Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, what sets the United States apart from many other countries that have lots of resources are our values, and that we are a Nation of laws. We may not agree with all of our laws, but they are the laws of our land, and not even the President can decide which laws to enforce and which not to enforce. Yet this administration has said it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Department of Defense maintains that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not directly challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the right of individual States to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. In February, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. However, the House of Representatives has expressed its intent to continue legal defense of the statute along with other laws of our country.

My proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress' assertion that funds may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title I, United States Code, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of the Navy has already demonstrated how pressures to accommodate same-sex couples can quickly lead to policy changes that are ultimately contrary to previous assurances given with regard to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains, in a memo titled ``Revision of Chaplain Corps Tier 1 Training,'' directed that training be revised to accommodate same-sex marriages on military bases that are located in States where same-sex marriage is legal. The memo stated, ``This is a change to previous training that stated same-sex marriages are not authorized on Federal property.'' The memo further authorized the participation of a military chaplain in a same-sex civil marriage ``if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of a State which permits same-sex marriages or unions,'' and if the chaplain is otherwise certified to officiate. This calls into question the intent of the Department of Defense with regard to compliance with existing Federal law under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Congress should establish policy guidance on this issue that will cover numerous contingencies and unexpected situations in the future. It is irresponsible for the Department of Defense to dismiss all concerns about issues involving marriage status by pointing to the existence of the Defense of Marriage Act.

There's no contingency plan to address this issue should the Federal courts invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, the administration is inviting that very policy. Federal court orders could suddenly overturn current policies of the Department of Defense, which is not likely to resist or oppose new directives that disregard the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act. Congress can and should enact a policy making it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source