[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 178 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6763-S6768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                         Remembering Rex Early

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, last week, Indiana lost a legend, and 
America lost a true original. Rex Early died Friday at age 88, after a 
long battle with illness.
  Rex was a lot of things in life. He was a U.S. marine. He was 
chairman of the Indiana Republican Party. He was a candidate for 
Governor of the State of Indiana. He is one of the few people in 
Indiana you had to go see if you wanted to run for public office.
  But Rex will be remembered mostly for his sense of humor, his way 
with words. Many of his stories and ``Rexisms'' can be found in his 
book, ``It's a Mighty Thin Pancake (That don't have two sides).''
  After being stationed in Japan in the Marine Corps, Rex went to 
Indiana University on the GI bill. He married his sweetheart Barbara, 
and they moved to Indianapolis.
  Rex said when he first went to register to vote in Indianapolis, the 
ward chairman said: Do you want to be a precinct committeeman? The last 
guy just went to jail.
  Of course, Rex responded quickly ``Sure,'' and that is how he got 
involved in local politics--or so Rex told us.
  Now, Rex said that one of the highlights of his professional career 
came during Ronald Reagan's Presidential campaign when Rex hosted an 
event at his home for the future President. Rex said he was considering 
hanging a plaque that read ``On May 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan used this 
bathroom.''
  But as Reagan left his house that day, Governor Reagan told Rex, 
``All those people were wrong, Rex.''
  Rex said, ``What people?''
  Governor Reagan said, ``All the people who said you had no class.''
  So Rex decided not to hang that plaque in his bathroom.
  The Republican Party in Indiana today has enjoyed a long period of 
governing success, helping our State become one of the best run and 
most fiscally sound in the Nation. You can trace that success directly 
back to work Rex Early put in in the early 1990s.
  One of Rex's 19 rules of politics was ``You might be important, but 
the number of people who will attend your funeral will be dictated by 
the weather.'' I don't understand what Rex was trying to say. Don't 
think too highly of yourself--perhaps that is what Rex had in mind. 
Don't become, as Rex would call you, a ``sophisti-suck.''
  But I disagree with Rex perhaps on this point. Rex's memorial service 
was well attended and not because the weather was good but because he 
made an indelible impression on everyone he met.
  Semper fi, Marine.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ERNST. 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. ERNST. I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Inflation

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, Thanksgiving is just a week away, and, of 
course, we will have turkey--or so we thought. In these difficult times 
as Americans, we all have a lot to be thankful for.
  I am so proud of my daughter Libby and grateful for my brandnew son-
in-law Andrew. I am thankful for being selected by my fellow Iowans to 
have the privilege of representing each of them in the U.S. Senate. And 
I know I speak on behalf of all Iowans when I express the most 
heartfelt gratitude for every one of the brave men and women who have 
served in the Armed Forces of our great Nation, risking everything to 
protect what we all hold dear.
  Thanksgiving is the day set aside for us to gather with family and 
friends to express our gratitude for all of our blessings with a grand 
feast. When most of us think of Thanksgiving trimmings, delicious sides 
like cranberry sauce--one of my favorites--sweet potatoes, green beans, 
mashed potatoes and gravy, and stuffing all come to mind. But this 
year, as a result of Bidenomics, Thanksgiving trimmings refer instead 
to the items being cut from the menu due to rising prices.
  With the cost of Thanksgiving dinner up 20 percent since last year, 9 
out of 10 Americans are planning to eliminate at least one dish from 
their menu. Some are even skipping the turkey altogether and serving 
cheaper alternatives like pizza. Most are also planning to invite fewer 
guests, and one in four plans to pass on Thanksgiving dinner altogether 
to save money.
  Hard-working Americans shouldn't have to trim the guest list or side 
dishes from Thanksgiving dinner, but with the out-of-control inflation 
being caused by the Democrats' failed economic policies gobbling up our 
family budgets, that is exactly what is happening.
  So let's talk turkey. Turkey costs 21 percent more this Thanksgiving 
than last. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the Democrats' 
Congressional Campaign Committee said families struggling with these 
rising prices should eat Chef Boyardee. That is what he said. If that 
is the Democrats' solution, boy are we cooked. Chef Boyardee? No. Chef 
Boy-are-we-cooked. What did his constituents think of this idea? On 
election day, they canned him.
  Instead of Chef Boyardee, Washington needs to serve up some real 
solutions to cut the causes of climbing costs. Beginning on his very 
first day in office, President Biden made it a priority to turn off 
American-made energy. This has been a recipe for disaster, with energy 
prices increasing nearly 18 percent just this last year.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the 
Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act will even further increase 
the cost of natural gas, which will have a direct impact on food prices 
because natural gas is a key component for producing fertilizer, which 
is already costing our farmers two to four times more today than just 2 
years ago. The Biden administration is also bringing out leftover land 
use rules from the Obama era that will impose costly and bureaucratic 
regulations on farmers that will also impact food costs. This certainly 
is no way to show gratitude towards those who grow the food we rely 
upon to feed our families on Thanksgiving and every other day.
  Folks, let's bring down costs by sticking a fork in these inflation-
causing laws and burdensome regulations that the Democrats keep dishing 
out.
  Bidenomics is going to be the real turkey at this year's gathering, 
but I sure hope the bigger bite it is taking out of your budget doesn't 
put you in a ``fowl'' mood when we all have so many other things to be 
thankful for.
  Happy Thanksgiving.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--S. 14

