[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 16, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6715-S6736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

          RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT--Motion to Proceed--Resumed

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 8404, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 449, H.R. 8404, a bill to 
     repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for 
     State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking and 
recognizing the House Judiciary chairman, Jerry Nadler, and the entire 
House Equality Caucus for introducing the House bill and starting up 
this effort.
  This legislation passed the House of Representatives with a strong 
bipartisan vote of 267 to 157, with all Democrats and 47 Republicans 
supporting the bill.
  I also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my Senate 
colleagues who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. I 
want to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, Senator Feinstein, and also 
thank and recognize the hard work and effort of Senator Collins, 
Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis for their steadfast 
commitment. We couldn't be where we are right now without their 
efforts.
  I also want to thank the staff of all of these offices for the long 
hours and hard work that went into this legislation, including my own 
counsel, Becca Branum, and my chief of staff, Ken Reidy.
  Lastly, I want to thank all of the advocates who have fought for 
marriage equality for decades.
  We are on the cusp of a historic vote in the Senate because of 
everybody's efforts.
  I decided, in thinking about what I wanted to share today, that I 
wanted to put a face on this debate; actually, more accurately, three 
faces.
  Let me introduce you to my dear friends Margaret, Denise, and their 
daughter Maria, and just tell you a little bit about them and then how 
this underlying issue impacts them.
  The marriage and long partnership that my dear friends Denise and 
Margaret share began in Oklahoma in 1981. They were there as 
organizers, working to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in that State. 
They were organizing support for the ERA so that we might add a few 
simple words to the U.S. Constitution, specifically, ``Equality of 
rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United 
States or by any State on account of sex.''
  That they met one another during a struggle for social justice 
surprised no one who knew either Denise or Margaret, for, really, the 
pursuit of equality and equity and justice has defined each of them as 
individuals as well as life partners.
  Their professional and personal lives and the movements for women's 
rights, LGBTQ rights, educational equity, affordable housing, economic 
justice--they are all inextricably linked.
  Their first date occurred in December of 1981 over coffee in Oklahoma 
City. And as that ERA campaign came to an unsuccessful close in 1982, 
they chose to move together to Madison, WI. I vividly recall meeting 
them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984.
  Denise hailed from Milwaukee, WI--this is Denise--Margaret, from 
Webster City, IA. They were incredibly and are incredibly committed to 
one another, but they also determined, as they got a little older, that 
something was missing. Actually, I want to say someone was missing. 
Denise's and Margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous. Yet 
they never gave up.

  In 2003, after working with an adoption agency for many years, Denise 
received a video of their daughter, this lovely, brown-eyed Maria. And 
the family you now see here--this is, actually,

[[Page S6716]]

several years old. Maria is now a sophomore at the University of 
Wisconsin, Madison campus, so a little bit dated. But I wanted to put a 
face or a series of faces on this because it is such an all-American 
family and an all-American story.
  But as everyone knows about the debate we are about to enter, 
marriage was not an option for Margaret and Denise until after the 
Obergefell decision. The things that most married people take for 
granted are things that couples like Margaret and Denise had to think 
about and had to figure out how do they protect one another, how do 
they protect their family.
  We often think, when we think about marriage, of the wedding and the 
ceremony and the celebration, but we don't often think about the 
hundreds upon hundreds of rights and responsibilities that civil 
marriage confers upon couples.
  Margaret and Denise were telling me about their recollection of when 
the city of Madison passed a domestic partnership ordinance allowing 
them to register. And when that happened, for the first time, they 
could be on one another's health insurance. That is something that 
married couples kind of take for granted--that they could have one 
another on their health insurance. They had to think a lot about what 
they would do in an emergent situation where one might be in the 
hospital because without marriage, you are technically legal strangers. 
And, literally, if Margaret were in the hospital after an accident, for 
example, Denise, without having the appropriate papers--a healthcare 
power of attorney--would be viewed as a legal stranger and potentially 
denied access.
  Adoption is something that has made many a family in the United 
States. Yet prior to marriage rights, Denise and Margaret had to make a 
choice of only one who would have the official adoption, but then they 
had to go through a whole bunch of legal rigamarole, if you will, so 
that Margaret, if need be had to go to a parent-teacher conference or 
to pick Maria up at school, had some documentation at the school that 
she, too, was a parent.
  Estate planning, you have to think about that. You had to think about 
that intently prior to marriage rights being conferred.
  I wanted you to get a quick chance to meet Margaret and Denise and 
Maria because they reflect the experiences of literally tens of 
millions of people in the United States. It is why the Obergefell 
decision was so key.
  I want to switch to focus on why it is so critical that we adopt the 
Respect for Marriage Act--because Obergefell right now is the law of 
the land, but there is great concern that that legal precedent could be 
in jeopardy.
  Some of my colleagues have questioned the urgency and maybe even the 
necessity of passing the Respect for Marriage Act. Some have asserted 
that there is no threat to these rights in America. Some have said that 
there is no case currently making its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court 
challenging these rights so there is nothing really to worry about. 
Others have suggested that proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act 
are raising the issue just to drive further divisions among Americans.
  I believe that there is an urgency to pass the Respect for Marriage 
Act in order to heal such divisions and provide certainty to married 
interracial and same-sex couples that the protections, rights, and 
responsibilities that flow from their marriages will endure.
  Right now, millions of Americans--our family members, our neighbors, 
our congressional staff members, and, certainly, our constituents--are 
scared; scared that the rights they rely upon to protect their families 
could be taken away. And they are scared for good reason.
  Let's face it. Regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, 
the highest Court of the land has just overturned a precedent of nearly 
50 years. There is no questioning that. And the same legal arguments 
that the Supreme Court rested upon to reverse Roe v. Wade could just as 
easily be applied to reverse numerous other cases related to families, 
related to intimate relations, to contraception, and marriage.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, 
in the Dobbs case access to abortion care or denial of such care has 
been left in the hands of the States. By the way, in Wisconsin, we are 
subject to a criminal abortion law that was passed in 1849, 1 year 
after Wisconsin became a State and before women had the right to vote 
and certainly before women served in the legislature that serves to 
rule upon their rights.
  There are landmark cases related to marriage that could be threatened 
should the Supreme Court consider cases challenging those earlier 
decisions. One such case is Loving v. Virginia, which was decided in 
1967. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving that State laws prohibiting 
interracial marriage were unconstitutional based upon the equal 
protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment and its 
liberty provisions. At the time of the Loving decision, 16 States had 
laws banning interracial marriage. And you might be surprised to learn 
that it took until the year 2000 for the last State to repeal the law 
on its books banning interracial marriage.
  Another landmark case relates to same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v. 
Hodges, the Supreme Court decided in 2015 that the equal protection and 
due process clauses of the 14th Amendment prohibit States from 
outlawing and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.
  Some 35 States across the country prohibit same-sex marriage in their 
laws, constitutions, or both. And the so-called Defense of Marriage Act 
that bars Federal recognition of same-sex marriages and was ruled 
unconstitutional by a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court--that law is still on 
the books.
  Given this landscape, it is not unreasonable for same-sex and 
interracial couples to be fearful that the protections of their 
marriages are in real jeopardy. The fact that the constitutional 
principles of liberty, privacy, self-determination, and equal treatment 
under the law, upon which Roe v. Wade was originally decided, are the 
same constitutional principles on which the Loving and Obergefell cases 
were decided makes the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade all the 
more shocking and frightening to those in interracial and same-sex 
marriages.
  Several of my colleagues have maintained that, even if the Court may 
someday revisit these cases, there is no urgency right now since there 
is no case challenging interracial or same-sex marriage that is 
currently making its way up to the Supreme Court. But think about 
today's world. Given the Supreme Court's use of procedural mechanisms 
like cert before judgment or use of a shadow docket, cases often reach 
the Supreme Court faster than ever before.
  And when it comes to the merits, one needs to pay attention to the 
concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision. In 
his opinion, Justice Thomas explicitly said that the rationale used to 
overturn Roe v. Wade should be used to overturn cases establishing 
rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations, and same-sex 
marriage. He was essentially providing an open invitation to litigators 
across the country to bring their cases to the Court, inevitably 
instilling fear among millions of Americans.
  The Supreme Court should not be in a position to undermine the 
stability of families with the stroke of a pen. So now Congress must 
act, and Congress is acting with a full-throated endorsement from the 
American people. More than 70 percent of Americans support marriage 
equality, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents.
  This legislation unites Americans. With the Respect for Marriage Act, 
we can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples 
have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away. By 
passing this bill, we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial 
couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal 
and that they will continue to enjoy the rights and responsibilities 
that all other marriages are afforded. And this will give millions of 
loving couples the certainty, the dignity, and the respect that they 
need and that they deserve.
  For my dear friends Margaret and Denise and their daughter Maria, 
passing this legislation will remove the weight of the world from their 
backs. While they worry just like the rest of us about the cost of 
living and staying

[[Page S6717]]

healthy and saving for retirement, passing this bill will take away a 
worry that someday their marriage might be on the chopping block at no 
fault of their own.
  By the way, I think I failed to mention it, but I was so honored back 
in December of 2018 to be a copresider at their wedding. The wedding 
took place 37 years after they first met and became a couple, and it 
happened on Maria's Sweet Sixteen birthday.
  But for the millions of other Americans in same-sex and interracial 
marriages, this shows that the American Government and people see them 
and respect them.
  With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion 
to proceed to the Respect for Marriage Act and to help come together to 
move our country forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the Respect for Marriage Act, a bipartisan bill that 
Senator Baldwin and I have introduced with our colleagues Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis.
  Madam President, this bill recognizes the unique and extraordinary 
importance of marriage on an individual and societal level. It would 
help promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights 
of Americans in same-sex and interracial marriages. It would accomplish 
these goals while maintaining and indeed strengthening important 
religious liberty and conscience protections.
  I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, and 
I am grateful that a similar bill passed the House with strong 
bipartisan support.
  As the Senate considers and prepares to vote on this historic 
legislation, I would be remiss if I did not begin by recognizing the 
tremendous progress that LGBTQ individuals in this country--in our 
country--have made in recent times in achieving equal rights.
  It was not long ago that patriotic Americans could not be honest 
about their sexual orientation while fighting to protect our country--
our freedoms--in the Armed Forces. I led the fight with former Senator 
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, 
don't tell law.
  It was not long ago in America that a person could be fired merely 
for being gay. I strongly supported the Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act, known as ENDA, which passed the Senate in 2013 and would have 
prohibited such discrimination. Seven years later, the Supreme Court in 
Bostock held that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from 
discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  And it was not long ago in America that individuals could not marry 
the person whom they loved if that person were of the same sex. The 
Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell found that the 
fundamental right to marry is guaranteed by our Constitution.
  Madam President, let us remember that we are talking about our family 
members, our friends, our coworkers, our neighbors. I am proud to have 
stood with them, and I will continue to stand with them in efforts to 
protect and secure their rights, while at the same time steadfastly 
protecting and respecting religious liberty.
  The Respect for Marriage Act would accomplish two primary goals. 
First, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals 
in one State is given full faith and credit by other States, meaning 
that States must recognize a valid marriage for purposes of public 
acts, judicial proceedings, and rights arising from a marriage 
regardless of that couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. 
That means that same-sex and interracial couples can rest assured that 
their marriages will be recognized regardless of the State in which 
they live.
  We need to remove the cloud that is now over these couples that is 
causing them such consternation, as my colleague from Wisconsin has 
mentioned.
  Second, it would require the Federal Government to recognize a 
marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the State 
where it was performed. It would do so by getting rid of a law that is 
on the book, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which has been 
invalidated by the Supreme Court's ruling yet remains on the books.
  With these changes, Federal law will provide that all married couples 
are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. This 
includes, for example, making medical decisions for an ill spouse and 
receiving spousal benefits from programs like Social Security and 
Medicare, as well as those benefits earned from service in our Armed 
Forces.
  To remove any ambiguity about the intent and scope of this bill, I 
have worked with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as 
well as with a coalition of religious organizations, to develop an 
amendment designed to clarify the language and address concerns that 
have been raised with the House version of our bill.
  First and foremost, this legislation would not diminish or abrogate 
any religious liberty or conscience protections afforded to individuals 
and organizations under the U.S. Constitution and Federal law, 
including the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act. Through our amendment, this fact is now stated explicitly in our 
bill.
  The amendment also makes clear that this bill only applies to valid 
marriages between two individuals. In other words, it does not 
authorize or require recognition of polygamous marriages. They are 
already prohibited in all 50 States. This really was a straw argument, 
but we have made it clear nonetheless in our amendment that in no way 
would the Federal Government or other States be required or authorized 
in any way to recognize polygamous marriages.
  Moreover, the amendment clarifies that the bill could not be used to 
deny or alter the tax-exempt status or any other status--tax treatment, 
grant, contract agreement, guarantee, educational funding, loan, 
scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, benefit, right, 
claim, or defense not arising from a marriage--for any otherwise 
eligible person or entity. In other words, no church, no synagogue, no 
mosque, no temple, no religious educational institution would have to 
worry that somehow their tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy if they 
do not perform same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious 
beliefs.
  Let me repeat that because this has been coming up time and again. 
For the first time and consistent with the First Amendment and the laws 
of many States, this legislation would make clear in Federal law that 
nonprofit religious organizations and religious educational 
institutions cannot be compelled to participate in or support the 
solemnization or celebration of marriages that are contrary to their 
religious beliefs.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record at the end of my statement an excellent analysis by the 1st 
Amendment Partnership.
  Some have said that this bill is unnecessary because there is little 
risk that the right to have a same-sex or interracial marriage 
recognized by the government will be overturned by the Supreme Court. 
Regardless of one's views on that possibility, there is still value in 
ensuring that our Federal laws reflect that same-sex and interracial 
couples have the right to have their marriages recognized regardless of 
where they live in this country.
  I strongly believe that passing this bill is the right thing to do, 
and the American people agree. Indeed, more than 70 percent of 
Americans support marriage equality, including a majority of Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents.
  As I wrote in a Washington Post op-ed with my colleague Senator 
Baldwin, ``Millions of American families have come to rely on the 
promise of marriage equality and the freedoms, rights and 
responsibilities that come with making the commitment of marrying the 
one you love. . . . Individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages 
need, and should have, the confidence that their marriages are legal.''

  Simultaneously, we must also recognize that people of good conscience 
may disagree on issues relating to marriage. For many Americans, 
marriage is more than just a legal union; it is a religious institution 
grounded in their faith.
  As Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, 
explained in the Obergefell decision,

[[Page S6718]]

``[M]arriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated 
union of man and woman. This view long has been held--and continues to 
be held--in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and 
throughout the world.'' He went on to explain that ``neither they nor 
their beliefs are disparaged here.''
  The same principle applies to our legislation, and that is explicitly 
acknowledged in the amended bill. Thus, it is important to me that our 
bill would not affect or diminish in any way religious liberty and 
conscience protections. Any interpretation of this legislation that 
would limit the applicability of these protections for individuals or 
entities because they have religious objections to same-sex marriages 
would be contrary to the plain language of our bill.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my statement a series of letters from 
religious organizations that endorse the religious liberty provisions 
of our bill.
  They include letters from Elder Jack Gerard from the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-day Saints, Melissa Reid from the Seventh-day 
Adventist Church, Nathan Diament from the Union of Orthodox Jewish 
Congregations, and from a host of other organizations: the Council for 
Christian Colleges and Universities, the AND Campaign, the 
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, the Center for Public 
Justice, and Tim Schultz of the 1st Amendment Partnership. We have 
worked very closely with all of them.
  Madam President, in closing, let me once again salute the leadership 
of Senator Baldwin, as well as Senator Portman, Senator Tillis, and 
Senator Sinema, for their tireless efforts on this important 
legislation.
  Let's do the right thing. Let's vote to proceed to this important 
bill, and let us pass it. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me 
in supporting the Respect for Marriage Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

What Do Religious Freedom Supporters Get in the Amended Senate Version 
                 of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA)?

       1) Explicit Congressional support for the truth that 
     traditional marriage supporters and their beliefs are decent 
     and honorable. This was stated by the Supreme Court in 
     Obergefell, but many progressives refuse to acknowledge it. 
     Congress endorsing this truth in a bipartisan law is a big 
     deal. This can be cited in all future cases where 
     progressives equate traditional beliefs about marriage with 
     racism.
       2) Demonstration that gay rights legislation will not pass 
     without addressing religious liberty concerns. This has been 
     denied by many progressive activists, who falsely use words 
     like ``license to discriminate''.
       3) Explicit protections under federal law against non-
     profit religious organizations that support traditional 
     marriage having to facilitate marriages that violate their 
     religious convictions.
       4) A non-retaliation clause: the Act cannot be used by 
     federal agencies to punish religious organizations in any way 
     related to their views on marriage. Even if this clause will 
     be rarely used in practice, it sets a very firm floor of 
     religious protections that it will be difficult for future 
     Congresses to reverse.

