Don Nickles

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.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 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, no, I did not. I say to my colleague, I was referring to the section that says no assistance whatsoever. I would conclude that to prohibit U.S. contributions involved in any way dealing with, I think--we have exceptions for drug interdiction. Can we spend money in Burma for drug interdiction, drug identification, undercover or otherwise? I think we should have an opportunity.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague for an excellent statement. I echo his comments. I also compliment Senator Cohen for his amendment. Senator Johnston and I have been working on a comparable amendment. It is almost identical. We are not going to offer that. I think it is important for people to have one alternative to the language in the appropriations bill. On page 188 in the bill, it says we are going to have sanctions against Burma. All of us want to change policies in Burma. Burma has been repressive. It has denied human rights. We need to make changes. So, how does the committee, or how does the language that we have before us in the bill, do that? First, it says, ``No national of the United States shall make any investment in Burma.'' Some people, some companies, some U.S. citizens have already made investments. We are going to say no more investments; no investments, period. That is a very stark punishment. I am not sure it is punishment so much on Burma and officials in Burma as it is on officials of the United States and people of the United States. The language continues. It goes on and says we will deny United States assistance to Burma. The Cohen amendment does that as well, but it is a little more targeted. Under the language that we have in the bill, it says United States assistance to Burma is prohibited. Under the Cohen amendment it says assistance is prohibited except for humanitarian assistance. We are trying to help some people. There has been repression over there. It also says we could continue to have assistance in areas for counternarcotics. Right now there are a lot of narcotics coming from Burma. Should we not have United States assistance, some undercover, some open, used to investigate sources of heroin and other drugs that might be leaving Burma and ultimately end up in the United States? The language that is in the bill before us would deny any assistance, including counternarcotics efforts. I think that would be a serious mistake. The idea of having a unilateral sanction, I think, is a mistake. I think, if we are going to have sanctions, they should be multilateral. If we are saying only the United States steps forward, no U.S. citizen shall invest, and no other country comes forward, there may not be any change whatsoever. Certainly, if we are going to have U.S. sanctions, I want my colleagues to consider--I will not be offering it at this time, but I was considering an amendment that we should at least have a report on the economic impact and whether or not it had any positive impact on achieving our goal. If we have sanctions, certainly we want to know whether they are working or not working. We want to have the changes in Burma, but do we make those changes when we have unilateral sanctions affecting our very small investments? I doubt it. Certainly they can be offset by other countries. Can you have changes when you have multilateral sanctions? Possibly. Sanctions are difficult in this day and age. When the Carter administration imposed a wheat embargo on Russia for some serious abuses, what happened is we lost markets to one of our weak competitors. In Russia, it was replaced by a lot of other countries-- Australia, Argentina and other countries. They expanded their wheat base. They exported to Russia. Russia now does not buy as much from the United States. They buy from other countries. We just created another group of competitors in this particular one commodity. Did we change policy in Russia? I do not think so. I do not think that had, really, a triggering impact in making policy changes. I want to make the policy change. Another important segment of the Cohen amendment is that it does give the President some discretion, some leverage, which will have influence on future decisions on Burma. Do we just want to punish them for past decisions, punish them or punish American citizens? I am afraid we will be punishing Americans more than we will be punishing the Burmese officials. But more important, how do we change future behavior? I think the Cohen amendment does more toward changing future behavior because it says we are actually giving some discretion. If we do not see improvements, then some sanctions will come about, but the President and the diplomatic efforts can be using those for leverage. There is not a lot of leverage when it says no national of the United States can make any investment, the United States can give no assistance whatsoever. I am afraid that will not influence anything toward the positive. Frankly, it will cost the United States. It will be taking investments away from American citizens, I think unquestionably, and I doubt it would have the economic impact desired by my colleague from Kentucky. I respect greatly the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky. I know he believes very sincerely in trying to effect change in Burma. I happen to share the goal of my colleague from Kentucky. I just think the method toward best achieving that would be through the amendment offered by my colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen. I compliment him on that amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The definition of ``new investment'' in Burma in Section 569 of the amendment includes the entry into certain types of contracts. Does it also cover performance of contracts, or commitments entered into or made prior to the date of sanctions?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] is necessarily absent. I also announce the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.