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request 
in regards to legislation that has already been passed by the 
committees of authorization.
  This is a bill that deals with fighting corruption globally. I need 
not remind

[[Page S6764]]

my colleagues that ``corruption threatens the United States' national 
security, economic equity, global antipoverty and development efforts, 
and democracy itself.''
  That was a quote in regards to President Biden's published memorandum 
of establishing the fight against corruption as a core United States 
national security interest.
  We have heard this over and over again. I was in the White House a 
few years back, and the National Security Council was convened because 
of the spread of corruption globally. It presents a national security 
threat to the United States of America, and we find that many countries 
are moving in the wrong direction in anticorruption measures, and there 
are identifiable issues--independent judiciary, dealing with 
antibribery status, dealing with public disclosure-type requirements. 
There are things that are pretty well-identified internationally as 
necessary in fighting corruption.
  Yesterday, I was in a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee with one of our closest allies, Georgia; and their judiciary 
is no longer independent, presenting real problems for our national 
security interests.
  So I have worked in a bipartisan manner with colleagues on the 
Republican and Democratic sides to develop a system whereby we would be 
able to determine which countries in the world need our attention in 
our bilateral relations and in the tools we have available to help them 
deal with creating an anticorruption system in their own governments.
  And we worked together to figure out how we can do this in a manner 
that would implement the types of results we need from our State 
Department.
  So the legislation that we crafted would have the State Department 
rank countries in the world as to whether they are in tier 1, 2, or 3.
  Tier 3 would be the countries of our concern. These are the countries 
that are not taking steps to deal with systemic corruption that they 
have in their system that does not comply with international standards.
  Tier 2 are countries that have not met those international standards, 
but they are taking the right courses.
  And tier 1 are those countries that have met these international 
standards.
  Now, this is not unique. We have done similar types of work in our 
State Department identifying problems with trafficking, trafficking in 
humans. We have similar types of work in our State Department to 
identify religious tolerance and freedom. We have similar efforts to 
deal with basic human rights. So this is a system that we have worked 
in the past.
  But it goes even further than that. The legislation gives the 
capacity in the State Department, in the missions in those countries 
that are in tier 3, to have a point person to help deal with the 
country to make the corrections that are necessary, to assist them.
  This is an effort to try to get countries on the right path to fight 
corruption. Because, you see, many countries are trying to become 
democratic states; but if they don't have the tools in place to protect 
them against corruption, they are going to find that they are not going 
to succeed in their efforts. So this is really an important step 
forward in order to build more democratic states around the world. It 
gives the right capacity to the State Department in its missions. I am 
pleased with the support I have gotten from many diplomats around the 
world, from many people in both branches of government. This bill is 
bipartisan. It has been--we have had markups in our committees and 
passed it in our committees, and I am hopeful that we can get a 
unanimous consent today to move it through the Senate so that hopefully 
we can catch up with the work that is being done in the House. We can 
reconcile any differences that may exist, but we will at least have 
this bill ready to move to fight corruption.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 88, S.14. I further ask that the 