 Why Should Conservatives Who Opposed the Obergefell Decision Support 
                     the Respect for Marriage Act?

       Obergefell isn't going to be overturned. After all, Justice 
     Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs was not signed by any other 
     justice. Most conservatives wouldn't want to nullify the 
     marriages made legal by Obergefell anyhow. Now, with 
     Obergefell as the legal basis for same-sex marriage, there 
     are no explicit corresponding religious freedom protections. 
     Enacting RMA will put into law real religious protections 
     that can't be won alone. And enactment of the amended RMA 
     sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the 
     Administration, and the public that gay rights can't trample 
     religious freedom.

               Is This a Good Deal for Religious Freedom?

       Yes. Religious freedom advocates get protections that they 
     have sought on a stand-alone basis but been unable to enact. 
     Courts might grant some of these protections eventually, but 
     litigation is costly and takes years to see results. In 
     return, gay marriage advocates get something they already 
     have: recognition of legal gay marriages, albeit now on 
     statutory grounds.

     Why Shouldn't Conservatives Demand Stronger Religious Freedom 
                        Protections in the RMA?

       Senator Lee and others rightly desire to enact even broader 
     religious protections. But our wish list is not going to be 
     enacted into law all at once without major compromise. The 
     similar ``First Amendment Defense Act'' never moved, even 
     when Republicans had majorities. Any amendment demanding 
     broader protections is therefore a messaging device that 
     conservatives can vote for, even though it will not have the 
     60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
       Conservatives should rest well still voting for the 
     achievable protections in the RMA, knowing that they are 
     still much more than conservatives have been able to pass in 
     the eight years since Obergefell.

   Does the RMA Create New Risks for For-Proft Entities Like Wedding 
                                Vendors?

       No. The RMA doesn't contain non-discrimination requirements 
     that would put bakers and other for-profit entities providing 
     wedding services in jeopardy. The Equality Act would create 
     those risks, not the RMA. Note that there is no politically 
     viable way to protect these for-profit religious entities in 
     statute without at the same time advancing LGBT non-
     discrimination (like the Equality Act). Congress can, 
     however, sketch out a vision of balanced fair play that this 
     Supreme Court will find attractive. That's exactly what the 
     RMA does.

 Won't the RMA be Used by Progressive Activists to Sue Faith-Based Non-
                 Profits, Including Adoption Agencies?

       No. We share your mistrust of progressive activities. But 
     the RMA doesn't hand them any new litigation tools. Gay 
     marriage is already legal--see Obergefell. Private rights of 
     action to enforce legal gay marriage are already available 
     under Section 1983.
       Crucially, the RMA allows lawsuits only against those 
     ``acting under color of state law.'' Neither current law nor 
     the RMA defines non-profits that receive government money as 
     ``acting under color of state law.'' Left-wing gadflies have 
     long sought to redefine all civil society organizations 
     (faith based and otherwise) as ``state actors,'' subject to 
     the full equal treatment requirements of the Constitution. 
     But they haven't gained any legal victories with this extreme 
     theory, and their ``case'' has at most one vote on this 
     Supreme Court.

    Don't the Religious Protections in the RMA Lack an Enforcement 
                               Mechanism?

       It doesn't need one. Religious liberty amendments have 
     limited the RMA to avoid impacts on religion. The RMA states, 
     ``nothing in this act shall be construed to . . .'' and then 
     lists things the RMA can't do to harm religion. We understand 
     that progressive activists abuse the courts all the time, but 
     the RMA doesn't hand them any new tools and this Supreme 
     Court would never entertain the idea that it does.

   Does the RMA Threaten the Status of Faith-Based Schools To Fully 
          Participate in State Funded School Choice Programs?

       No. The RMA addresses recognition by the federal government 
     and state governments of lawful same-sex marriages as 
     required by Obergefell. Section 6(a) of the RMA expressly 
     states that it cannot be used to diminish existing religious 
     liberties. Section 7(a) states that the RMA cannot be used to 
     alter the eligibility for grants, accreditation, or 
     ``educational funding'' benefits for which a faith-based 
     entity is otherwise eligible. The RMA does not attempt to 
     reach all future legal disputes arising in state legislatures 
     over LGBT rights. But the clear ``teaching'' of the 
     bipartisan Senate version of the RMA is that religious 
     liberty in this space must be protected. The Congress is 
     weighing in very clearly to that effect.
                                  ____

                                                November 15, 2022.
     Re The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404).

       Dear Senators: We are leaders of faith-based organizations 
     representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of 
     religious institutions. All our organizations hold to an 
     understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman. 
     Many of us privately expressed concerns about the House-
     passed version of the Respect for Marriage Act.
       We are gratified by the substitute religious freedom 
     language offered by Senators Collins, Baldwin, Sinema, 
     Portman, Tillis, and Romney. It adequately protects the core 
     religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax 
     exempt status, educational funding, government grants and 
     contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and 
     accreditation. If passed, it would continue to build on the 
     congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
       Attached are many statements from individual organizations.
           Sincerely,
     Elder Jack N. Gerard,
       The Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of 
     Latter-day Saints.
     Melissa Reid,
       Director of Government Affairs, Seventh-day Adventist 
     Church--North American Division.
     Nathan J. Diament,
       Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox 
     Jewish Congregations of America.
     Shirley Hoogstra,
       President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
     Rev. Justin E. Giboney,
       President, AND Campaign.

[[Page S6719]]

  

     Stanley Carlson-Thies,
       Founder and Senior Director, Institutional Religious 
     Freedom Alliance.
     Stephanie Summers,
       CEO, Center for Public Justice.
     Tim Schultz,
       President, 1st Amendment Partnership.
                                  ____


     Statement From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

       The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
     Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well 
     known and will remain unchanged.
       We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who 
     work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes 
     appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting 
     the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and 
     sisters.
       We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work 
     together to preserve the principles and practices of 
     religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ 
     individuals much can be accomplished to heal relationships 
     and foster greater understanding.
                                  ____

       Dear Senators Collins, Baldwin, and Portman: The Seventh-
     day Adventist Church in North America would like to express 
     our profound appreciation for your commitment to the 
     protection of this nation's historical and treasured 
     religious freedoms in the context of the codification of 
     same-sex marriage recognition.
       The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds a traditional 
     understanding of marriage as divinely established in Eden and 
     affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a 
     woman. We recognize, however, that societal trends have 
     departed from our Church's understanding of marriage, 
     sexuality and family.
       We are grateful for the members of Congress and their staff 
     who have constructively engaged with us and with other faith 
     institutions to ensure that the Respect for Marriage Act 
     acknowledges that ``reasonable and sincere people'' can have 
     ``decent and honorable religious or philosophical'' reasons 
     to maintain traditional convictions about marriage.
       The Adventist Church applauds you and your fellow Senators 
     for the significant religious freedom protections included in 
     the Respect for Marriage Act, including the protection of 
     churches from being required to facilitate same sex marriages 
     and the prevention of retaliation against religious 
     organizations for their views on marriage.
       Thank you for partnering together on legislation that 
     reflects bipartisan commitment to religious freedom and 
     diversity.

                                                 Melissa Reid,

                                   Director of Government Affairs,
     Seventh-day Adventist Church--North American Division.
                                  ____

         Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 
           Advocacy Center,
                                Washington, DC, November 15, 2022.
     Senators Susan Collins, Kyrsten Sinema, Rob Portman, Tammy 
       Baldwin.
       Dear Senators: In anticipation of the U.S. Senate's 
     consideration of H.R. 8404 (the ``Respect for Marriage 
     Act''), as modified by an amendment you have offered, we 
     write to you on behalf of the leadership of the Union of 
     Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (``Orthodox 
     Union''), the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella 
     organization.
       In 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in 
     Obergefell v. Hodges, the leadership of the Orthodox Union 
     ``reiterated(ed) the historical position of the Jewish faith 
     . . . Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a 
     relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this 
     regard are unalterable.'' At the same time, we noted ``that 
     Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn 
     discrimination against individuals.''
       At the time, our leadership said that ``in the wake of 
     today's ruling, we turn to the next critical question for our 
     community, and other traditional faith communities--will 
     American law continue to uphold and embody principles of 
     religious liberty and diversity, and will the laws 
     implementing today's ruling and other expansions of civil 
     rights for LGBT Americans contain appropriate accommodations 
     and exemptions for institutions and individuals who abide by 
     religious teachings that limit their ability to support same-
     sex relationships?
       As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider H.R. 8404 the 
     leadership of the Orthodox Union, in light of the religious 
     principles reiterated above, cannot endorse the main purpose 
     of H.R. 8404. However, we welcome the provisions added to 
     this bill by your amendment in the nature of a substitute in 
     the Senate that appropriately address religious liberty 
     concerns (provisions that were absent in the version of the 
     bill passed by the House of Representatives).
       As amended, Section 2 of H.R. 8404 recognizes that 
     ``diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are 
     held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and 
     honorable religious or philosophical premises.'' Section 6 of 
     H.R. 8404 provides that ``nothing in this act shall be 
     construed to  . . . abrogate a religious liberty . .  . 
     protection . . . available under the Constitution or Federal 
     law'' and further provides that no religious nonprofit entity 
     whose principal purpose is the advancement of religion shall 
     be required to provide services or goods associated with 
     solemnizing or celebrating a same sex marriage. Section 7 of 
     H.R. 8404 provides that no government official or agency can 
     deny a wide array of benefits--including tax exempt status, 
     grants, contracts, accreditation or others--to an otherwise 
     eligible entity or person on the basis of that entity or 
     person not recognizing same-sex marriage. These provisions 
     appropriately address the array of religious liberty concerns 
     raised in the context of H.R. 8404 and its operative 
     provisions.
       Moreover, we note that your recognition that religious 
     liberty interests must be explicitly and substantively 
     addressed in the context of this kind of legislation is 
     itself an essential act in a nation devoted to the principles 
     of diversity, tolerance and religious freedom.
       We thank you for your work with us and other faith partners 
     to craft these important legislative provisions.
           Sincerely,
     Mark (Moishe) Bane,
       President.
     Rabbi Moshe Hauer,
       Executive Vice President.
     Nathan J. Diament,
       Executive Director--Advocacy.
                                  ____

     Hon. Senator Susan Collins.
     Hon. Senator Tammy Baldwin.
       Dear Senators: The CCCU strongly recommends that the Senate 
     include the attached religious freedom amendment within the 
     Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556). The CCCU represents over 
     140 Christ-centered institutions of higher education in the 
     United States encompassing over 500,000 students. The CCCU's 
     mission is to advance the cause of Christ-centered higher 
     education and help our institutions transform lives by 
     faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical 
     truth. CCCU institutions adhere to Biblical values and 
     traditions, including teaching the Biblical understanding of 
     marriage as between one man and one woman as an essential 
     foundation for a thriving society.
       Since the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, the CCCU and other 
     religious and First Amendment groups have sought to both 
     uphold their sincere convictions regarding marriage and, in 
     the spirit of Obergefell, advocate for a balanced legislative 
     approach that preserves religious freedom and addresses LGBTQ 
     civil rights. This carefully crafted amendment includes both 
     strong religious liberty language recognized in the 
     Obergefell decision and non-retaliation language that ensures 
     this legislation cannot be used by state and federal agencies 
     to punish religious organizations for their sincerely held 
     beliefs.
       This amendment provides explicit Congressional support for 
     the truth that traditional marriage supporters and their 
     beliefs are decent and honorable as was stated by the Supreme 
     Court in Obergefell. It also sends a strong bipartisan 
     message to Congress, the Administration, and the public that 
     LGBTQ rights can co-exist with religious freedom protections, 
     and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way 
     that is prudent and practical.
           Sincerely,
                                        Shirley V. Hoogstra, J.D.,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                November 15, 2022.
     Re The Respect for Marriage Act.

       Dear Senators: On behalf of the AND Campaign and our 
     coalition of pastors nationwide, I would like to thank you 
     for your significant efforts to protect religious freedom in 
     the amended Respect for Marriage Act (the ``Act''). Your 
     commitment to civic pluralism and the hard work of democracy 
     provides a model for American politics to move forward in a 
     healthier manner. We're thankful that you chose the path of 
     good faith and dignity in a time of immense division.
       The AND Campaign upholds the historic Christian sexual and 
     family ethic, which defines marriage as a union between one 
     man and one woman. Accordingly, we were encouraged to see the 
     amended legislation acknowledge that ``diverse beliefs about 
     the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and 
     sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or 
     philosophical premises''. That acknowledgement coupled with 
     strong anti-retaliation language is vital to protecting the 
     free exercise of religion for millions of Americans who share 
     our worldview.
       Rather than engaging in zero-sum politics, your work 
     demonstrates that thoughtful leaders can work through 
     disagreements with respect and charity. We applaud the 
     amended language and support the motion to proceed as 
     necessary for a thorough debate on the Act.
           Sincerely,
                                     Rev. Justin E. Giboney, J.D.,
     President, AND Campaign.
                                  ____

                                                November 15, 2022.
     Re The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404).

       Dear Senators Collins and Baldwin: The Center for Public 
     Justice, and our Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, 
     thank you for your dedication to safeguarding religious 
     freedom in the context of the statutory protection of same-
     sex marriage. We applaud Senators committed to bring forward 
     for discussion the Respect for Marriage Act so the full 
     chamber may discuss the proposed

[[Page S6720]]

     amendment that we believe strongly protects religious 
     freedom.
       The proposed amended Respect for Marriage Act establishes 
     that Congress agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision 
     authorizing same-sex marriage that reasonable and sincere 
     people can hold other convictions about marriage due to their 
     religious or philosophical convictions. Among other strong 
     religious freedom protections we commend, we stress our 
     thanks for the bill's language specifically protecting the 
     tax-exemption of faith-based nonprofits and houses of 
     worship.
       As a Christian organization, we believe in the historic 
     biblical understandings of marriage and human sexuality. Many 
     in our society hold a different view, and in Obergefell, the 
     Supreme Court mandated that same-sex unions be legally 
     recognized as marriages. Significantly, in that same opinion, 
     the Court acknowledged that reasonable and sincere people can 
     have decent and honorable religious or philosophical reasons 
     to maintain their traditional convictions about marriage. We 
     believe that it will be of great legal and cultural 
     significance if Congress enacts an amended Respect for 
     Marriage Act that adds to the U.S. Code a statement of 
     congressional agreement with the Court's positive view about 
     the supporters of traditional marriage.
       The amended Respect for Marriage Act contains other 
     significant language embodying a congressional commitment to 
     protecting religious freedom in the context of affirming 
     LGBTQ rights. We regard adoption of the Act as the best 
     opportunity since the passage of the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act (1993) and the Religious Land Use and 
     Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) for Congress to 
     safeguard religious freedom with Democratic support. The 
     amended Respect for Marriage Act codifies what is already the 
     law of the land because of Obergefell while adding to the 
     U.S. Code new protections for religious freedom in the 
     context of marriage equality.
       As a Christian public policy organization we are committed 
     to policies that respect the dignity of all people. In our 
     society with its many diverse communities of belief, justice 
     requires creative pluralist policies. The religious freedom 
     protections designed into the amended Respect for Marriage 
     Act embody this pluralist approach. We commend you and your 
     colleagues for your commitment to protecting religious 
     freedom in our changing culture.
           Sincerely,
     Stephanie Summers,
       CEO, Center for Public Justice.
     Stanley Carlson-Thies,
       Founder, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                              of Evangelicals,

                                                November 15, 2022.
       Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: Thank you for diligently 
     working to ensure the inclusion of important religious 
     freedom protections in the Respect for Marriage Act, which is 
     currently before Congress. Your efforts, if successful, will 
     produce the first significant bipartisan legislation in many 
     years advancing religious freedom for all, including for 
     those who hold traditional views on marriage.
       Your proposal would achieve several objectives that enhance 
     the religious freedom of all Americans:
       Expressing congressional endorsement of the Supreme Court's 
     finding that those who hold traditional understandings of 
     marriage are decent and honorable, deserving of respect under 
     the law, rather than being equated with those who espouse 
     racism and bigotry;
       Demonstrating that Americans can respect the dignity of 
     their fellow citizens and live in peace even when disagreeing 
     on fundamental issues such as the nature of marriage;
       Protecting traditional marriage supporters from having to 
     facilitate marriages that violate their religious 
     convictions; and
       Protecting religious organizations from retaliation by 
     federal agencies due to their views on marriage.
       These are important, commonsense provisions that represent 
     a significant contribution to strengthening the legal 
     protections for chose who, like the members of the National 
     Association of Evangelicals, continue to believe that God 
     designed marriage as an exclusive covenantal relationship 
     between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating strong 
     families that in turn bless their community and nation. We 
     cherish the freedom to preach, teach, and practice these core 
     convictions, while respecting our fellow citizens who do not 
     share these beliefs.
       Be assured of our prayers for you as you continue serving 
     our nation and defending the rights of all Americans.
           Gratefully,
                                                       Walter Kim,
     NAE President.
                                  ____

