SSI for the last 5 years are 10 percent, 14 percent, 21 percent, 18 percent, and 20 percent. The program has exploded in many, many cases because noncitizens have said this is a good way to get on a gravy train. We need to close that abuse. We do that under this bill. I think that is positive reform. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record charts to substantiate these facts.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague from Nebraska for yielding.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Still pending before the Judiciary Committee. So the only thing you have had on your plate is that there has been 23 judges on the Executive Calendar. The Senate has now confirmed 16. There are 7 remaining. So I would say that in the past month the majority leader has been very cooperative in the fact that he has moved 16 out of 23. That is 70 percent of the judges. So I think he has been very cooperative in working with all Senators. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I just want to say that I appreciate the comments, and this has been informative. In the last couple of months, if my figures are correct, there have been 23 judges on the Executive Calendar ready for confirmation by the Senate. We have confirmed 16. We have 7 still left on the calendar. So I tell my colleagues on the other side who might be frustrated that is a pretty good batting average. That is 16 out of 23 in this period of time. I admit that hardly--I think maybe one judge was confirmed prior to that time. Also, just while we are looking at this, I mention Frank Keating who was not confirmed in 1992. And my colleague, Senator Daschle, mentioned that we confirmed 66 judges in 1992, which is a lot. That is correct. But we also had 58 nominations pending at the end of 1992. Right now the total nominations of judges on the calendar--and that have been nominated--the total is 28. So, if you look at the total percentage of those we have on the percentage--

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Sanford be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Senator Hatfield, I strongly support the Senate report language which opposes the House's earmark of $1,700,000 for the Mid- America Aviation Resource Consortium [MARC]. In order to fund the facility in Minnesota, the House transferred funds out of the air traffic controller training program from the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. This is an imprudent transfer of funds to a program which has not received the necessary support to continue. I refer my colleagues to the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 1996 bill which stated, ``The conferees agree to provide $250,000 for continued support of the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium as proposed by the House, but intend that this be the final year of Federal support for this facility unless requested in the President's budget.'' Funding for this facility was not requested in the President's fiscal year 1997 budget. I would like to include in the Record a letter from Mr. Richard Sanford, director of the Florida Aviation Management Development Associates, an FAA contractor, to Senator Mack which references the reallocation of $1.7 million in the House bill. Mr. Sanford writes, ``This action, taken against the wishes of the FAA, effectively reduces the [FAA Academy's] budget and directly decrements $1.7 million from a competitively awarded instructional services contract held by the University of Oklahoma. I am very concerned that this action serves to penalize desired academic/business partnerships in the interests of supporting a consortium whose members have neither competed for the business nor are the FAA's preferred instructional service provider(s).'' I urge Senate conferees on the fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations bill to insist upon the Senate position.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Frahm], is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill does just two things. It defines the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law and it says that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex marriage. This bill is a simple bill. It is based on common understandings rooted in our nation's history. it merely reaffirms what each Congress and every executive agency have meant for 200 years when using the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse''. That is, that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The current United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, presumably because most Americans know what it means. Therefore, the definition of marriage in this bill comes from well-established case law. The meaning of spouse is taken from language already in the U.S. Code. This bill also does not change State law. It allows each State to decide for itself with respect to same-sex ``marriage''. It does this by exercising Congress's powers under the Constitution to legislate with respect to the full faith and credit clause. It provides that a State shall be required to give effect to any public act of any other State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State. Congress has most recently legislated in a similar fashion with respect to full faith and credit in 1994 when it enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act and the Safe Homes for Women Act. This bill simply says that marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. There is nothing earth-shattering there. No breaking of new ground. No setting of new precedents. No revocation of rights. The Defense of Marriage Act is necessary for several reasons. In May of 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling in favor of three same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses. The court said the marriage law was discriminatory and violated their rights under the equal-rights clause of the State constitution. Many States are concerned that another State's recognition of same-sex marriages will compromise their own laws prohibiting such marriages. Legislators in over 30 States have introduced bills to deny recognition to same-sex unions. Fifteen States already have approved such laws, and many other States are now grappling with the issue--including Hawaii, where legislative leaders are fighting to block their own courts from sanctioning such marriages. This bill would address this issue head-on, and it would allow each State to make the final determination for itself. Another reason this bill is needed now, concerns Federal benefits. The Federal Government extends benefits, rights and privileges to persons who are married, and generally it accepts a State's definition of marriage. This bill will help the Federal Government defend its own traditional and commonsense definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse''. If, for example, Hawaii gives new meanings to the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'', the reverberation may be felt throughout the Federal code unless this bill is enacted. For instance, a redefinition in Hawaii could create demands for veterans' benefits for same-sex spouses. Let me cite an example. In the 1970's, Richard Baker, a male, demanded increased veterans' educational benefits because he claimed James McConnell, another male, as his dependent spouse. When the Veterans Administration turned him down, he sued, and the outcome turned on a Federal statute that made eligibility for the benefits contingent on the State's definition of ``spouse'' and ``marriage''. The Federal courts rejected the claim for added benefits because the State supreme Court had already determined that in Minnesota, marriage was not available to persons of the same sex (McConnell versus Nooner, 547 F.2d 54, 1976). This bill anticipates future demands such as that made in the veterans' benefits case, and it reasserts that, for the purposes of Federal law, the word ``marriage'' will continue to mean ``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife'' and the word ``spouse'' will continue to mean ``a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'' Another example of why we need a Federal definition of the terms ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' occurred during debate on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Shortly before passage of this act, I attached an amendment that defined ``spouse'' as ``a husband or wife, as the case may be.'' I also gave a short speech on the amendment. When the Secretary of Labor published his proposed regulations, a considerable number of comments were received urging that the definition of ``spouse'' be ``broadened to include domestic partners in committed relationships, including same-sex relationships.'' When the Secretary issued the final rules he stated that the definition of ``spouse'' in the act and the legislative history precluded such a broadening of the definition of ``spouse''. The amendment, which was unanimously adopted, spared a great deal of costly and unnecessary litigation over the definition of spouse. These are just a few reasons for why we need to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Enactment of this bill will allow States to give full and fair consideration of how they wish to address the issue of same-sex marriages instead of rushing to legislate because of fear that another State's laws may be imposed upon them. It also will eliminate legal uncertainty concerning Federal benefits, and make it clear what is meant when the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' are used in the Federal Code. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill and I ask for their support when this issue comes to the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.