committee-reported substitute be withdrawn, the Cardin substitute be 
considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time and passed, and the title amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, so I am going to reserve the right to 
object, and let me say I am doing this somewhat reluctantly because I 
fully acknowledge the Senator from Maryland is correct, that corruption 
is a scourge. There are many countries going the wrong direction. It is 
fully in the national interest of the United States to combat the 
corruption that we see, and he has proposed a completely good-faith, 
thoughtful approach to dealing with some aspects of the corruption that 
we find.
  But I have concerns about the particular way in which he does this, 
and I would like to work with him and see if we can find common ground 
on this.
  Let me explain my concern.
  The bill would task the State Department with annually ranking every 
country in the world, including our partners and allies and friends and 
even, maybe, countries that aren't necessarily so friendly but, at the 
moment, are maybe working with us. It requires that this ranking of 
countries, based on how corrupt they are, be then made public. That is 
for good intentions, but I am concerned that in the process of naming 
and shaming countries that are deemed to be in the wrong place, it 
could complicate efforts that we are making, whether it is our Treasury 
or our State Department, with very legitimate objectives that we have 
that are unrelated to the corruption problem that the country faces.
  For instance, depending on the country, maybe we want them to be more 
cooperative in the global coalition against Russia to defend Ukraine. 
Let's be honest. There are corruption problems in Ukraine also, but we 
are defending Ukraine, quite rightly. Maybe it is about joining the 
administration's Indo-Pacific economic framework, which is very 
important for a variety of reasons, but maybe there are corruption 
problems.
  This seems like a bit of a blunt tool that requires this labeling and 
naming and shaming, and it doesn't provide the discretion for the 
administration to say: You know, maybe right now isn't the right time 
to rub their noses in one of their problems because we need them for 
something else.
  So I guess what I would say is, look, fighting corruption is 
absolutely important, and the Senator from Maryland has been consistent 
and thoughtful on this, but it is not our only--and sometimes it is not 
our most important--objective with another country.
  I would like to continue to work with the Senator from Maryland, and 
I would be very happy to devote the time and energy to try to make sure 
we are able to get to common ground here before the end of the year; 
but at this moment, I can't support this, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that there is an 
objection, but I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's willingness 
to sit down and continue to try to work this out.
  We have met with several Members who have had some similar concerns, 
and I thought we had resolved most of those issues. I am fully prepared 
to continue to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and, hopefully, 
we can find a common spot.
  I would just point out that we have strategic partnerships with so 
many countries around the world that our State Department is very clear 
that we are not going to abandon our core principles in that 
relationship. We might need their help on a security issue, but if 
their human rights do not meet international standards, that will be 
raised.
  We know that, in many bilateral meetings that we hold with Senators 
or that the administration holds with heads of state on important 
subjects, they mention human rights because it is an important value 
that we have in our relationship. We do the same in the trafficking of 
persons. We do the same for religious freedom. We do the same in so 
many other areas. Corruption is a growing problem globally, and we need 
to elevate the importance of that in our bilaterals and the importance 
of that in supporting internationally recognized standards.