                                            University of Virginia


                                                School of Law,

                                                November 16, 2022.
       Dear Senators Collins and Baldwin: We are constitutional 
     law scholars who have studied, taught, and written about the 
     law of religious liberty for decades. All of us have 
     persistently argued for religious liberty in legislatures and 
     in the courts, including liberty for believers and 
     institutions with objections to facilitating same-sex 
     marriages.
       We believe that H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act 
     (RMA), with the additional religious freedom protections you 
     have proposed, is a good and important step for the liberty 
     of believers to follow their traditional views of marriage. 
     Its protections for religious liberty, while not 
     comprehensive, are important, especially in the context in 
     which RMA arises.


           a. the religious liberty protections are important

       For several reasons, we believe the religious-liberty 
     protections in RMA are meaningful and important even if not 
     comprehensive.
       1. First, RMA includes an explicit statement by Congress 
     that ``[d]iverse beliefs about the role of gender in 
     marriage''--including the belief that marriage is between a 
     man and woman rather than between persons of the same sex--
     ``are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent 
     and honorable philosophical premises'' and that such beliefs 
     ``are due proper respect.'' Section 2(2). This statement of 
     respect for the belief in male-female marriage plainly 
     distinguishes it from beliefs opposing interracial marriage, 
     which receive no such affirmation (even as the statute 
     protects interracial marriages).
       The distinction is important for religious-freedom claims. 
     The Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States, 
     461 U.S. 574 (1983), upheld stripping tax exemptions from 
     racially discriminatory private schools, including religious 
     schools, on the basis of the ``firm and unyielding'' national 
     policy against racial discrimination. Opponents of 
     traditional beliefs about marriage regularly analogize those 
     beliefs to racist beliefs for the purpose of resisting 
     religious freedom claims by traditional believers and 
     institutions.
       Explicit congressional affirmation that the traditional 
     male-female definition of marriage is ``reasonable'' and 
     ``honorable'' would counter the analogy to racism and weaken 
     the ground for relying on Bob Jones to justify rejecting 
     traditionalist believers' religious-freedom claims. 
     Obergefell v. Hodges included a similar statement of respect 
     for traditional views, but it was dictum, and some 
     commentators have questioned the Court's power to declare it. 
     A congressional statement would be a legitimate, and 
     powerful, statement of national policy--one favoring respect 
     for (among other things) religious organizations that adhere 
     to traditional views of marriage.
       2. RMA includes specific protections for religious liberty. 
     Most notable is the categorical exemption for ``nonprofit 
     religious organizations''--comprehensively defined to include 
     ``social agencies'' and ``educational organizations,'' and 
     ``nondenominational'' and ``interdenominational'' 
     organizations as well as houses of worship--from having to 
     provide ``services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, 
     goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of 
     a marriage.'' Section 6(b). The provision, although not a 
     comprehensive protection for acts by religious nonprofits, 
     guarantees that they can refuse to participate in the 
     category of activities most relevant to RMA's coverage: 
     ``solemnization or celebration of a marriage.'' The provision 
     bars ``any civil claim or cause of action'' based on such a 
     refusal: it sets no limitation on the nature or source of the 
     claim or cause of action barred. Although courts might 
     provide such protection under the First Amendment, this 
     provision makes the right more secure and avoids lengthy 
     constitutional litigation. The protection is categorical; 
     unlike a claim of constitutional right, it cannot be 
     overridden by a judicial finding of a ``compelling 
     governmental interest.''
       RMA also explicitly provides that it does not ``deny or 
     alter'' any tax exemption, funding, license, accreditation, 
     or ``any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible 
     entity or person''--including, plainly, of a religious 
     organization. Section 7(a). Those who claim that the bill 
     would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to 
     organizations adhering to male-female marriage, by analogy to 
     Bob Jones, are disregarding the statutory text.
       3. Finally, RMA both reflects and teaches that if 
     proponents of LGBTQ rights want any advances or legislative 
     protections for those rights, they must attend also to 
     corresponding religious-liberty concerns. LGBTQ-rights 
     proponents have failed to secure their goals in Congress 
     through the Equality Act, or in many state legislatures, 
     because they have been unwilling to make provision for 
     religious liberty. The lesson applies to conservatives as 
     well. Efforts like the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) 
     have likewise failed repeatedly because they made no 
     provision for recognizing LGBTQ rights even in an incremental 
     way. Religious liberty has been caught in the crossfire of 
     warring groups unwilling to accept the smallest gain for the 
     other side. And religious liberty has suffered as a result, 
     both in its concrete scope and in its status as a fundamental 
     civil right that all Americans should embrace 
     enthusiastically.
       This bill offers a chance to counter those trends and to 
     enact religious-liberty protections in a bipartisan measure. 
     RMA does not provide all the protection that traditionalist 
     believers seek or that they should receive. But the 
     protections it offers are important.


  b. the religious-liberty protections are important in light of the 
                      context in which rma arises

       Moreover, the religious-liberty protections that RMA 
     provides must be considered in the

[[Page S6721]]

     context in which RMA arises. Three features of RMA's context 
     reinforce that its religious-liberty protections are 
     significant.
       1. RMA poses little or no new risk to religious liberty 
     beyond those that already exist from nondiscrimination laws 
     combined with same-sex marriage rights under Obergefell v. 
     Hodges. Those rules are currently in force, without RMA (and 
     without the statutory religious-liberty protections it would 
     provide).
       RMA creates no new cause of action against any private 
     religious entity, even one receiving funding from the state. 
     Only a person acting ``under color of state law'' can violate 
     the Act. Contrary to the claims of some RMA opponents, 
     Supreme Court precedent is clear that entities do not act 
     under color of state law--to use an equivalent term, they are 
     not rendered ``state actors''--simply because they contract 
     with the state, receive funding from the state (even the 
     lion's share of their funding), or are heavily regulated by 
     the state. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982); Rendell-
     Baher v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982). Blum, for example, held 
     that a privately owned skilled nursing facility was not a 
     state actor even though it was heavily regulated, received 90 
     percent of its income from Medicaid payments, received state 
     subsidies for its capital costs, and was doing something the 
     government required it to do--but what was challenged was a 
     particular means of doing that thing, and the government did 
     not require the means. ``[C]onstitutional standards are 
     invoked only when it can be said that the State is 
     responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff 
     complains.'' Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004 (second emphasis added). 
     The state had not directed the specific conduct complained of 
     in Blum. Nor, obviously, can the government be said to have 
     directed a religious nonprofit's specific decision to 
     disfavor same-sex relationships.
       2. If RMA creates no new liability, then the only way it 
     could make traditional believers' religious liberty less 
     secure is if the Supreme Court were ready to overrule 
     Obergefell, ending the constitutional right to same-sex 
     marriage, and RMA then preserved a small portion of that 
     right by statute. But the chances of overturning Obergefell 
     are small. Justice Thomas's call to overturn it, made in his 
     concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. 
     Ct. 2228 (2022), attracted no other votes. Rather, the Dobbs 
     majority opinion emphasized, in three different places, that 
     the overruling of constitutional abortion rights did not cast 
     doubt on other substantive due process precedents, because 
     abortion is a ``unique act'' involving termination of a 
     ``life or potential life.'' 142 S. Ct. at 2277; id. at 2258, 
     2280. Justice Kavanaugh reiterated the point in his 
     concurrence. Id. at 2309. Conservatives have generally urged 
     taking these assurances from the Dobbs majority as genuine 
     and reliable.
       As constitutional scholars and observers, we agree. To 
     overrule Obergefell, the Court would have to undo thousands 
     of same-sex marriages entered into in reliance on that 
     decision or else create a two-tier system in which some same-
     sex couples will be validly married for fifty or sixty years 
     because they married during a window of opportunity while all 
     future couples are barred in many states. We very much doubt 
     that a majority will take that step.
       3. Finally, as we have already emphasized, religious-
     liberty protections, however defensible and warranted, have 
     repeatedly failed when embodied in legislation that provides 
     no benefits (however incremental) to LGBTQ rights. The 
     question is not whether this bill provides all the 
     protections that traditional believers and institutions will 
     need in all contexts. The question is whether the bill 
     provides protections that are significant when compared with 
     new risks to religious liberty that the legislation creates. 
     Because we conclude that the bill's protections are important 
     and that any new risks it creates are quite limited, we see 
     it as an advance for religious liberty.
     Douglas Laycock,
       Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law, University 
     of Virginia, Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law 
     Emeritus, University of Texas.
     Thomas C. Berg,
       James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, 
     University of St. Thomas (Minnesota).
     Carl H. Esbeck,
       R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law and Isabelle Wade and 
     Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of 
     Missouri.
     Robin Fretwell Wilson,
       Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, University of 
     Illinois College of Law.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk 
about legislation that is going to come before this Chamber this 
afternoon called the Respect for Marriage Act. I hope the Senate will 
consider this legislation and pass it. I think it is good for our 
country.
  Marriage is really important in our society. It is a sacred bond that 
two people make to each other. It represents a lifetime of commitment 
and love and care in times good and bad. It is also the foundational 
unit upon which our entire society is built. I have witnessed this 
firsthand over the past 36 years with my wife Jane and our amazing 
family. I was fortunate to have an upbringing with parents who were 
together for five decades. The recognition and protection of this bond 
makes the couple, the family, and our country stronger. That is why 
there is a constitutional right to marry.
  Same-sex marriage has also been a constitutional right since 2015. 
Today, there are about a million same-sex households. About 60 percent 
of them are married.
  In the minds of most Americans, the validity of these marriages is a 
settled question, and the overwhelming majority of Americans want this 
question to be settled. According to Gallup, 71 percent of Americans 
believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by law. 
The majority of support for same-sex marriage, by the way, is seen 
across all age groups, races, religious affiliations, and even 
political parties. In fact, polling from just last year shows that 55 
percent of Republicans support the legal recognition of same-sex 
marriage.
  Now, the Respect for Marriage Act we are about to vote on actually 
doesn't go that far. It simply says that if you get married in one 
State, another State has to honor it.
  So why are we here? Given this broad American consensus, why is the 
Senate debating this today as to whether we should recognize something 
that the vast majority of Americans already recognize and support? The 
answer is, because current Federal law does not reflect the will or 
beliefs of the American people in this regard. The current statute 
allows States and the Federal Government to refuse to recognize valid 
same-sex marriages.
  While it is true that this law is not currently enforceable, I would 
argue, because of Supreme Court rulings, it still represents Congress's 
last word on the subject. So it is important to clarify that, to get 
the old legislation off the books. Likewise, current Federal law is 
silent on the question of interstate interracial marriage, believe it 
or not, so that needs to be addressed.
  Given this disconnect between the American people and our current 
legislation, it is time for the Senate to settle the issue and pass the 
Respect for Marriage Act, as the House of Representatives has already 
done. By the way, that was an overwhelming vote in the House with 46 
Republicans supporting it.

  This bill simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who are 
validly married under the laws of one State to know that their marriage 
will be recognized by the Federal Government and by other States, if 
they move, in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent. That 
is why we have to do this.
  Second, we have to do it because in a recent Supreme Court case, 
there was this notion that maybe this would get revisited, this issue 
of same-sex marriage. So it is important that we resolve the issue for 
both of those reasons. And people who are in same-sex marriages are 
understandably very interested in having that resolved. They want to 
clarify it. They've made financial arrangements, maybe adoptions, and 
so on. They want to be sure that their marriage can continue to be 
honored.
  I think, in short, there are two main effects of this bill, and both 
are well within the constitutional authority of the Congress to 
address. First, to ensure that the marriages legally performed in one 
State are recognized as valid in other States, regardless of sex or 
race.
  This is a straightforward application, by the way, of the Full Faith 
and Credit Clause of the Constitution anyway. Under this clause, States 
are required to recognize things like court judgments and public 
records from other States. This bill simply clarifies that marriage is 
one of those things that must be recognized across State lines.
  Second, this bill specifies that the Federal Government will 
recognize a marriage that is valid in the State where it was performed. 
This portion of

[[Page S6722]]

the bill keeps the Federal Government out of the business of defining 
marriages, which is something, on my side of the aisle, among 
Republicans, particularly important because that leaves the decision to 
the States where it properly belongs.
  I also want to take a moment to address what this bill does not do 
because I have had a lot of conversations with my colleagues over the 
last week or so about this; and in some cases, they are talking about 
things that this bill simply doesn't do. It does not require any State 
to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses not to, in the event the 
current Supreme Court case, let's say, is overturned. It just doesn't 
do that. It does not require anything not already required by the 
Supreme Court precedent.
  It certainly does not allow polygamy. This is a point that has been 
raised by some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle. Polygamy is 
illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States, and this does 
nothing to change that. It actually adds another provision in our 
amendment--that I will talk about in a second--that explicitly 
prohibits polygamy.
  This bill does not permit lawsuits against individuals or entities 
acting in a purely private capacity. That is important.
  As you can see, the bill is really very narrow. It is constitutional, 
and it does not infringe on State sovereignty. It is a bill that simply 
ensures, as a matter of statutory law, that interracial and same-sex 
marriages that were legal in the State in which they were performed 
will be recognized if the couple moves to a different State.
  I also want to address several points of criticism against the bill 
and the significant efforts that we have made to address those through 
a substitute amendment, which was written by all of us who have been 
involved in this process but also a number of outside groups. This 
amendment contains robust religious liberty protections. The amendment 
was developed collaboratively, again, between us--as Tammy Baldwin is 
here on the floor, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, also Kyrsten Sinema--
also by listening to feedback and working extensively with many of our 
Senate colleagues, with faith-based groups on the outside, and also 
other stakeholders.
  The first criticism that I heard was this bill does not sufficiently 
protect people of faith. I disagree. I believe religious freedom is a 
fundamental pillar of our constitutional order, and I am confident 
nothing in this will limit the religious and constitutional protections 
that exist under the First Amendment or any other Federal laws.
  To further advance and protect our cherished religious freedoms, 
however, our amendment contains four very important provisions. First, 
it acknowledges that decent and honorable people who hold diverse views 
about the role of gender in marriage and that such people and their 
beliefs are due respect. This is very important to many of the 
religious organizations we have dealt with who are strongly supporting 
this legislation, to make the point that people can have different 
points of view. We are going to respect that.
  It also has a very important application to the lawsuits that people 
are concerned about that might come up. In the Bob Jones case, as an 
example, there was a notion that was different with regard to 
interracial marriage. In this case, though, with regard to same-sex 
marriage, again, we respect people have different points of view. It is 
important to lay that out.
  Secondly, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and 
conscience protections under the First Amendment, any other 
constitutional provisions, and Federal laws explicitly. I would argue 
it already did that, but I think it is important to make it explicit.
  Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny 
benefits, including tax-exempt status which is very important to a lot 
of religious organizations; also, grants, contracts, educational 
funding, licenses, and many others. Religious organizations helped us 
to put this language in place just to ensure that this bill cannot be 
used for that purpose.
  Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including 
churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others, cannot be 
required to provide facilities or goods or services for marriage 
ceremonies or celebrations against their will.

