Mark Souder: “I appreciate the Chairman's explanation, and there's no use to belabor a point when you've won. At the same time, I do…”

“I appreciate the Chairman's explanation, and there's no use to belabor a point when you've won. At the same time, I do want to clarify a couple of things inside that. A, my amendment is far too weak to reach my own goals, and I realize that. I was hoping it could be adopted because I think it improves the bill. B, I think that the chairman correctly stated the challenge here and the inherent inconsistency in the bill. By merely removing this clause, it didn't allow, in effect, a bill that was intended to protect gay people into other areas, in marriage criteria and other sexual things, because that could have been far more reaching because many organizations have in one man-one woman marriage clauses, also fidelity clauses with the marriage clause, which is why I refer to that. In this mix, however, I understand that in the purposes of the bill, without the protection that you announced, in fact, somebody could try to get around the intent of the bill. And I understand what you're trying to address. So, in conclusion, while my amendment, I think, doesn't fix or still has inherent contradictions, still is going to lead to lawsuits, still lead to all sorts of questions, nevertheless, it will improve the bill. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to support this amendment. It's an incremental improvement. It doesn't fix much, but at least it's another small step. I yield back.”