[[Page S6765]]

  But I understand the gentleman's concern. I will take him up on his 
offer. I will try not to bother him on Thanksgiving itself; but, 
perhaps, we can work together and find a way that we can move this 
forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask for a 
unanimous consent request on the confirmation of a highly qualified 
nominee standing ready to help lead the greatest military this world 
has ever known.
  Last month, I had the opportunity to go to Eastern Europe. I had the 
opportunity to visit with folks, to visit with our troops who are out 
there on the frontlines. I could not have been prouder of these folks 
who are placed far, far, far away from the United States, fighting the 
fight, stopping Russian aggression, and doing what they need to help 
protect our democracy and, quite frankly, the democracies around the 
world.
  It is our responsibility, as the U.S. Senate, to ensure that these 
folks have the support they need to protect our national security and 
defend our country against foreign adversaries like Russia.
  It is going to happen with the appropriations process. Hopefully, we 
will get a top-line number very, very soon, and we will get that done 
in December.
  But equally important is the kind of leaders we have in our military. 
We have to have capable leaders; otherwise, things won't happen as 
Congress intends them to. When these positions are left open, the 
military has their hands tied behind their back. I might add, this is 
the biggest budget by far in the United States of America.
  I had a visit with Senator Lee, and he is going to raise some 
important points today. I understand where he is coming from. I also 
got notification today that the Secretary of Defense is going to meet 
with Senator Lee on the 23rd of November. I intend to hold them to that 
so that Senator Lee can bring up the challenges that he sees, and 
hopefully there will be good faith involved on both sides and a 
solution can be found, if there is a solution to be found.
  I can't emphasize enough how, if we want to hold people accountable 
to spend the money right, that we appropriate--if we want to hold 
people accountable for doing the job of protecting this country and 
defending democracy and our freedoms, we have to have people in these 
critical positions.
  For that reason, we have a nominee before us today as Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Security and Intelligence--let me say it 
again--Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Security and Intelligence. 
This is a very, very important position when it comes to our security.
  Milancy Danielle Harris is her name. She has an incredible resume 
within the intelligence community. She has proven leadership within the 
DOD. There is no doubt in my mind that she will make the world a safer 
place, and that is why it is critically important today to confirm this 
nominee.
  I am a U.S. Senator, just like the good Senator from Utah, and I can 
tell that you when we ask questions, we want answers. When we have 
problems, we like to find solutions.
  I am willing to commit to the Senator from Utah today that I will 
work with you to try to help you find solutions, but we really need to 
get this nominee confirmed.
  With that in mind, I want to ask unanimous consent that, as in 
executive session, the Senate consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 1153, Milancy Danielle Harris, to be Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without 
intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. My staff and I have been in close contact with the 
Department of Defense regarding Ms. Harris's nomination. The Department 
of Defense is aware of my concerns with the nominee and also aware of 
the very simple request that I have made to the Department in 
connection with her nomination. For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to say this: The Senator from Utah 
has every right to object, and he has every right to get his questions 
answered, but we are 2 years into this administration. I hear every day 
folks from the other side of the aisle get up and rail on the Biden 
administration for not doing this and not doing that. That is patently 
unfair if we can't get people confirmed to the positions that need to 
be confirmed 2 years after he was sworn into the Presidency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The majority leader.


                        Tribute to Nancy Pelosi

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just left the floor of the House for 
one of the most emotional moments I have had in my career: the 
valedictory of Nancy Pelosi, one of the greatest legislators and 
greatest people I have ever met.
  I first met Nancy Pelosi back in 1987. I was a Congressman, and we 
had a little dinner group that would go out to dinner every Tuesday 
night. One of the leaders of that group, George Miller, a Congressman 
from California, came up to me. He said: In a few minutes, I am going 
to introduce you to a new member of our group. She is the new 
Congresswoman from San Francisco, and she is going to become the first 
woman Speaker.
  That was the first thing I heard about Nancy Pelosi, even before I 
met her, and the moment I met her, I saw what he meant. It was obvious 
that this new Member from the west coast of California had it all--
Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi.
  She is the proud daughter of Baltimore's Little Italy neighborhood, 
the estimable Representative from the State of California, and the 
first woman ever as Speaker of the U.S. Congress.
  It was amazing. She did an amazing job, and I wanted to go over to 
the House floor where I had served 18 happy years, many of them as a 
colleague of Speaker Pelosi and a friend, to just say thank you for the 
amazing things she has done for our country.
  Few in American history have been as effective, as driven, as 
successful as Speaker Pelosi. She has transformed practically every 
corner of American politics and unquestionably made America a better, 
stronger nation. You know, I am known as having a lot of energy, but I 
have never ever met anyone with more energy than Nancy D'Alesandro 
Pelosi. She is always moving in many directions at once, and she has a 
complete grasp of each direction in which she is moving even though she 
is moving at the same time.
  She is just an amazing person. She never forgot why she is in the 
fight to begin with--as she said, the children, always her North Star, 
helping the children of America. She did so much--her passion to pass 
the ACA was for the children above all; and for women, where she broke, 
of course, one of the greatest glass ceilings we have had, becoming the 
first woman Speaker; and the American Rescue Plan and the Lilly 
Ledbetter Act and the infrastructure bill and VAWA and pandemic relief; 
climate change; repealing don't ask, don't tell--just a few of her 
amazing achievements.
  She taught me a whole lot. Nancy Pelosi paid attention to each of her 
Members--I try to do the same--and she always taught the Members to be 
unified. Her expression that she repeated over and over again, which I 
have repeated to my caucus on so many occasions: Our unity is our 
strength.
  She would tell us, she would tell everyone: If everyone goes in his 
or her own direction, you will get nothing done, but if we all come 
together and everybody gives a little bit, we could get a lot done. And 
she sure did.