  These religious liberty provisions are very significant. Several 
constitutional scholars, by the way, and advocates for religious 
liberty, led by Professor Doug Laycock of the University of Virginia 
Law School, have carefully analyzed this bill and sent us a letter 
concluding that overall this legislation is ``an advance for religious 
liberty.'' These are advocates, especially Laycock himself, who has 
taken cases to the Supreme Court representing religious schools. He is 
saying that this bill, on net, this bill actually increases religious 
liberty. Numerous other important faith groups agree. The Reverend 
Walter Kim, President of the National Association of Evangelicals 
described this amendment, if it passes, as ``the first significant 
bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for 
all, including for those who hold traditional views on marriage.'' In 
other words, he is saying this legislation--forgetting the parts about 
same-sex marriage, which are very important--but with regard to 
religious liberty, it moves the ball forward, in his view, as the 
President of the National Association of Evangelicals.
  Another criticism of this bill is that it will be used to target 
religious organizations by revoking their tax-exempt status under 
Federal law. I don't see how this would be possible without even having 
an amendment, but we wanted to clarify that. This bill does not require 
anything that is not already required by the Supreme Court. However, 
penalizing or targeting a private organization because of sincere views 
on same-sex marriage would be a clear First Amendment violation. I am 
confident the Court would not tolerate it. But to ensure that this bill 
cannot be used to target or deny benefits to religious organizations, 
our amendment explicitly prohibits it. The amendment specifies that 
this legislation may not be used to deny or alter any ``benefit, 
status, or right'' unrelated to marriage, period. This gives assurances 
to people and organizations of faith that their tax-exempt status, tax 
treatment, educational funding, licenses, and other benefits cannot be 
affected by this legislation.
  The third criticism I heard is that this bill legalized and 
recognized polygamy. To address this, we put an explicit prohibition in 
place, even though no State permits it, so there cannot be a 
recognition of polygamous marriages, period.
  As you can tell, we have worked hard to address concerns that have 
been raised and to craft an amendment that provides robust, affirmative 
protections of people of faith without diminishing the rights of 
couples in same-sex marriages. This is very important.
  President Hoogstra of the Council of Christian Colleges and 
Universities, a group that is endorsing this legislation, observed this 
amendment ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the 
administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can coexist with 
religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can 
be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.''
  That is what is extraordinary about this bill. These two sometimes 
viewed as competing interests are working together. But as she said, we 
have shown here through this legislation that these rights can co-
exist--religious freedom, on the one hand, LGBTQ on the other hand.
  Achieving this kind of compromise could not have happened without 
hard work, good faith, and bipartisan negotiation. I want to extend 
specific thanks to the following groups who have worked with my 
colleagues to develop this legislation, including the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church; the 
National Association of Evangelicals; the Seventh Day Adventist Church; 
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Council for 
Christian Colleges and Universities; the Center for Public Justice; the 
AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; and the 1st 
Amendment Partnership.
  It is my hope that, with the changes we talked about today and we 
have all now agreed to, we can pass this legislation with the same kind 
of overwhelming bipartisan majority we saw in the House of 
Representatives, and,

[[Page S6723]]

therefore, settle this issue once and for all. Millions of American 
couples, including many Ohioans, are counting on their elected 
representatives in Congress to recognize and protect their marriage, to 
give them the peace of mind to know that their marriage is, indeed, 
protected and secure. We must not let them down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today, the Senate has a chance to live 
up to its highest ideals by taking up legislation that will protect the 
rights of all Americans, regardless of who they choose to marry.
  In many ways, the story of America has been a difficult but 
inexorable march towards greater equality for all people. Throughout 
our history, sometimes we have taken very important steps forward; 
other times, unfortunately, we have taken steps backward. But today, 
the Senate is taking a truly bold step forward in the march towards 
greater justice, greater equality, by advancing the Respect for 
Marriage Act.
  It is a simple, narrowly tailored, but exceedingly important piece of 
legislation that will do so much good for so many Americans. It will 
make our country a better, fairer place to live.
  Passing this bill is as personal as it gets for many of us in this 
Chamber, myself included. My daughter and her wife, my daughter-in-law, 
are expecting a baby next spring. I want to do everything possible to 
make sure their rights are protected under Federal law. I want them and 
everyone in a loving relationship to live without the fear that their 
rights could one day be stripped away. There are many of us who are 
deeply invested in seeing this bill succeed.
  Originally, it was our intention to take action on the Respect for 
Marriage Act back in September, fresh off the House's strong bipartisan 
vote for the summer. Remember, 47 House Republicans joined Democrats to 
pass this bill. But at the urging of my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle, I agreed to hold off on scheduling a vote in order to make 
sure we had enough support to move forward. My job at the end of the 
day will always be to prioritize getting things passed through this 
Chamber, and marriage equality is too important an issue to risk 
failure. So I made the choice to trust the Members who have worked so 
hard on this legislation and wait a little bit longer in order to give 
the bipartisan process a chance to play out. It is much better to pass 
this legislation and move equality forward than simply have a showboat, 
which would bring political reckoning, but no real change for the 
American people.
  I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have 
led the charge in getting this bill ready for the floor and, hopefully, 
soon onto the President's desk--including our two leaders on our side, 
Senators Baldwin and Sinema, who have done a fabulous job and have 
worked this bill so hard and so well and so consistently. I want to 
thank Senators Portman and Tillis, and Collins on the other side who 
are part of this bipartisan team. They managed this process 
stupendously and I am optimistic their efforts will prove successful 
later today.
  To the rest of my colleagues and to all Americans who are watching 
what the Senate does, this is a great chance to do something very 
important for tens of millions of Americans. No one--no one--in a same-
sex marriage should have to worry about whether or not their marriage 
will be invalidated in the future. They deserve peace of mind knowing 
their rights will always be protected under the law. With this bill, we 
can take a significant and much-needed step in that direction.
  The majority of Americans support us in this endeavor. They are 
joined, not only by hundreds of major American companies who support 
this bill, but also religious organizations who affirm that the Respect 
for Marriage Act is a sound and a commonsense piece of legislation.
  So if both parties can come together, today could be truly one of the 
highlights of the year for this body. This has been an incredibly 
productive year in Congress, full of many significant achievements, but 
I think that passing the Respect for Marriage Act would be one of the 
more significant accomplishments of the Senate to date.
  Like so many other bills this year, it will be an unequivocal 
bipartisan win. So I urge my colleagues: Think about those who you know 
and love who are in a same-sex marriage, maybe it is your friends, 
maybe it is your family, maybe it is someone on your staff. I hope with 
them in your heart, you will support this bill.
  There is every reason under the Sun to move forward and begin 
debating this important legislation for the sake of ensuring equal 
justice under law, for the sake of millions of married couples who want 
to live their lives without discrimination, and for the sake of every 
person out there, young and old alike who wonder if they, too, deserve 
to be treated with fairness and dignity and basic decency.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on moving forward with the 
Respect for Marriage Act later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I, along with my colleagues who have 
spoken before me, am proud to be able to work on a very sensitive issue 
in a very collaborative and bipartisan fashion.
  We did it in a way that was always respectful of the fact that many 
Americans come from different walks of life and many diverse beliefs 
and viewpoints.
  We know that nearly a million Americans are already committed to 
same-sex marriages who simply want long-term certainty--not only the 
million who are already committed to same-sex marriages but the 
millions of people who attended the ceremonies, their friends, and 
their family.
  As we went through this bill, we listened to the very sincere 
concerns of Americans with strongly held religious beliefs who simply 
wanted to make sure that Congress protects their First Amendment 
rights, especially the freedom of religion.
  By casting politics aside and working hard behind the scenes over the 
past several months, we managed to strike a balance with this 
legislation. There will be permanent certainty for same-sex couples, 
and they can rest easy knowing their families are secure. And there 
will be robust protections for churches, religious organizations, 
protections that are more robust and expansive than currently exist in 
Federal law.
  I want to talk a little bit about the compromise we reached and what 
it will mean for our constituents who voiced their concerns over the 
past few months. This bill protects religious liberty and conscience 
protections available under the Constitution and Federal law, including 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly referred to as RFRA. 
This bill cannot be used to diminish or repeal any such protection.
  The bill also makes clear that no religious organization will be 
required to provide any services for the celebration of a same-sex 
marriage. Simply put, that means that no church or religious 
organization will be required to perform, recognize, or celebrate same-
sex marriages.
  We also took steps to protect the tax-exempt status of religious 
nonprofit organizations. We didn't leave anything ambiguous. We 
included language that guarantees the bill cannot be used to deny or 
alter any benefit, right, or status of any otherwise eligible person or 
entity. This includes tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, 
educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, and certifications. 
Put together, the Respect for Marriage Act essentially preserves the 
status quo we have had in our country for the last 7 years, since the 
Supreme Court ruling.
  Same-sex couples will continue to have the right to get married, now 
without the fear of government intervention, and churches and religious 
organizations will continue to operate and worship free from government 
interference.
  This is a good compromise. It is one that is based on mutual respect 
for our fellow Americans, protecting the rights of Americans who may 
have different lifestyles or different viewpoints. I am proud of the 
work we did with this bill. I am looking forward to voting yes on it. 
And I am grateful for the leadership of so many people who were 
involved. Of course, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, 
and Senator Sinema. But I also want to thank

[[Page S6724]]

the Church of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventists, the 
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities that represents 150 
different religious institutions of higher learning here in the United 
States alone, and they have operations abroad, and the National 
Association of Evangelicals, the Center for Public Justice and its 
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.
  I believe this is a good bill, and bipartisan bills in any 
environment are difficult. And I think it is why it was so important we 
came together, had the courage to work together, recognized the 
viewpoints at either end of the spectrum, and came up with a carefully 
crafted compromise that I believe is good for all Americans.
  And I look forward to everybody voting in favor of it. We will have 
some opposition, but at the end of the day, I think we will prevail. 
And that is a message to so many people out there who want this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Madam President, I rise today as our country takes an 
important step forward to protect the rights and freedoms of all 
Americans. Together with broad bipartisan support, the Senate will 
provide certainty to millions of Americans in loving marriages and 
enshrine into law the basic protections afforded all Americans while 
respecting our country's critical principle of religious liberty.
  This historic milestone builds off of years of incredible strides we 
have made advancing freedom and equality, including hard-fought 
victories I have been honored to help lead.
  Nearly two decades ago in 2006, at a time when our country was just 
beginning to debate marriage, Arizona proposed a ballot proposition 
banning same-sex marriage in our State's constitution. This issue was 
personal to me and to many other Arizonans. Similar ballot provisions 
had passed in States across the country, red and blue States alike, and 
the stakes were high. The pundits didn't give Arizona much of a chance.
  I knew that in order to buck the trend and win, we would need to run 
a different kind of campaign that expanded the conversation, cultivated 
a diverse group of unlikely partners, and moved past the tired, 
partisan talking points.
  That is why I worked across the aisle and teamed up with my good 
friend Steve May, a Republican. Now, we faced some criticism at the 
time for how we chose to run our campaign. Some wanted us to run a 
partisan campaign, convinced that highlighting the divides in our 
community and focusing exclusively on the LGBTQ community would put us 
over the top.
  But I knew we couldn't do it just by talking amongst people who 
already agreed with our position. The polling showed it. And, frankly, 
we felt that in order to do right by our friends, our neighbors, and 
our fellow members of the LGBTQ community in Arizona, we had to do more 
than run a campaign that made our core supporters feel good but 
ultimately didn't build the broad-based coalition of Arizonans needed 
to win.
  That is why we expanded the conversation to include how the 
proposition would harm all unmarried couples across Arizona, not just 
those in the LGBTQ community but people in domestic partnerships, 
people in common-law marriages because here is the truth: When we reach 
beyond partisan talking points to find common ground, we expand what is 
possible in Arizona and in our country.
  We had open and honest conversations about the hopes and dreams that 
unite us, instead of the superficial differences that divide us.
  In Arizona, we value our independence. We are proud of our families 
and our communities, and we work hard to protect them. We have our 
differences, but we share a strong sense of service, hard work, and 
self-determination.
  We believe that everyone has the right to define his or her own 
destiny and that no one should be treated differently under the law. By 
focusing on these shared values, we found success. We defeated that 
ballot proposition--the first State in the country to do so--and I 
learned lessons that have shaped my work for Arizonans ever since.
  Since 2006, we have seen long-term progress that makes today's 
important debate in the U.S. Senate possible. This work is ongoing. But 
the work can't and shouldn't be attributed to any one politician, any 
political party, or any piece of legislation. This work happens because 
people choose to be their most authentic selves and live their lives 
freely.
  Being gay is normal. Being yourself is normal. Showing up to life 
every day happy to be who you are is normal. And being authentic with 
your friends, your family, your colleagues, and your community, that is 
also normal. That normalcy is what helps us listen to each other, 
understand each other, and grow in our community together. It is what 
changes hearts and minds in Arizona and around the country, and it is 
what, little by little, piece by piece, delivers sustainable progress.
  Whether at home in Arizona or here in the U.S. Senate, in order to 
deliver real results to the Americans we serve, we need to work 
together. Working together means listening with open hearts, bridging 
divides, shutting out the noise, and focusing on our shared goals.
  I have seen time and time again how this approach helps us overcome 
tough challenges.
  A little over 6 months ago, it was thanks to that same approach that 
I stood here on the Senate floor and delivered remarks on the passage 
of our Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a historic law we negotiated 
and passed with broad bipartisan support that makes our schools and 
communities safer and saves lives.
  And before that, this same approach helped us pass our landmark 
legislation, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, into law, 
strengthening America through upgrades and repairs, creating good-
paying jobs, and expanding economic opportunities across the country. 
Beyond these historic accomplishments, our approach of focusing on 
common goals and shared ideals has helped us pass a number of other 
lasting solutions, including long-awaited and necessary postal reform, 
support for Ukraine in its fight against Putin, and most recently, the 
passage into law of our bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, legislation 
that boosts America's global leadership, spurring job creation and 
addressing our supply chain challenges.
  As we can all see, this approach has proved successful, and right now 
we need this approach more than ever. You know, this summer Arizonans 
and Americans across the country were confused, and some were scared, 
following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Women 
felt their health and well-being was endangered and our own abilities 
to make critical decisions about our futures were suddenly thrown into 
question. This fear trickled into other communities--including the 
LGBTQ community--as leaders with extreme ideologies mused about what 
other challenges could come next. But sadly, in response, we saw 
elected officials on both sides of the aisle exploit this fear and use 
it to fuel clicks, book cable news appearances, and drum up outrage to 
further their own partisan political agendas.

  Outrage can help propel political stars, but it doesn't solve 
problems. It doesn't make life better for everyday people.
  But amidst the noise, a few hard-working Senators from across our 
country and across the political spectrum understood there was a need 
to provide certainty to the American people, and we came to the table 
to get something done.
  Senator Tammy Baldwin, our groundbreaking leader on this issue, 
partnered with my old friends Senators Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Thom 
Tillis, and myself, all of us no strangers to bipartisan success in a 
divided Senate. Together, we Senators all focused on the same goal, to 
help ensure married same-sex couples across the country are afforded 
the same protections as all other married American couples.
  Along the way, we overcame obstacles; we made certain our language 
respected religious liberty; and we were careful to ensure that in 
shoring up some rights we did not infringe upon others.
  We made our case to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We 
listened to those who disagreed with us. We didn't pick fights. We 
didn't call names. We

[[Page S6725]]

just kept moving forward. And I am proud to say that by refusing to 
demonize each other and by focusing on our shared goals, we will 
deliver real, lasting results for the LGBTQ community.
  We will make our country stronger and safer for American families in 
a way that honors and respects our diverse viewpoints on marriage, on 
family, and society.
  I thank the many faith communities that helped us expand this policy 
conversation and ensure that our amendment would include robust and 
commonsense religious liberty protections.
  In particular, I thank the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints that provided thoughtful suggestions and contributions. They 
summarized our holistic outcome when they wrote in their statement:

       We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work 
     together to preserve the principles and practices of 
     religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ 
     individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships 
     and foster greater understanding.

  Not every American agrees on marriage or lots of other issues, and 
that is OK. Honest disagreements don't make us any less decent or 
honorable, especially if we see that disagreement as an opportunity to 
learn and grow.
  If more of us dedicate ourselves to better understanding one another 
and our lived experiences, if we strive to see an issue from another 
person's point of view, and if we all work to practice a bit more 
patience and grace, I know we can continue finding paths forward 
together.
  It may not seem like it in today's partisan world, but there has 
always been more that unites us as Americans than divides us.
  The bipartisan support we have garnered in the Senate today proves 
this issue isn't a matter of one party being right or the other party 
being wrong. This issue is bigger than angry tweets and bombastic 
fundraising emails. This is about ensuring American families, who share 
the ideals of all marriages--love, devotion, and sacrifice--can 
continue to count on the basic rights and responsibilities that come 
with their marriages. It is about protecting the beliefs that unite us 
as Americans: the right to define our own destinies, the understanding 
that no one should be different in the eyes of the law, the freedom to 
reach for every opportunity and fulfill our greatest potential.
  The truth is, if we allow our basic values of honor and dignity to 
become just another political football, we all lose.
  As I learned back in 2006 in Arizona, we have to work together. We 
have to find willing partners in both parties, and we must bridge our 
divides before they rip us apart for good.
  Our work is not done. As a body, we must resolve to do the right 
thing to continue this mission and keep working together to deliver 
lasting results. Our country deserves it, the American people deserve 
it, and the stakes are too high to stop our progress now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I ask unanimous consent that the vote previously 
scheduled for 3:15 p.m. be called immediately.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 449, H.R. 8404, a bill to repeal the 
     Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State 
     regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz, Margaret 
           Wood Hassan, Patty Murray, Tammy Duckworth, Jeff 
           Merkley, Jacky Rosen, Richard J. Durbin, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, Mazie K. Hirono, Alex 
           Padilla, Gary C. Peters, Jeanne Shaheen, Catherine 
           Cortez Masto, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 8404, a bill to repeal the Defense of 
Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 356 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sasse
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). On this vote, the yeas are 
62, the nays are 37.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for as much time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I reflect on my 28 years serving in the 
U.S. Senate, I am reminded of the lessons I learned from my former 
colleagues and friends who have served beside me in the Senate. I had 
the privilege of serving with many great titans for a fairly long 
period of time. Some maybe thought too long. I had the privilege of 
serving with the people whom I have known very well--people like Orrin 
Hatch and Mike Enzi, friends I miss dearly. I single them out because 
they are no longer with us.
  In Senator Hatch's farewell speech in 2018, he reflected on the 
striking shift in polarization and partisanship of the Senate, and he 
yearned for the days of Members finding common ground and breaking 
bread together.
  Orrin reflected on this in his farewell speech. He said: Could two 
people with polar-opposite beliefs and from vastly different walks of 
life come together as often as Teddy and I did? And the answer is yes. 
Can conservative Republicans and Democrats come together today? All the 
time, and they will in the future. But you may not hear about it 
because it is not newsy. The media doesn't really care if everybody 
loves everybody.
  Then there is Barbara Boxer. Not too many people who are making their 
last speech talk about Members of the other party, but I will do this. 
I have shared this story many times with all of you about how former 
Senator Barbara Boxer of California and I worked together for many 
years as chair and ranking member of the EPW Committee to get things 
done. You can't get two more ideologically different Senators than 
Barbara and me--Barbara, a proud Democrat of the most far left State in 
the Nation, and me, a

[[Page S6726]]

proud Republican from the most conservative State in the Nation. But we 
were able to see past our ideological differences to work together, and 
we did. We got stuff done. We passed landmark legislation, from highway 
bills like the FAST Act to the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. 
You remember that. Most people still remember that. We did it, and we 
did it time and time again.
  Every Wednesday, as Republicans in this meeting in the Senate where 
the chairmen will go--I shouldn't probably be telling all you guys what 
Republicans do. But they go around the room and give an update on what 
their committee is working on. And I would always say at that time: Now 
is the time to hear from the committee that gets things done.
  And I can say that--that Barbara Boxer and I got things done. And do 
you know what? We actually enjoyed it. Nobody believed that we would 
enjoy it so much and actually get things done.
  Then there is Jack Reed. Today, I have a similar relationship with 
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am a Republican, 
and he is a Democrat. Jack is from Rhode Island, a very blue State, but 
we have worked together for years to pass the annual Defense 
authorization bill, which is the most important bill we pass every 
year.
  I believe the secret to getting this bill done--and any bipartisan 
bill, for that matter--is determination, but also trust and respect in 
the Member that you are sitting across the table from, a lesson Senator 
Hatch set very well. In working with Senator Reed over the years, he 
has my trust, and I have his respect. And it is why we have been 
successful in what I consider to be the most significant thing that we 
do every year.
  For me, I was a builder and developer prior to running for public 
office and never contemplated getting involved in politics until one 
day on the job in South Texas. I was told that I needed more than a 
dozen permits to build a single dock. Now, that didn't make much sense 
to me, and so I decided at that time to run for office and try to get 
things done where people in this body are actually responding 
favorably.
  I remember when I first came to the Senate from the House. After I 
gave a very spirited speech on the Senate floor, Senator Byrd came up 
to me and he said: Young man, the Senate doesn't work like the House. 
Let me tell you about the Senate. That day happened to be November 17, 
1994, which was my 60th birthday. Until the day he died, I was still 
``young man.'' And Senator Byrd explained to me--and this is something 
that a lot of the new Members who are just being sworn in as we speak, 
and are here for the first time, realize--that this is discipline and 
major differences. If you make enemies in the Senate, you are wiped 
out. That is not true in the House. I spent a lot of years in the House 
before.
  Also, I remember friends across the aisle, like former Hawaii Senator 
Danny Akaka, who led our Prayer Breakfast each week; Ted Kennedy, who I 
helped out of the Capitol during one of the September attacks that was 
taking place; and former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who would 
sometimes move our voting schedule around so that I could get home and 
watch my grandkids' football games.
  And then there is the one that we all love, Susan Collins, who is 
well-respected because she makes this institution a better place, and 
not just because of the Maine lobster rolls that are her signature fare 
for the eating groups.
  Real friendship does exist in the U.S. Senate, but nobody knows it. 
It is a big secret around here.
  Then there is a bipartisan Bible study that we have. Some of you know 
about the Senate Bible study that meets every Thursday in my hideaway 
in the Capitol. I have made a point not to miss a Thursday Bible study 
in 28 years. So I have a record going. There is no one who is going to 
beat it. Well, they could beat it, I suppose. After I was first elected 
to the House in 1986, I attended a Bible study led by a guy named Tom 
Barrett.
  I am going to tell you a story that most people don't want to hear, 
but one day, Tom Barrett and a Member of Congress from Kansas invited 
me to the Members' dining room after Bible study. Keep in mind, this 
was 1986.
  They said to me: Inhofe, we think that--we have been with you now for 
over a year, since you got here, and we think you never really accepted 
Jesus.
  Well, I got mad. Who is this young guy there telling me about Jesus?
  And they said: All right, when did you ask Him?
  And I said: Well, every day.
  They asked: How long have you and Kay been married?
  At that time, we were newlyweds. We were probably, I think, 
celebrating our 29th wedding anniversary.
  And they said: Do you propose to Kay every day?
  And I said: No.
  And they replied: Why?
  And I said: Because we are already married.
  Well, bingo, that meant something. And I thought--I was a little 
cautious because these guys were younger, and I wasn't sure I knew them 
that well. I said, just in case they were right in the Members' dining 
room at 2:30 in the afternoon on September 22, 1988, I reaccepted--
reaccepted--Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. Now, that is life-
changing.
  OK. Now there is Africa. Since joining the Senate, I have made 172 
African country visits, alongside good friends from here, like Mike 
Enzi, John Boozman, Mike Rounds, Trent Kelly, Tim Walberg, and arguably 
my closest friend, Mark Powers, a real brother, but it all started with 
Doug Coe. You see, people think of Doug Coe as having been someone who 
was a great diplomat. He had political influence and all that.
  Years back, an article about Doug said this:

       The extent of Coe's influence in American politics is 
     [real] . . . important figures have acknowledged his role on 
     the national and international stage. For instance, speaking 
     at the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H. W. 
     Bush praised Coe for his quiet diplomacy.

  Not many things are quiet around here. Doug spent his years in the 
countries across the world taking Jesus's name to the Kings. I remember 
him asking me for 8 years. He said: Inhofe, I wish you would go to West 
Africa.
  And I had no interest in going to West Africa.
  And he kept saying--and this lasted for 8 years. For 8 years, I said 
no to this guy, but he was very persistent. And I can't tell you why it 
happened, but then finally I said yes. And I still to this day can't 
figure out how that happened. But that changed lives, including mine, 
and it all came from Doug Coe.
  You know, I would like to mention some of these people who were 
really heroes around here that most people don't even know. They don't 
remember. But they go back and they look them up and they see what 
great contributions they made. Not many people are aware of this, but 
here in the U.S. Senate, every Wednesday morning, we meet in the Spirit 
of Jesus. This is something Doug Coe started many years ago during the 
Eisenhower administration. It is scripturally based, Acts 2:42. We get 
together, eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk 
about the precepts of Jesus together.
  I will always be thankful to Doug for his efforts to quietly speak of 
Jesus in most every country around the world.
  Over my 172 African country visits as a Senator--sure, I did my 
military job while I was there--but I developed a deep love and 
appreciation for the people of Africa whom I will hold here with me 
forever.
  One thing from my visits remains clear. Building meaningful and 
lasting relationships with African leaders is vital if the United 
States is to have a role on the African Continent. I was proud to lead 
the effort to establish AFRICOM. Some of you don't remember this, but 
AFRICOM didn't exist for a long period of time. Every other part of the 
world did but not Africa. But we set that up as a separate combatant 
command in 2007, and I have seen the benefits across the continent 
since that time.
  The presence of U.S. military across Africa means a great deal to our 
friends and is a worthwhile investment for the United States. A strong 
and robust relationship with the United States has helped spur economic 
growth and regional stability across the continent.

[[Page S6727]]

  I think it is important to talk about these things that other people 
don't talk about. I have faith that my colleagues in the House and 
Senate will continue the United States-African friendship long after I 
have retired from the Senate.
  Western Sahara. Western Sahara. Over the years, I have been very 
outspoken about the situation in Western Sahara. A few years ago, I 
visited the Sahrawi refugee camps. I visited the children who lived 
there. They were joyous and happy and ordinary children who didn't know 
yet that they were part of the frozen, forgotten conflict, where their 
hopes and dreams were dying a cruel death.
  I urge my colleagues to remember our ideals of democracy and extend 
that to the Sahrawians. Don't let the world forget them. I urge 
everyone in this body to stand strong to support Western Sahara's right 
to self-determination and reject Morocco's relentless attacks on 
Western Sahara.
  Ethiopia. Then there is Ethiopia, a nation that is close to my heart 
for many reasons. The human suffering happening there is heartbreaking. 
Instead of focusing on the importance of creating lasting friendships 
with the Ethiopian people, some in the U.S. Government look for ways to 
punish them. Nineteen of my African visits have included Ethiopia, 
where I have watched firsthand the economic transformation that 
occurred.
  Their middle class is growing; they have become a regional 
superpower; and they are a good friend of the United States of America. 
Their military is professional, capable, and they are punching above 
their weight in the war against terrorism that continues to plague the 
continent.
  They promote regional peace and security by being one of the top 
contributors to the United Nations when they are called upon. 
Hopefully, we can find ways to grow this friendship, the Ethiopian 
friendship.
  Then there is Zegita Marie. Now, many of you already know that I have 
an adopted granddaughter who was born in Ethiopia. Her name is Zegita 
Marie. We call her the Z-girl. She has a very special story and has 
grown up to be a very impressive star. Knowing the joys of adoption in 
my own family, I have worked to ensure all families who choose to adopt 
can.
  In 2017, when Ethiopia decided to close intercountry adoptions, I 
worked directly with my friend then-Prime Minister Hailemariam so the 
families who were pending adoptions were able to complete their 
adoptions to bring their children home. That was a major thing, a major 
undertaking. You wouldn't think it would be. That should be natural.
  Now, the Constitution. Yes, you have heard me say this line before. 
There are two things we should remember here in Congress: 
infrastructure and defense. That statement rang true 28 years ago when 
I got to the Senate, and it will ring true in the years to come.
  Infrastructure--and we have gotten a lot done together on that front 
over the years. We passed bipartisan landmark infrastructure 
legislation from SAFETEA-LU to MAP-21, to the FAST Act, all of which 
rebuilt our Nation's crumbling infrastructure so the future generations 
of Americans still have safe roads and bridges to cross.
  Before 2005, Oklahoma--my State--was a donor State to the highway 
trust fund. Now, what that means is we were paying more into the 
highway trust fund than we were receiving out of it, and of course we 
were going to change that.
  SAFETEA-LU created a fair formula for apportionment so Oklahoma--I 
just want to say this. I want to make sure that people in Oklahoma, 
since I am bugging out of this place, realize some of the things that I 
have done. I know it is controversial in some circles to say this, but 
I have been one of the staunchest defenders of congressionally directed 
spending also known as earmarks. And an ``earmark'' must be defined as 
something that is both authorized and appropriate and should be the job 
of Congress to decide how the American people--how their taxes are 
spent, not unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. And that is 
what we are trying to get away from when we are looking at why we 
should be using earmarks.
  We have worked across the party lines to ensure the National Defense 
Authorization Act is signed into law every year. And as I said earlier, 
the NDAA is the most important bill that we do every year and for a 
good reason. This year will be the 62nd time that the NDAA has been 
signed into law--62nd time.
  And I am proud to have had a hand in crafting the last 28 years of 
that bill. The Defense authorization bill ensures that our service men 
and women have the training, equipment, and other resources they need 
to defend America, here and on the road.
  It also ensures that the families of the men and women who serve are 
taken care of. Some elected leaders criticize our military spending, 
but they need to know that our greatest expense in the military is 
taking care of our troops and building schools for the young people and 
how important that is. And why does it cost more for us to do that than 
other countries? than communist countries? It does because we do 
actually take care of our people.
  With growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and others around the 
world, it is more important now than ever that our troops have what 
they need to counter this aggression. Ronald Reagan used to say we 
maintain the peace through our strength, and that continues to be true 
today. After all of these years serving on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I have come to know with certainty that America cannot lose 
its focus on fully investing in its defense capabilities.
  And I have got to say this about Oklahoma. Oklahoma has come out 
pretty well. You all don't need to feel sorry for Oklahoma because I 
will take care of that. They are very happy right now. Oklahoma has 
five major military installations. From training pilots to building 
bombs, each is unique in its mission to support our military.
  Since 1988, we have gone through five BRAC rounds. That is Base 
Realignment and Closure Commissions. And in each round, the Department 
of Defense closed bases and military installations in accordance with 
their performance. This is something we ought to be doing. And in each 
round, Oklahoma and the Department of Defense grew its presence in 
Oklahoma. So Oklahoma has done very well in that period of time.
  I am going to tell a story here that will surprise a lot of people 
because the star of the story is--none of these kids will remember, 
except for reading about it--Ronald Reagan. When I was about 6 years 
old, my dad was a claims adjuster in a building where Ronald Reagan was 
an announcer for WHO radio, a sports announcer in Des Moines, IA--my 
dad and Ronald Reagan. In fact, I thought he was--I was about 6 years 
old at that time, and I thought that he was related to me. My dad and 
Ronald Reagan used to play the pinball machine together. He would come 
out to the house, and I always thought he was an uncle or some 
relative.
  When I was young, my family moved from Des Moines to Tulsa--Tulsa, 
OK--but we never missed a Dutch Reagan movie, which is what my dad 
called him, Dutch Reagan.
  We would drive--I remember one time we went all the way down from 
Tulsa to Durant, OK, and that was before turnpikes. We drove for hours 
to watch a Dutch Reagan movie. Never missed one of those. It is not a 
big deal, but it is to me, and I am the guy who needed it.

  Fast-forward to when, as mayor of Tulsa and Ronald Reagan was 
President, when President Reagan wanted someone to tout his domestic 
agenda, he used me. We would appear on all the TV shows, sometimes 
together, and tell the people what they needed to know and what was 
happening in the administration.
  I will always remember when, as mayor of Tulsa, I pushed the 
construction of a low-water dam on the Arkansas River. It ended up 
being one of the largest public projects in America that was totally 
privately funded. It had a lot of opposition, but it is pretty amazing. 
Go back and read about this, and you will see that anything Ronald 
Reagan wanted, he got.
  Then there is the Wiley Post flight around the world. Now, people may 
not know who Wiley Post is. Everyone knows who Will Rogers is. Well, 
Wiley Post and Will Rogers were both pilots. The difference is, Wiley 
Post had just one eye and he was good. In fact, they were together when 
they died.

[[Page S6728]]

  Back in 1991, I was still in the House, and a few friends and I 
created a Wiley Post 1931 flight around the world in my twin engine 
Cessna aircraft. It is hard to believe that was 30 years ago when we 
made that trip that left out of Oklahoma, with several stops on the 
east coast, then in Europe, and then in the Soviet Union. Wiley Post 
had my plane beat on the travel time. He did his in 8 days; it took me 
16 days.
  Looking back, I am not sure how Tom Quinn and I survived those stops 
in the Soviet Union. I remember praying: Lord, you got more for me to 
do. Get me out of this mess.
  Fighting far-left environmentalists, it is no shock to anyone that 
the Washington Post has dubbed me public enemy No. 1 for radical 
environmentalists for decades now.
  For much of my time in the Senate, I was chair and ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. Throughout that time, I 
pushed back against the Obama administration's far-left policies 
designed to upend the--sought to upend the lives of Oklahomans, like 
the Paris climate agreement, the waters of the United States rule, the 
Clean Power Plan, and many others. These policies were really about 
giving Washington bureaucrats sweeping control over the lives of 
millions of Americans. We are debating a lot of these same issues 
today, and I expect these disagreements will continue into the future.
  Lastly, I want to take a second to say thank you to all of my current 
and former staff. They are hanging around out here now. I didn't get 
much work out of them today. They were pretty busy, but my staff knows 
that once they leave my office, they always have a place here. We have 
become very close. We don't have people who leave; they become friends.
  I lovingly call my former staff the Has-Beens. It is something of a 
mark of honor. And to all of you, thank you. You are all about to be 
Has-Beens.
  Most importantly, to my family: I love you.
  When Kay and I got married 63 years ago, I could never imagine I 
would be standing here today with 20 kids and grandkids saying goodbye.
  Thank you to all you guys for all you have done all these years, and 
thank you for putting up with me.
  To Kay, my best friend and rock, I can never put into words what you 
mean to me.
  Finally, I want to say to the people of Oklahoma that I really thank 
you for what you have done for me all these years. Thank you very much. 
I love you guys.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                       Tribute to James M. Inhofe