[[Page S6766]]

  I remember the moments that just became available on the tape when 
she and I were at the ``secret place'' during the attack on this 
Capitol, which so, so struck her, but there she was, cool, calm, and 
collected. Together, we worked to try to get either the National Guard 
or the police on the Hill, and we resolved that we were going to come 
back and actually count the votes--heavily regarded as one of Speaker 
Pelosi's greatest moments. And, again, she was cool, calm, collected. 
She knew exactly what to do and how to do it.
  So it is hard to fathom that very soon we will begin a new Congress 
where she is no longer a member of the party leadership. In my time as 
Democratic leader and as majority leader, she has been the best partner 
and ally I could ask for, and we have also been friends. She shared the 
joy of the birth of my children. I shared the joy of so many of the 
good things that happened in her family. She would always be talking 
about her family and always wanted to hear about mine. She was not only 
a great legislator; she was a great human being.
  Today particularly, I want to wish the very best to her family, 
especially Paul. I cannot imagine how painful and scary it has been for 
the Pelosis in the aftermath of Paul's attack, but, as usual, Speaker 
Pelosi carried herself with the same courage, grace, and dignity that 
she has always been true to.
  Finally and maybe most importantly, Nancy Pelosi made our country a 
much better place for countless women and girls from every walk of 
life. Nancy Pelosi was the one to blaze the trail, but you can be 
certain that countless other women will rise up in leadership in this 
country because of what she has accomplished and how she inspired them.
  I am going to have more to say in the weeks to come, but for now, let 
me finish with this: To Nancy Pelosi, my dear, good, and close friend, 
thank you. Thank you for being you. Thank you for dedicating your life 
to public service. Thank you for teaching us so much. Thank you for 
inspiring us all. It has been an honor of a lifetime to work with you.


                           Order of Business

  Now, one notice to the Members, who I know want to hear about the 
schedule: We are working on an agreement on the marriage equality bill, 
and I hope that we can have a vote on the motion to proceed shortly. If 
we do not reach agreement, the vote is going to occur at 10 p.m. this 
evening. Members should be aware, and Members should stay close.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.


                        Respect for Marriage Act

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. 
Hodges is the law of the land. A single line from a single concurring 
opinion does not make the case for legislation that seriously threatens 
religious liberty.
  The Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary. States are not denying 
recognition of same-sex marriages, and there is no serious risk of 
anyone losing recognition. There is not a single piece of legislation 
that I am aware of moving through the Congress or any State legislature 
to do the same.
  But the Supreme Court majority explicitly stated in its Dobbs ruling 
earlier this year that the Dobbs decision had no bearing on the 
recognition of same-sex marriage. The proponents of this bill falsely 
claim that same-sex marriage is under attack because Justice Thomas 
suggested in a concurring opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court 
should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process 
jurisprudence; not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often 
to consider whether they should be premised on a different 
constitutional hook. The majority opinion is what mattered, and it is 
the one that the majority of the Supreme Court supports.
  Now proponents of this bill pretend that the legislation would simply 
codify the status quo. I take exception to that because I don't think 
that is true. But even before we get to that issue, I think it is 
important for us to think about what codifying Obergefell on its own 
terms could mean and why it is that we ought to look at steps to 
protect religious freedom in light of Obergefell and in light of 
anything that purports to codify Obergefell.
  I remember when the Obergefell case was being argued before the 
Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. Solicitor General Don 
Verrilli, in representing the U.S. Government--with then the Obama 
administration in power--was arguing before the Court, and Justice 
Alito, my former boss, interjected with a question.
  He asked Solicitor General Verrilli, if the Supreme Court of the 
United States recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage 
throughout the United States, whether that, when read with other 
precedent--read in context with other Federal civil rights protections, 
along with prior Supreme Court rulings--might not result in the risk of 
some nonprofits, including some schools and universities, being 
threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status.
  Solicitor General Verrilli responded immediately and unambiguously. 
He said: Yes, Justice Alito. That is going to be a problem.
  He reiterated it three times that that would be a problem and that it 
would be something that would have to be addressed.
  What he was acknowledging was that there was a real risk dealing with 
Obergefell itself in that, unless we take steps to protect religious 
colleges, religious universities, and other religious nonprofits, some 
of those might be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status, 
based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage--about what a 
marriage is and what it is not.
  Many in the immediate wake of Obergefell came right out, and 
purporting to offer comfort to religious Americans and religious 
institutions in America, many came forward and said: Oh, this risk 
isn't going to materialize.
  As I recall it, President Obama, at the time, said: Look, I am not 
going to force any church to perform a same-sex marriage contrary to 
its religious teachings.
  That isn't how this happens. That is not how this risk materializes. 
That isn't the risk. It never really was the risk. The risk is, rather, 
whether religious Americans, whether acting individually or as a group, 
will be retaliated against--denied some privilege or status or access 
under Federal law to which they would otherwise have access--based 
solely on a religious- or a moral conscience-based belief about the 
definition of marriage.
  So that risk exists independent of this legislation. It has been 
enhanced by the Obergefell ruling, and it would be materially enhanced 
if this legislation were to pass without corresponding, necessary, 
statutory protections for religious freedom.
  Indeed, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops warns of this very thing.
  He warns as follows:

       This bill's harms would be far-reaching. In any conflict 
     with same-sex civil marriage and the rights that flow from 
     it, it will be said that Congress took pains to codify 
     Obergefell, but not to protect the freedoms of speech and 
     religion that Obergefell harms, making them second-class 
     rights.

  In other words, this bill only makes things worse. This bill takes 
the preexisting risks presented by Obergefell itself and enhances them, 
expands them, especially because, by protecting one set of interests--
those identified in Obergefell, in the decision itself--but doing 
nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risks we are presenting 
for religious freedoms, it makes for a very, very significant concern.
  He continues:

       The bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who 
     wish to deny religious organizations' liberty to freely 
     exercise their religious duties, strip them of their tax 
     exemptions, or exclude them from full participation in the 
     public arena.

  So this bill--this bill that has been brought before us--will, unless 
modified as necessary, result in three significant problems.
  First, the bill will label people of faith with differing views on 
marriage, influenced by their religious beliefs and moral convictions, 
as bigots.
  Second, the bill's new private right of action will subject religious 
Americans to a torrent of litigation--even more than they face now. 
Doing so will further erode their constitutional right to freely live 
according to their religious beliefs. This is, after all, what happens 
any time we allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by 
such action.

[[Page S6767]]

  Third, the bill will put in jeopardy the work and existence of 
religiously minded social agencies, educational institutions, and other 
nonprofits as their tax-exempt status will be threatened.
  Our country was founded on the principle that government should not 
interfere with the ability of people of faith or of people of no faith 
at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their 
own faith in their daily lives.
  Of course, this can and should be done without interfering with the 
right of other people to live their lives. That is what we expect. In 
fact, every time we as Americans seek to protect freedoms, liberty, 
whether through the adoption of the First Amendment or the adoption of 
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, for example, or 
anywhere else, we seek to do it in a way that doesn't create a zero-sum 
game by enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of 
others. That is not who we are. That is not how we roll. That is not 
how our constitutional framework was ever intended to function. It is 
antithetical to who we aim to be.
  This bill elevates the rights of one group and does so at the expense 
of another, and it does so needlessly as there is a way to accommodate 
both interests, but that way, unfortunately, isn't pursued by the 
authors of this bill.
  Many, including some on the left, want to label people who disagree 
with them on marriage as bigots and force them, in this instance, 
through endless litigation and threats, to comply with the beliefs of 
the left and renounce their genuine, sincere religious beliefs.
  Proponents of this bill claim that the substitute amendment, which we 
saw for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fixes all of the 
concerns raised by those of us who want to protect religious liberty. 
They are wrong. They couldn't be more wrong. They are sadly, sadly, and 
severely mistaken. The amendment's narrow protections for people of 
faith apply to only limited circumstances--for example, to the 
solemnization and celebration of marriages. That protection and a few 
others are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the 
threat to religious freedom presented by this bill.
  Indeed, these changes brought about by the most recent amendment do 
nothing to prohibit the already existing, already mounting threat of 
government discrimination against individuals and organizations that 
hold traditional views regarding marriage--a risk that is materially 
enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it.
  For example, Catholic Charities and other religious adoption agencies 
could be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to 
discriminatory government policies--policies that discriminate against 
them specifically because of their religious beliefs. The bill will 
only exacerbate what is already occurring in Illinois, Massachusetts, 
California, and the District of Columbia, potentially making this a 
nationwide trend.
  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' work with the 
Department of Health and Human Services in providing foster care to 
unaccompanied alien children and to unaccompanied refugee minors will 
be even more at risk than it is right now.
  The legislation itself will put religiously affiliated schools and 
faith-based organizations and others who hold traditional views of 
marriage at even more risk of being compelled to hire or retain 
employees whose conduct contradicts their religious beliefs. Wedding 
vendors will potentially be subject, because of this legislation, to 
increased lawsuits, harassment, and the destruction of their 
livelihoods based on their religious beliefs and their desire to live 
their lives according to their beliefs. This includes small- and 
family-owned businesses, including religious businesses like kosher 
caterers.
  Nonprofits face the potential revocation of their tax-exempt status 
based on their religious beliefs. At a time when we have added 87,000 
new IRS agents, we shouldn't give them any additional encouragement to 
abuse that power in a way that threatens the beliefs and institutions 
that are so important to so many Americans and that form the bedrock of 
some of our most important institutions.
  The bill's proponents claim that they want to protect religious 
liberty and that their most recent amendment does that, but they refuse 
to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the 
Federal Government from discriminating against people or organizations 
that have traditional views on marriage based on sincerely held 
religious beliefs and moral convictions.