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to congratulate our friend 
from Oklahoma on an extraordinary career of service to his State and to 
our country, and I will be having a lot more to say about the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma a little later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to the say a few words about my 
colleague and friend and my battle buddy, Senator Jim Inhofe.
  It has been a great honor to serve beside Jim. I am grateful--we are 
all grateful--for the legacy of his service he leaves in this Chamber.
  For three decades, Senator Inhofe has served on the Armed Services 
Committees, from his time as a Member of the House of Representatives 
to his role in the Senate.
  For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege to serve with him on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee--in turn, each of us serving as 
chairman and ranking member. Together, we have produced nearly two 
dozen National Defense Authorization Acts, traveled to combat zones and 
military posts around the world, and worked to support our men and 
women in uniform. No one could have had a better partner in those 
endeavors.
  We both served in the Army earlier in our lives, and I know Jim 
carried out his deep sense of responsibility to our troops in the 
Senate each day. He never forgot that what we do here ultimately is 
executed by young men and women in the uniform of the United States. He 
never broke faith with those young men and women who wear that uniform, 
and the American military is stronger and the United States is safer 
because of Jim Inhofe.
  I am especially proud that the Armed Services Committee voted to name 
this year's Defense bill the ``James M. Inhofe National Defense 
Authorization Act.'' It is a fitting tribute and honor.
  Jim is an extraordinary leader whose legislative skills and boundless 
capacity for hard work are unmatched, and he is a firm and fierce 
advocate for the people of Oklahoma. He has made sure that they benefit 
from his hard work and his great efforts, and he has done it with 
unswerving honesty and integrity.
  Senator Inhofe, thank you for your leadership and dedication to the 
committee and the Senate and particularly the men and women of the 
Armed Forces. You have been a wonderful partner and colleague, and I 
believe I speak for the committee and the entire Senate when I say we 
will miss you dearly. Your steady, unselfish leadership will continue 
to help guide our Nation in the years ahead, and I wish you and Kay and 
the family much happiness as you plan for a well-deserved retirement.
  May we all strive for the wisdom, courage, and humility that Senator 
Jim Inhofe imparted upon this great Nation and this distinguished 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, as the junior Senator from Oklahoma, I 
can't tell you what an honor it has been to be able to serve with my 
senior Senator.
  Jim Inhofe has for decades served our State. He has been reelected 
over and over and over again because the people of our State know he 
loves them, know he cares about them. They trust him in some very hard 
decisions that had to be made in this place, and they know Jim Inhofe 
has been there for our State.
  I jokingly say--and Senator Inhofe mentioned his passion for 
infrastructure and for the U.S. military--that when I run into somebody 
who is griping about the construction traffic that they are currently 
sitting in, I will jokingly say to them: Well, blame that on Jim Inhofe 
because that new road, that new place, that new infrastructure has been 
his passion all along to be able to make sure our State and our Nation, 
quite frankly, continue to be able to advance.
  In the days ahead, Senator Inhofe will be dearly missed in our State. 
There is not a town that I go to as I travel around our State that they 
don't ask me: What are we going to do when Senator Inhofe retires? Not 
one. They are all grateful, and they are all spoiled by Senator 
Inhofe's service to them.
  But I can't tell you how excited my wife Cindy and I are for him and 
Kay getting time together because they have sacrificed much for our 
Nation and for our State for decades, and I am excited for them to be 
able to finally get some time to be able to wake up every day and to be 
able to see each other and, quite frankly, for Jim to not have to be in 
yet another vote-a-rama all night voting, that he can actually spend 
his time with Kay.
  So if I can say for the State of Oklahoma, we are grateful for Jim 
Inhofe. We are grateful for the legacy he has left for our State. We 
are grateful for his firm conservative stand that he has taken year 
after year after year. We wish him very well in retirement and are very 
excited to still continue to be able to walk with him in the days 
ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Illinois.


                        Respect for Marriage Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, my office recently received a message 
from a woman named Amanda. She lives in Illinois and the Chicagoland 
area. She tells me that she and her wife Cally will be celebrating 
their fifth anniversary as a married couple. The two of them have 
actually been together for 8 years, but after the Supreme Court's 2015 
decision in Obergefell, they decided it was time to tie the knot.
  That ruling affirmed their love and, just as important, their 
constitutional right. The Court declared that their right to marry is a 
fundamental liberty under the Constitution--for every American, 
regardless of sexual orientation. So in 2017, Amanda and her wife Cally 
exercised that right, and today they are the proud parents of two 
beautiful young children: a daughter, Austin, and a son, Wren.

[[Page S6729]]

  Really, that should be the end of the story. With Obergefell, Amanda 
and her wife were guaranteed the same rights as me and my wife, and it 
should be the beginning of a new story: a loving couple who can now 
focus on their family and taking care of their day-to-day 
responsibilities: paying the bills, feeding the kids, navigating life 
as working parents.
  But, sadly, Amanda and many others are now living in fear. Like 
millions of Americans, she is facing the very real prospect that this 
Supreme Court could soon rule that her right to marry the person she 
loves is not protected by the Constitution. She saw what this radical, 
far-right Supreme Court did with the Dobbs decision just a few months 
ago, the decision that erased the constitutional right for the women of 
America to make their own reproductive health choices; and now she and 
Cally are wondering: Will they come for our rights to marry next?
  Amanda wrote to my office:

       Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in 
     [Dobbs] . . . wrote that the court ``should reconsider all of 
     this Court's substantive due process precedents, including 
     Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''

  She said:

       For the first time in our history, Americans are facing the 
     loss of civil rights--

  by this Supreme Court.

       Our two young children are growing up in a world where they 
     may, [and] in some cases [do], have less rights--

  fewer rights--

     than their parents and grandparents.

  Amanda tells me she and her wife are taking every legal step they can 
to ``ensure that our recognition as parents to our own children cannot 
be challenged. This is emotionally and financially taxing,'' she said, 
``and yet, something that we feel we must do.''
  There are more than 700,000 married same-sex couples in America, 
couples like Amanda and Cally, whose love and legal status were 
recognized under the law and protected by a Supreme Court decision in 
Obergefell; couples who, along with their friends and families, are 
demanding the Senate do what we should have done years ago: codify 
marriage equality.
  We can put their minds at ease before Justice Thomas and the far-
right majority even have a chance to rip away yet another fundamental 
freedom. And this is not an abstract exercise. Early next month, the 
Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case called 303 Creative 
LLC v. Elenis. It is a case that, apparently, is concerned with free 
speech, involving a website designer in Colorado who wants to build 
wedding websites but with the disclaimer that proudly announces she 
will not build websites for same-sex couples.
  She sued the State of Colorado, demanding the right to boast about 
her plans to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans. Such a disclaimer 
would violate a State's civil rights law, which prohibits business from 
discriminating or intending to discriminate against someone on the 
basis of their sexual orientation.
  If the Supreme Court's last term and the Dobbs decision are any 
indication, this radical far-right majority on the Court could very 
well use this case to start the erosion of protections of LGBTQ 
Americans. It is exactly the kind of judicial activism that we have 
come to expect from this current Court's conservative majority.
  Remember when they boasted about the fact that Donald Trump was going 
to put on three Justices who would rule his way in future cases? It was 
pretty clear from that day forward that the Supreme Court had a 
political bent. The Federalist Society had to give its stamp of 
approval.
  The Federalist Society is a multimillion-dollar political arm of the 
Republican Party. And before any judicial nominee had a chance in my 
Senate Judiciary Committee under the Republican days, they had to get 
the approval of the Federalist Society.
  The Federalist Society, from the start, was setting out to eliminate 
a woman's right to choose. They had their victory in the Dobbs 
decision.
  But the American people spoke on November 8. Overwhelmingly, they 
said across America: You can't get away with eliminating rights already 
established under the Constitution for any American.
  I hope that that sentiment grows and, eventually, we reverse the 
Dobbs decision.
  What we have seen is exactly the kind of judicial activism we can 
come to expect from the Court's conservative majority. They twist the 
law and set aside longstanding precedent to establish the policies they 
prefer.
  It is not the Supreme Court's role to make the laws. How many times 
have we heard that speech from Republicans? We don't want judicial 
activists, they say. That job of making the laws belongs in Congress.
  And today we can defend families like Amanda's by voting for the 
Respect for Marriage Act, which passed just a few moments ago here on 
the floor of the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote.
  It will protect marriage equality under the Federal law, not just for 
LGBTQ couples but also interracial couples, whose rights could also be 
in peril by the Court's far right majority.
  The issue of marriage equality is too important to get bogged down in 
partisanship, which is why this bill is a bipartisan compromise. I hope 
that getting 60 votes for the Respect for Marriage Act is going to be 
an indication of more cooperation to guarantee that Amanda and Cally do 
not have to lose sleep over the future that they have as loving 
individuals married to one another and parents.
  In last week's election, the American people sent a clear message to 
Washington and to the Senate: Get it together. Work together. No more 
toxic culture wars. No more divisive rhetoric. No more Big Lie. Enough.
  If you want to stand for family values, let's start by enacting 
protections for every family in America. We can do it, certainly, with 
the Respect for Marriage Act, and even more.
  To Amanda and Cally, I would like to say, happy fifth anniversary. I 
hope that by the time your sixth anniversary comes around, you won't 
even have to think twice about whether your rights are secure.


                                  RSV

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as we head into the holiday season, 
parents and doctors nationwide are concerned about a dramatic surge in 
an illness called RSV, a respiratory virus. It can be especially 
serious for children and older Americans.
  As a parent, there is no more terrifying or helpless feeling than 
knowing that your baby is sick. I know. I lived it.
  Caitlyn Berg experienced that fear recently, too, when her 6-month-
old daughter became ill with RSV and was struggling to breathe. The 
Bergs live in Mount Zion, IL, a small town downstate, near Springfield. 
Caitlyn Berg scoured the area looking for a hospital that would cure 
her sick daughter. After many frantic calls, she finally decided 
Springfield was the closest town with a hospital. She took her baby 
there and waited 8 hours in the emergency room before a bed finally 
opened up for her daughter.
  Caitlyn Berg, incidentally, is a pediatrician. If a pediatrician has 
to struggle to find hospital care for her own sick infant, imagine the 
panic and fear other parents feel when their babies are struggling to 
breathe because of RSV. And it isn't just a problem in small towns or 
rural America.
  Chicago is the third largest city in our country, with some of the 
best hospitals in the world, including some of the very best children's 
hospitals. The rate of emergency room visits for young children with 
RSV is now 10 times higher than in 2019--10 times higher than a normal 
season 3 years ago.
  This chart demonstrates that. Look at this spike. As you can see, the 
number of children admitted for RSV has skyrocketed. In Chicago alone, 
there are hundreds of new cases each week, and nearly a dozen kids each 
day are being hospitalized.
  Earlier this month, Comer Children's Hospital at the University of 
Chicago was full, with no beds for 53 straight days. And Lurie 
Children's Hospital of Chicago is also running at full capacity. 
Ninety-five percent of pediatric ICU beds across Illinois are full 
during this time.
  This crush on pediatric hospitals isn't limited to Illinois. Over the 
border in Franklin, IN, little Ophelia--you can see her here in the 
bed--struggled to breathe after contracting RSV at preschool. She went 
to the local hospital, and they transferred her to the

[[Page S6730]]

large children's hospital in Indianapolis, where she was intubated for 
5 days. Thankfully, she is home safely now and recovered.
  Across the country, children's hospitals are being pushed to the 
limit, caring for infants, toddlers, and young kids sickened by RSV. In 
extreme cases, kids and babies may require ventilators to breathe.
  The timing of this surge in RSV is especially concerning, coming from 
the worst flu season in a decade and while new COVID variants are 
circulating. Those three viral variants together pose what many health 
professionals argue could be a ``triple-demic'' of viral illness. So 
let's look for solutions.
  The Children's Hospital Association and the American Academy of 
Pediatrics has asked this President to issue an emergency declaration 
to free up more resources. I support them.
  At the top of the list, America desperately needs more nurses, more 
doctors, more staff. Hospitals plagued with worker shortage even before 
COVID now have a pandemic that made the crisis even worse. If our 
children's hospitals had more staff, they could immediately open more 
beds to treat the kids.
  Congress made some headway in the American Rescue Plan, which passed 
on the floor of the Senate without the support of a single Republican 
Senator. It included my provision to invest $1 billion in the National 
Health Service Corps for scholarships and loan repayments for new 
nurses and doctors who serve in urban and rural areas in need.
  But we need to do more to end the healthcare worker shortage. 
Senators Menendez, Boozman, and Schumer have a bipartisan plan, which I 
support. It increases funding for medical residency slots to train the 
next generation of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. I 
support putting that plan in the end-of-the-year package we will 
consider in the next few weeks.

  It is also critical that we fund our public health system adequately 
and provide for data collection so we can track RSV. The HELP Committee 
has been working on this priority, and I certainly support their 
efforts.
  We are all in this together. The hospitals are doing their best. 
Doctors and nurses are working extra-long shifts to keep kids safe. We 
all need to do our part, too. For all of us, that means staying home 
when we are sick, still washing our hands, getting COVID booster and 
flu shots. For those of us in Congress, it also means providing the 
resources to get safely through this current surge of RSV and building 
the strong public health infrastructure that American families require.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I have spoken repeatedly about the 
many ways my Democratic colleagues' crusade for power has been 
disastrous for the American people. We have recordbreaking inflation, a 
chaotic southern border, and the collapsing energy industry. This is 
the world that the Democrats created in just 2 short years.
  What is worse, this Democrat-led government has ignored the ripple 
effects of their reckless agenda in favor of maintaining a political 
narrative about progress. But to Tennesseans and to so many Americans, 
it feels like the country is not moving forward; it is moving backward.
  I have come to the floor again today to talk about the ripple effects 
of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate that threatens to gut the ranks of the 
U.S. military. This body has had multiple chances to avert disaster, 
and each time the Democrats have decided to take the wrong path.
  I introduced two amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act 
that would have kept politics out of the military's use of vaccines. 
They are simple. Each amendment is about one page long. The first of 
these would have prohibited involuntary separation of any servicemember 
for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine until each service achieves its 
authorized end strength.
  You see, it makes absolutely no sense that we would be removing 
people from military service simply because they do not get a shot--a 
shot, by the way, that does not prevent you from getting COVID.
  Now, the second amendment would make sure that members of the 
National Guard or Reserve maintain access to both pay and benefits 
while their request for an accommodation--a medical accommodation or 
religious beliefs accommodation--is pending. But, of course, my 
Democratic colleagues have blocked these two amendments. They are 
common sense. They protect our men and women in the military.
  But it is my plan to offer them another opportunity to do the right 
thing. I have combined these amendments into a bill. That bill is 
called the Preserving the Readiness of our Armed Forces Act. It is 
filed. It is ready for more cosponsors. I am also going to give them 
another opportunity. When the NDAA finally comes to the floor, they are 
going to have the opportunity to consider these two amendments, and I 
am asking my colleagues to support me in this. I stand by my call to 
Leader Schumer to bring the NDAA to the floor for a vote and hope that 
my Democratic colleagues will change course and support these two 
amendments to protect our men and women in uniform.
  But, right now, the ripple effect is seen as another reckless power 
play by this administration and their Department of Defense.
  I went into detail earlier this week about how this would hamper the 
readiness of the U.S. military, and I want to focus on the death blow 
today that this has dealt to our recruitment. Keep in mind that this is 
information that is available to each and every Member of this Chamber. 
My Democratic colleagues have this information.
  Here is what we have to consider: the number of new servicemembers 
who are joining the military is, right now--right now--at an all-time 
low. Academy applications for our military academies are also at an 
all-time low.
  See, even high school students know something is wrong with this 
picture. So they are not sitting there thinking: ``I want to go to West 
Point'' or ``I want to go to Annapolis'' or ``I want to go to the Air 
Force.'' They are not thinking that. What they are saying is, Why is 
the military focused on all this other stuff other than on their core 
mission--keeping this country safe?
  Now, again, statistics prove the point.
  The Army has fallen 15,000 soldiers short of their goal for 2022, and 
they don't expect this situation to improve. In 2023, they think they 
are going to be 21,000 troops short. I want you to think about this. 
Think about what we are facing, whether it is attacks from the axis of 
evil--Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--or whether it is China's 
aggressiveness.
  Think about this. Think about the difference that 10,000 troops, 
15,000 troops, 21,000 troops make, and then ask yourself, why is it 
that men and women, citizens of this country, are not wanting to raise 
their hand and take the oath to protect and defend? If you are honest 
with yourself, you know that a big part of the problem is the way the 
military has been treated over the last couple of years.
  We didn't have this problem previously. This is a problem that has 
been made for our military, for this Nation's security. It has been 
made by this administration.
  The National Guard is missing their recruitment goals. Why is that? 
Could it be that having to take a shot--and bear in mind, it is not a 
vaccine like a polio vaccine or other vaccines; it is a shot for a 
certain strain of COVID. What you have is a Department of Defense that 
is willing to say ``You are fired'' to people who have volunteered to 
serve this country, and they are going to do it over a shot. They don't 
expect anybody running over the southern border illegally, I might add, 
to have the shot, but they expect members of the U.S. military, 
students at our academies, those who are on Active Duty, those who are 
reservists, those who are in the National Guard to get this even though 
President Biden has said the pandemic is over--it is over.
  So you have to ask, why is it that they are continuing to beat down 
on the military? Why are they willing to pummel them over a shot? Why 
are they not willing to put the NDAA on the floor? We have done it for 
61 years. Are we going to miss on year 62? Why is it not a priority? 
Could it possibly be that the NDAA is not a priority for my

[[Page S6731]]

Democratic colleagues, that the men and women in uniform protecting 
them and their families are not a priority? Could it be it is not at 
the top of their to-do list?
  The choice to enter military service is a serious choice. It is a 
choice that people do not make lightly. But this hesitancy to serve 
should raise alarm bells in this Chamber. Looking at these numbers that 
are falling so far short of our recruitment goals, our retention goals, 
should ring some alarm bells. It is symptomatic of a much larger 
problem.
  The past few years haven't been easy for anyone, but we all have the 
benefit of hindsight. We all have the benefit of lessons learned. But 
it appears that some people are just not willing to learn from those 
lessons, and anyone willing to be honest about how the Democrats have 
handled this can see two things pretty clearly:
  First, turning the debate over the COVID vaccine into political 
warfare--that is a choice that the Democrats in this Chamber, the 
Democrats in Washington, DC, and this administration--that is a choice 
that they have made. Let's take this vaccine mandate, and let's turn it 
into political warfare.
  Secondly, getting political about this particular vaccine or shot, as 
it is, in the context of military readiness--that was a choice; I might 
add, a very bad, a very inappropriate choice. The military is supposed 
to be apolitical. Servicemembers count on that when they sign up to 
serve, when they raise their hand, when they take that oath, but now 
punditry drives policy at the Pentagon, and this has eroded trust 
between the military, the servicemembers, and their families.
  The Democrats are in charge of the Senate. If they had allowed it, we 
could have had an honest debate about my two amendments. As I said, 
they are each about one page long. They are there specifically to 
protect our men and women in uniform, to say we have to have them 
serve. We lost 5,700 to this COVID mandate. We are short--I have given 
you the numbers--15,000 this year and 21,000 for next year. That is 
what we are short. Recruitment is low. We are not hitting our marks 
there. Signing up for our military academies--the numbers are the 
lowest ever. We are not hitting the mark there. Why is it? Be honest 
with yourself and ask yourself, what has caused this change in 
attitude? You know, if you are honest with yourself, if the President 
were honest with himself, he could rescind that mandate. That would be 
a very good thing. But to ignore reality and pretend that these low 
recruitment numbers, these firings, these retention numbers are all 
OK--it is unconscionable.
  It is time for my colleagues--my Democratic colleagues--to stop 
ignoring the reality, stop ignoring the ripple effects of their 
political agenda before it puts our Nation and our military in danger.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        Civil-Military Relations

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to share some words of wisdom 
with my colleagues. These words of wisdom come from 13 former top 
civilian and military leaders. I am going to start with the list of 
eight former Defense Secretaries: Dr. Ashton Carter, recently deceased; 
William Cohen, also a former Senator; Dr. Mark Esper; Dr. Robert Gates; 
Charles Hagel, also a former Senator; Gen. James Mattis, besides being 
Secretary of Defense; Leon Panetta, also a former Congressman; and Dr. 
William Perry. Also added to this list are five former Chairmen of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff: GEN Martin Dempsey; GEN Joseph Dunford, Jr.; ADM 
Michael Mullen; GEN Richard Myers; and GEN Peter Pace. They offer some 
very sage advice for improving civil-military relations.
  Everybody knows where this principle came from of civil control of 
our military. It happened December 1783 when GEN George Washington 
surrendered his papers to the Continental Congress and gave up being 
commander in chief at that particular time.
  These words of wisdom appear in an open letter that was published 
September 6 in a national security blog, and that blog is entitled 
``War on the Rocks.''
  I intended to speak about this letter at the time that I first read 
it, but due to our extended recess, I am just now getting to it about 2 
months late.
  These former leaders warn us about what they call ``extreme strain'' 
in civil-military relations coming from all directions, and these are 
the directions that this strain is coming from, affecting civil-
military relations: the pandemic, with social disruption; wars that 
ended with unachieved goals; military withdrawal from Afghanistan; 
rising great-power rivalries; ``extremely adverse'' political 
environment caused by the divisiveness of polarization in our American 
society, evidenced here in the Congress of the United States; and 
lastly, contested elections and the shaky transfer of power. After 
listing these points, these defense leaders then predict rising 
tensions.
  This is a red flag that we all ought to observe. Civil-military 
relations are out of balance.
  Although alarming, the open letter is both educational and 
reassuring. It offers guidance and remedies. Sixteen what they call 
``core principles and best practices'' are spotlighted for restoring 
``healthy American civil-military relations.'' Most of these remedies 
hinge on the all-important principle of civilian control of the 
military.
  By the way, I spoke on that very subject from a different angle on 
July 14 of this year.
  The letter that I am referring to views civilian control as I do: 
``the bedrock foundation of American democracy.'' It is ultimately 
``wielded by the will of the American people as expressed through 
elections.'' That core constitutional principle keeps our ``powerful 
standing military'' from threatening democracy.
  ``Healthy civil-military relations''--those four words are in 
quotes--``Healthy civil-military relations'' are instrumental to 
civilian control. They must rest on a rock-solid foundation of ``mutual 
trust.'' Mutual trust and respect between civilian and military leaders 
are essential for healthy civil-military relations. They are fostered 
in part by honest deliberations over policy choices. According to this 
open letter, mutual trust is cultivated when civilian leaders 
``rigorously explore alternatives that are best for the country 
regardless of the implications for partisan politics.''
  A ``dynamic and iterative process'' for policy development helps 
``civil-military teams build up a reservoir of trust.'' That extra 
measure of trust will defuse friction when the military must 
``faithfully implement directives that run counter to their 
professional military preference.''
  When tensions rise over disagreement with the Commander in Chief's 
policy choices, the former Pentagon leaders offer this guidance in 
their very own words. And this is a fairly long quote:

       Elected (and appointed) civilians have the right to be 
     wrong, meaning they have the right to insist on a policy or 
     direction that proves, in hindsight, to have been a mistake. 
     This right obtains even if other voices warn in advance that 
     the proposed action is a mistake.
       Military officials are required to carry out legal orders 
     the wisdom of which they doubt. Civilian officials should 
     provide the military ample opportunity to express their 
     doubts in appropriate venues . . . members of the military 
     accept limits on the public expression of their private 
     views--limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on 
     other citizens.
       Civilian and military officials should also take care to 
     properly characterize military advice in public. Civilian 
     leaders must take responsibility for the consequences of the 
     actions that they direct.

  Now, the advice of these former chiefs of staff and former 
secretaries of defense is honest, it is direct, and squares very much 
with the Constitution of the United States. The Commander in Chief's 
orders must be obeyed. The military must refrain from criticizing the 
President in public. And the President is accountable for policy 
choices.
  On partisan political activities, the former chiefs and secretaries 
of defense offer a straightforward piece of advice:

       There are significant limits on the public role of military 
     personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding 
     Defense Department policy and regulations . . . military and 
     civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping military 
     separate from partisan political activities.

  The final best practice that they offer us covers the responsibility 
of military leaders during the transfer of power after Presidential 
elections. They--meaning the military--have a dual obligation. First, 
they must assist

[[Page S6732]]

the incumbent Commander in Chief in the exercise of his or her 
constitutional duty. And, second, since the voters choose the new 
Commander in Chief, they must prepare to assist whomever the voters 
pick.
  They carry out their responsibilities regardless of who sits in the 
White House. To summarize, this open letter provides sound advice that 
could help to moderate civil-military strife. It telegraphs a message 
to the top brass: It is time to hit the reset button and rebalance 
civil-military relations.
  Now, I don't know the motive behind this letter, because there wasn't 
any indication of it, but the sum of it may be pointed directly at 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley. My advice to him: 
Take their sage advice to heart. A dose of humility burnishes one's 
integrity. As the Nation's most senior military officer, General Milley 
has a responsibility to set an example of excellence and cease all 
partisan political activity. Partisan political activity is harmful to 
civil-military relations and has the potential for creating dangerous 
divisions within the ranks of the Armed Forces.
  Military personnel must stay out of politics. Period. End of story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today for my 286th ``Time to 
Wake Up'' speech, in this case to report back from the United Nations' 
27th Conference of the Parties, or COP, the annual meeting where the 
nations of the world work to combat climate change. The Paris 
Agreement, for instance, sprang from the COP. Senators Cardin, Markey, 
and I went to this year's COP in Egypt. Speaker Pelosi led a separate 
House delegation, and President Biden traveled there with a large 
executive branch delegation to make some important announcements.
  Our Senate delegation met with government officials from many other 
countries, with American officials, with UN leaders, and with dozens of 
business leaders, labor leaders, environmental groups, environmental 
justice advocates, and oceans advocates.
  We consistently heard that the work we accomplished right here in 
this Chamber through the Inflation Reduction Act and by ratifying the 
Kigali Amendment brought our country back into global leadership on 
climate. But we know that our work to tackle climate change is not 
over--not by a long shot.
  Emissions from fossil fuel are still growing. 2022 fossil fuel 
emissions will blow right past previous record highs. Things are not 
getting better yet; they are getting worse. We need additional 
ambitious climate policies, both at home and abroad, to reduce those 
emissions.
  And because climate disasters so often fall upon the most vulnerable, 
particularly in developing nations, we need the wealthier nations and 
the ultrawealthy corporations responsible for the lion's share of 
climate upheaval to step up to finance the clean energy transition for 
those countries.
  So, what are the things the United States and other nations should 
do? At the COP, I spoke a lot about the upcoming European Union carbon 
border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM. The EU already applies a carbon 
price to energy-intensive manufactured goods. That is one of the main 
policies that is driving decarbonization in Europe, and they will 
start, later this decade, imposing a carbon tariff on goods from 
countries that don't impose a comparable carbon price on those imported 
goods.
  My message to the COP: The EU CBAM is good policy. It creates an 
incentive for lower carbon manufacturing, no matter where the goods are 
produced. The United States should not--I repeat--the United States 
should not complain about the EU CBAM. Our manufacturers are among the 
least carbon intensive in the world, and they will pay far lower carbon 
tariffs than, for instance, Chinese manufacturers. That makes American 
companies more globally competitive and will move jobs and 
manufacturing our way to our shores.
  So instead of complaining, we should match the EU CBAM or beat it 
with our own carbon border adjustment plan. And, by the way, we should 
urge the British and the Canadians and the Japanese and the 
Australians, anyone else interested in lowering emissions, to do the 
same. We should all pull together.
  The beauty of a well-designed carbon border adjustment is that it 
prevents cheating by polluters to cross borders and pollute elsewhere 
for free.
  A carbon border adjustment regime will drive decarbonization 
everywhere--in China, India, and around the world. If their 
manufacturers want to compete, they will have to reduce their 
emissions. So, yes, let's meet or beat the EU CBAM, not fear it or 
resist it.
  By the way, when we heard quibbles about our IRA incentives for clean 
energy and electric vehicles and low carbon manufacturing being unfair 
to our foreign trading partners, my response was the same: Meet us or 
beat us. Pass incentives as good as ours or better. Let our IRA be an 
example that can be replicated around the world. As I mentioned 
earlier, President Biden came to the COP with ambitious proposals. He 
unveiled a new EPA proposal to reduce methane emissions from oil and 
gas production and transport by almost 90 percent.
  This is--as President Biden might say--a ``BFD'' as methane emissions 
are responsible for about 25 percent of observed warming. The EPA 
proposal is a huge step in the right direction. It would create a new 
process for third-party monitoring of methane emissions. There are 
already a number of private and public entities that monitor methane 
emissions around the world using satellites, aircraft, drones. Utilize 
this data to quickly identify and eliminate large sources of methane 
emissions.
  We should stand up an enforcement task force to make sure leakers 
promptly face the best enforcement methods to stop their leaks. 
Combined with my methane fee, which was adopted into the IRA as the 
Methane Emission Reduction Program, we now have the platform for the 
EPA, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and 
interested State, local, and tribal authorities to, as they would say 
in the military, find, fix, and finish methane leak sources.
  Given that methane emissions are a global problem, particularly in 
fossil fuel-producing countries like Russia, I also urged the U.S. and 
foreign officials with whom we met to stand up an international task 
force to identify overseas methane emissions and sanction parties, 
companies, and countries that don't eliminate them.
  Buried within EPA's methane proposal is another important 
announcement, an updated social cost of carbon, pegged at $120 per ton, 
more than double the Obama-era estimate. This too is a ``BFD.'' But 
only if the Office of Management and Budget follows up and spreads its 
use beyond just the EPA and this regulation into rulemaking, 
procurement, grantmaking, investment decisions, leasing, trade policy, 
just to name a few. It would be transformative; and given the scale and 
scope of the Federal Government, it would have the power to move 
markets.
  One note of warning, our success in the United States, as well as in 
countries around the world, will, in significant ways, be determined by 
the behavior of big corporations.
  Corporate America has built the biggest political influence operation 
the world has ever seen. It surrounds this building, surrounds us here 
in Congress. Lobbyists, dark money, trade associations, political 
contributions, phony think tanks--it is an awesome apparatus, and it is 
one that corporate America has yet to switch on for climate 
legislation. They either sit out there doing nothing or they actually 
oppose it.
  Despite often admirable corporate work to decarbonize their own 
operations and even their supply chains, much of the corporate 
political apparatus is actually actively hostile to real climate 
legislation. And on top of that, of course, is the fossil fuel 
industry's inveterate, ceaseless obstruction machine.

  So I was pleased to see the United Nations Secretary General announce 
new criteria for assessing corporate climate pledges--criteria that 
will include their lobbying and advocacy behavior. The report states:

       [Companies] must align their external policy and engagement 
     efforts, including membership in trade associations, to the 
     goal of

[[Page S6733]]

     reducing global emissions by at least 50% by 2030 and 
     reaching net zero by 2050. This means lobbying for positive 
     climate action and not lobbying against it. [Companies] 
     should publicly disclose their trade association 
     affiliations. They should encourage their associations to 
     advocate for positive climate action and have an escalation 
     strategy if they do not, including the option of leaving the 
     association if the necessary changes are not made.

  I could not agree more. At COP, I repeatedly made the argument that 
companies should actually be required to file audited climate political 
footprint statements. Too many companies have been two-faced for too 
long. That climate political footprint statement should be the ticket 
that admits companies to COP and to other environmental gatherings.
  But instead of corporate transparency about their political 
activities, more than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists swarmed this COP. Coca-
Cola, the world's largest plastics polluter, was a leading sponsor. 
That ``worst climate obstructor''--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--hosted 
the big dinner and put on a speech by a fossil fuel services company 
president. It is hard for people around the world to take COPs 
seriously when the fossil fuel industry and other large polluters have 
such a prominent presence at the COP and they haven't had to even 
disclose their political efforts to undermine that very COP.
  Instead of welcoming the big polluters to COPs, we should hold them 
accountable for the damages their pollution is causing. A windfall 
profits clawback on global excess fuel profits, just like the 
conservative Tories did in the UK, could help fund remediation, 
transition, and adaptation efforts in developing countries. It is a 
commonsense principle that polluters should pay for the harm that they 
cause.
  At the end, I left this COP with a sense of pride that the Senate and 
the U.S. Government are finally getting going on climate, but also a 
sense of the awesome difficulty of the task ahead to bend that global 
emissions curve, to hit nature's emissions reduction targets.
  Our work is not close to done. In fact, it has only just begun. After 
decades of delay, deliberately caused by the fossil fuel industry's 
multibillion-dollar campaign of denial and obstruction, we are now in a 
marathon that we will have to run as a sprint. But this past year 
proved that we are finally up and running, and the announcements at COP 
will pick up our laggard pace. Our joints may be stiff from disuse, our 
breathing may be ragged from years of lassitude on the couch, but we 
have at last begun to run. And, boy, does it feel good. We will only 
speed up and do better. Powered by the energy and enthusiasm of legions 
of young voters, we are, I dare to say, at last coming awake.
  I will close with this last slide which shows how important it is to 
see this as a global problem.
  Those are emissions from China, from the United States, from India, 
and from the EU. When you add them up, you see the global figure. If we 
address each of these or just our own, it does not help enough to avoid 
the consequences of that continuing upward emissions trajectory.
  So that is where an internal social cost of carbon that cuts across 
every aspect of government, buttressed by a carbon border adjustment of 
the world's major economies--that is what can drive that line down and 
put us on a pathway to safety.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Washington.


                        Respect for Marriage Act

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to urge my 
colleagues to support the Respect for Marriage Act. Today, we took an 
important step by passing the procedural hurdle to make sure that 
marriage equality is put into law.
  This legislation would ensure that both the Federal and State 
Governments will continue to recognize all marriages and continue to 
not discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, national origin, 
ethnicity or race. These are strong protections that are long overdue.
  I understand some of my colleagues do not see a need for passing this 
legislation, but I would ask them to stand in the shoes of someone in a 
marriage that is in danger of being dissolved overnight by a court 
decision. The same rationale for overturning Roe v. Wade can be used in 
this landmark Supreme Court decision we just saw that could erode 
further privacy rights and be used in same-sex marriages.

  While marriage equality is constitutionally protected today, the 
Supreme Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization indicated the Court is open to reconsidering cases that 
determine certain fundamental rights are protected under the equal 
protection and due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  I believe it is our job here in the Senate to represent the voice of 
our constituents, and those voices are loud and clear. An overwhelming 
majority of Americans support marriage equality. According to a Gallup 
poll, 71 percent of Americans approve of same-sex marriage. In 
September, over 220 businesses, representing more than 8.5 million 
employees, called on the U.S. Senate to pass this legislation.
  And this was not a bill that garnered support from just a few 
Republicans for the sake of calling it bipartisan. Forty-seven 
Republicans and over 20 percent of the House GOP Members recognized 
that this should be enshrined into law and supported the legislation. 
It passed the House by a large majority--267 to 157.
  Americans support this bill. Businesses support this bill. And now 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken the 
step to also support this legislation.
  The State of Washington was one of the first 10 States to legalize 
same-sex marriage and did so by a vote of the people.
  I recently received a letter from a constituent from Everett, WA, 
saying that she and her wife moved to Washington in 2016 because ``they 
needed to be somewhere where our rights would be protected in the event 
that they would be threatened.''
  She said: ``As soon as I arrived in Washington, I felt like I had 
come home.''
  Marriage equality has been protected under Washington State law for a 
decade. It has been protected by the Supreme Court for 7 years, and 
yet, here in the Senate, there are some who don't believe that we need 
to take further protections.
  At least 11.5 million people in this country are in an interracial or 
same-sex marriage. That is no less than 20 percent of all marriages in 
the United States.
  With a number like that, we all know someone in one of those 
marriages, whether they are our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues. 
We know that we need to give them the same certainty, and we know that 
codifying marriage equality into law, they will not be in jeopardy of 
losing those rights.
  Same-sex and interracial couples deserve the assurance that their 
marriage will be recognized. They need to know that they will continue 
to enjoy the freedom and privileges that are afforded to other couples, 
and we need to make sure that this is for generations to come.
  The American people want this legislation passed, and I urge my 
colleagues to come together and support this very important Respect for 
Marriage Act.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Respect for 
Marriage Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  I come from a State that has long been at the cutting edge of 
progress. Minnesota began protecting LGBTQ people against workplace 
discrimination in 1993. At that time, it was the first and only State 
in the Nation to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity. And 
two decades later, in 2013, we became the 12th State to legalize 
marriage equality.
  Across the country, as we know, many States have made advances. 
Today, 23 States have laws protecting people from discrimination based 
on

[[Page S6734]]

sexual orientation or gender identity. And in 2015, the Supreme Court 
recognized that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the 
right to marry.

  But as far as we have come, we still have miles to go until LGBTQ 
Americans can live their lives with freedom, authenticity, and 
equality. And we must also make sure that we protect the progress we 
make.
  From what happened recently with the Dobbs decision, as we know, 
rights that people take for granted--nearly 50 years of Roe v. Wade--
can vanish with one mark of a pen, with one signature on a piece of 
paper.
  In fact, when it comes to gay marriage, when it comes to the 
protections granted by the Obergefell case--it was actually raised in 
one of the Justice's written opinions--we know that this is on the 
chopping block.
  That is why, when a Supreme Court Justice signals that the hard-won 
legal protection for marriage equality could be on that chopping block, 
putting the legal rights of countless married couples and families in 
jeopardy, we felt--a number of Republicans and Democrats--on a 
bipartisan basis, that we had to step in. That is why we are here.
  The way I see it, all three branches of government have a 
responsibility to protect people's rights. This is why our system of 
government was set up this way brilliantly. If one branch doesn't do 
its job, then it is up to another to step in. Yes, it is a system of 
checks and balances. Checks. If someone's power is out of control, as I 
believe happened here--out of the mainstream, out of consistency with 
the American people--that is a check. That is why we have it this way.
  That is why you are seeing today--thanks to the leadership of our 
friends Senator Feinstein, Senator Baldwin, Senator Collins, Senator 
Sinema, Senator Portman, Senator Tillis, and so many others--that we 
have reached a bipartisan agreement to move this bill forward.
  As you know, in July, the House of Representatives passed the Respect 
for Marriage Act to protect marriage equality. They did that on a 
bipartisan basis as well. Forty-seven Republicans voted for that bill 
in the House of Representatives.
  For our Senate bill, I will note that the bipartisan text also has 
broad support from faith-based organizations to more than 250 
businesses, including Minnesota's own Target and Best Buy.
  We have before us a bill that requires States and the Federal 
Government to respect marriages legally entered into in other States, 
regardless of the sex or the race of the people who are married.
  This is the kind of bill that should get 100 votes. It is about 
equality; it is about dignity; and it is about love. It is about saying 
that we won't go back to the days when a patchwork of State laws 
determined whether the union of two people who loved each other would 
be recognized by their government; that we won't go back to the days 
when a gay soldier, killed on the battlefield, was denied the honor and 
the respect of an official notification of next of kin. And we won't go 
back to the days of hospital patients being left to spend their final 
moments alone without the person they love most by their side.
  This bipartisan vote today, and the one that we will have in the 
coming days, is about, no, we will not go backward. We will not go 
backward in this Chamber. We will not follow the way that the Supreme 
Court has been going when it comes to folding back rights and denying 
rights. That is not what America is about.
  We should all be able to agree that States shouldn't be able to 
discriminate against people based on whom they love. This bill gives 
each and every one of my colleagues the opportunity to make that 
statement.
  We know that there is more to be done to make sure all Americans are 
entitled to equal protections under the law, but this is an important 
step toward ensuring that no American experiences discrimination 
because of whom they love.
  This is a great moment. It is a wonderful moment because my 
colleagues were able to reach an agreement across the aisle. It is a 
wonderful moment because we are fulfilling our constitutional duty of 
checks and balances. It is a moment of joy.
  We have to remember that sometimes in our job, we have these moments 
that actually people say thank you for what you just did. They stop you 
in an airport, as the Presiding Officer knows, and say thank you. A lot 
of people are going to be saying that this week because they know this 
is the right thing to do, regardless of people's political views, 
regardless of their religious beliefs. It is why we are so proud that 
so many religious organizations are supporting this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Religious Freedom Restoration Act

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, 29 years ago today--29 years ago today--
President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill sponsored by then-
Representative Chuck Schumer that has aided in the defense of 
protection of one of the most fundamental freedoms that we have in our 
Nation; that freedom, religious freedom. The bill was called the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress today, 29 
years ago, found that government should not substantially burden 
religious exercise without a compelling justification. It was truly a 
landmark piece of legislation to be able to add further protections to 
individuals who have religious liberty differences. And we have wide 
variations of religious expressions in the United States. It is part of 
what makes us such a unique nation. It is that we guard the rights of 
every individual to not have to believe the same as the government 
believes or not even have to believe the same as your next-door 
neighbor believes but to have the right to freely have a faith of your 
choosing, to change your faith at any point, if you choose to, or to 
have no faith at all and be respected as an American; quite frankly, to 
be protected as an American.
  This landmark piece of legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act, has not been altered in the 29 years since it has been passed. The 
purpose of the act was to restore a compelling interest test to be able 
to make sure that if government acted in any way to affect anyone's 
religious liberty, there had to be a compelling reason for that from 
the government to guarantee its application in all cases where free 
exercise of religion is substantially burdened and provide a claim or 
defense for those whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by 
government.
  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't pick winners and 
losers. It provides a balancing test. The government may burden 
someone's religious exercise only if the burden is in furtherance of a 
compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of 
furthering that compelling government interest. Twenty-nine years ago 
today.
  Then, today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill that, instead of 
promoting equality for all people of all opinions, it specifically 
highlights areas of religious faith differences and says their opinions 
won't count this time.
  It deals with this issue of marriage, which has been a controversial 
issue in America but was, quite frankly--since 2015 in the Obergefell 
decision in the Supreme Court, there have been no cases moved in the 
country to deny same-sex marriage to any individual in any State across 
the Nation.
  Today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill to open up debate--
without amendment, may I add--on a bill that would certainly affect the 
religious liberty of countless people across the country. That is not 
just my opinion. Religious liberty organizations from all faiths and 
from all backgrounds have already been speaking out on this issue. Just 
in the last 24 hours, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American 
Association of Christian Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban 
Renewal and Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian 
Employers Alliance, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Ethics & 
Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the 
Family Research Council, the Family Policy Alliance,

[[Page S6735]]

The Heritage Foundation, the Liberty Counsel, Lifeline Children's 
Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, Religious Freedom 
Institute, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the 
Ethics and Public Policy Center have all spoken out and said this bill 
that is currently on the floor of the Senate will damage religious 
liberty.
  Religious institutions are rising up, reading the text of this bill, 
rather than just listening to the debate of this bill, and saying: 
There is a problem here.
  Practically, what would this mean? Practically, what could this mean?
  I would say, first and foremost, we don't want anyone to be 
discriminated against in America--anyone to be discriminated against in 
America. All individuals should be honored. All individuals should be 
able to live their lives in freedom in America. But, practically, this 
bill puts faith-based child welfare organizations who are operating in 
accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, namely, to 
place children in loving families--it puts them in jeopardy.
  While some of my colleagues may say, Well, that is farfetched, may I 
remind you, the Supreme Court has already handed down a decision in 
Fulton and would remind us this is continuing to happen. Catholic 
Charities has been shut out of the child welfare system in Illinois, in 
DC, in California, and in Massachusetts already, and then this bill is 
coming.
  Let me tell you some of the problems with the bill because I have had 
individuals tell me about what they say is in the bill, and then I 
actually pull the text of the bill out and show it to them and say: 
Show me where that is in the bill. And their response to me typically 
is: Well, that is the intent of the bill.
  Well, we don't deal with intent here in Congress; we deal with 
legislation and text. The words matter in this, and the words in this 
do not provide the level of religious liberty protections, as many on 
this floor who have come to debate this say that is actually in this 
bill.
  Let me give you just some simple examples of this. This bill gives a 
private right of action for both--well, I should say gives protections 
from the Attorney General to be able to file charges against an 
individual that shows discrimination or a private right of action for 
an individual to be able to sue another individual or entity in this, 
unless the discrimination is for religious liberty. They are peculiarly 
left out.
  If there is discrimination against someone's religious liberty issues 
and their personal beliefs or their entity's beliefs, they don't get 
this same private right of action. So the private right of action only 
goes against people that have religious objections. Those religious 
individuals, if they are discriminated against, are on their own. They 
get no protections in this bill.
  The bill itself, I have heard individuals say: Well, it has a section 
in it that is literally titled ``No Impact on Religious Liberty and 
Conscience.'' So that is the big, nice title of that section, section 6 
of the bill. So let me read section 6 of this bill to you.
  The first part of it, section (a), says:

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious 
     liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an 
     individual or organization under the Constitution of the 
     United States or Federal law.

  Now, that has got to be the biggest ``no duh'' statement out there. 
This piece of legislation doesn't overturn the Constitution is what it 
says. That is an unnecessary statement on it. Of course the 
Constitution stands above it.
  The second part of this, in part (b), says, basically, a rabbi, an 
imam, or a pastor is not compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that 
they are religiously opposed to. That is the whole religious liberty 
section of it--the whole section. First, it says it doesn't overturn 
the Constitution, and, second, it says pastors, imams, rabbis don't 
have to perform religious weddings that they are personally religiously 
opposed to.
  That doesn't help. In fact, there is a qualifying feature in the 
middle of all this in that section, section 6, which limits the 
individuals that would even get any kind of protections on this by 
saying ``whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement 
of religion,'' meaning an individual would first have to prove that 
your principal purpose is to study, practice, or advance religion 
before you even got those exceptions.
  Why is that important? Well, I asked some of the sponsors of this 
bill why that particular piece of text is in there, and their 
explanation was, well, because we didn't want to include, for 
protections on religious liberty, private individuals and their 
personal religious expression or private businesses; that maybe the 
owners of that business have a personal religious belief in how they 
carry out their business, but they would not have religious protections 
because they are not principally a religious organization. So they do 
not get a defense. They don't get a private right of action to defend 
themselves. They just have to cave to the religious beliefs of this 
law.

  Twenty-nine years ago, this Congress said we were not going to impose 
beliefs onto people. Today, this Congress said: If you are a faith-
based individual and you have a difference of conscience about 
marriage, too bad. You have to prove you are a principally religious 
organization to have an exception; an individual doesn't count. A 
private business is specifically excluded.
  In section 7 of this bill--I have had several of the sponsors who 
have told me: Section 7 covers everything else. It makes sure it 
protects nonprofits. It makes sure it protects all of your tax-exempt 
status, your grants--it is all in there. Until you read the text. No, 
those words are in there, but there are two big qualifiers that are 
also in that section.
  The first of the qualifiers begins with ``Nothing in this Act . . . 
shall be construed to deny or alter'' the benefits, meaning if it is in 
something else, that is not protected. It has to be something 
specifically in this act.
  The second thing is the very end of this. It gives a long section on 
this.

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status . . .

  It goes on to explain some of these things, and then it ends with 
this:

       Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from 
     a marriage.

  That is the qualifier:

       Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from 
     a marriage.

  Now, I have handed this around and asked legal counsel: Explain to me 
what that means. And the first response that I get is: Well, that is a 
clear protection for individuals that are married that if there is any 
right given to any other married couple, they get the same right.
  And I was like, that makes total sense. What about for entities, 
because the word ``entity'' is in this list?
  And that is where it gets fuzzy because it has this qualifier:

       Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from 
     a marriage.

  We don't know how that is going to be interpreted for entities. So it 
is left for the courts to decide in the days ahead how that is going to 
be interpreted.
  So what has been done with this? All these things have been brought 
up. We have had this text now for about 36 hours. It literally just got 
dropped on us. So for about 36 hours we have been going through it--and 
it is not long; it is three pages--asking questions: How does it work? 
What happens with it?
  Several individuals have said: Hey, this is a real problem for 
religious liberty. We should fix this.
  And others have said: Yeah, that is a good idea. Let's make sure that 
it is actually clear--except, now that the debate has started, 
amendments have been shut out. There are no amendments. All of these 
gaps that I talk about for individuals, for small businesses, for 
individuals of conscience, for the right to be able to protect yourself 
if you are facing religious discrimination on this, for the limiting 
portions in this act or from explaining ``not arising from a 
marriage,'' what that may mean, the issue of principal purpose and not 
having to prove your principal purpose, in a court of law, is a 
religious issue--everyone seems to nod their head and say: Oh, yeah, 
those are problems.
  Multiple Members have brought amendments and said: Let's fix it. Yet 
they are being told over and over again: No amendments. We are not 
going to fix it.

[[Page S6736]]

  You know what that tells me? These are not mistakes in the drafting. 
This was purposeful. That is what that tells me.
  Listen, I believe the rights of every individual should be honored, 
but this is not choosing to be able to protect the rights of every 
individual. This is saying some people are more equal than others. That 
is a problem.
  After the Obergefell decision was made, President Obama spoke to the 
Nation. He supported the Obergefell decision from the Supreme Court, 
but then he said this:

       I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide 
     range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has 
     been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who 
     welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact; 
     recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to 
     religious freedom.

  Great words that seem to be on the cutting room floor today. It 
hasn't taken long for President Obama's statement after the Obergefell 
decision to say: Never mind.
  This is fixable, but when people see the problem and the issue with 
it and choose to ignore it, I have to ask why.
  Twenty-nine years ago today, President Clinton signed into law the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and 29 years later, Congress is 
saying: Never mind.
  I find that a problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


        Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before the Senate finishes this evening, 
there is one more important piece of legislation we are passing today, 
which I want to tout: the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 
Expansion Act.
  I have to give great credit to Senator Feinstein, Senator Grassley, 
and Senator Schatz. They have championed this legislation and worked 
hard to see that it has gotten support of all the Senators. It would 
eliminate the redtape that hinders cannabis research, opening the door 
for new, innovative treatments derived from cannabis.
  Now, if you are one of the millions of Americans who deal with 
conditions like Parkinson's or epilepsy or post-traumatic stress, or 
any number of other conditions, cannabis might hold promising new 
options for managing these diseases, but we need to do research first. 
And the Federal government, sadly, has been woefully behind the times 
on this front.
  This bill will help fix that and, equally important, I hope that 
after passing this bill, the Senate can make progress on other cannabis 
legislation too. I am still holding productive talks with Democratic 
and Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate on moving 
additional bipartisan cannabis legislation in the lameduck, and we are 
going to try very, very hard to get it done. It is not easy, but we are 
making good progress. So I thank my colleagues for the excellent work 
on this bill and hope it portends more good cannabis legislation to 
come.

                          ____________________