  In many instances, they claim that the most recent amendment, in 
fact, does that--or they at least suggest that. The language of the 
most recent amendment even reads as if it might be going in that 
direction, but a closer inspection reveals that, alas, it does not. It 
does no such thing.
  By suggesting that it doesn't do anything to alter or revoke tax-
exempt status or any other status under Federal law--that the bill 
itself doesn't do that--it ignores the fact that this bill sets in 
motion, keeps in motion, and accelerates existing threats to religious 
freedom and to their revocation of tax-exempt status for broad 
categories of nonprofits based on religious beliefs.
  It is disingenuous to suggest that this halts government from doing 
what I am warning of here. This amendment does not do that, which begs 
the question: Why? Why wouldn't they accept it?
  Importantly, my proposed amendment places no restrictions on 
individuals or even on State or local governments. It simply prohibits 
the Federal Government from discriminating against individuals or 
organizations that have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral 
concerns that marriage is and should be a relationship between a man 
and a woman. That is all.
  What I don't understand is why my colleagues claim to want to protect 
religious liberty and uphold the First Amendment and, in fact, claim 
that their amendment essentially does that while simultaneously 
opposing my amendment so vigorously. I think we all know the answer to 
that question.
  The bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty, but it 
does not even begin to address the most serious, egregious, and likely 
threats to religious liberty presented by this bill. Those with 
differing views and beliefs can exist in the United States without 
threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group--rights 
upon which our country was founded--to score political points.
  You see, that is the beauty of America. Our Founding Fathers believed 
strongly in the principle that all religious beliefs should be 
protected, not just those favored by those in charge of government. It 
is yet another reason why, when we approach rights through legislation 
in the U.S. Senate and as Americans more broadly--when we protect 
rights--we know that we have a duty, an obligation, and an ability to 
secure those rights that we are trying to secure in a way that doesn't 
undermine the rights of others.
  The fact that one group of Americans might have more political 
support for a particular right and in protecting that right doesn't 
make it OK within our system, within our culture, within our traditions 
to undermine the rights of others. That is exactly what we are facing 
here.
  The good news is we can fix it. We can fix it. It is easy to amend 
this thing in a way that doesn't have to be this way. I have yet to 
hear any of my Democratic or Republican colleagues who supported the 
bill say that they want the Federal Government to be able to go out and 
indiscriminately threaten the revocation of tax-exempt status in order 
to punish religious beliefs with which they disagree.
  I have yet to hear a single Republican or a single Democrat in the 
House or in the Senate or anywhere else in this town say--I have yet to 
hear any of them say--yes, that is what we want to do.
  In fact, everyone who has addressed the issue has said: No, that is 
not what we want to do. Most of those on this bill have said: No, we 
have already taken care of that with this amendment. If that is really 
true, let's just adopt my amendment.
  And if you don't want to do it in that form, if you want to write out 
another version of the same thing, something that does the same thing, 
that is fine too. But they shouldn't be able to punish religious 
belief. That is all I want,

[[Page S6768]]

a protection saying the Federal Government may not punish any 
individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based 
belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask.
  If you ask any American citizen whether that was reasonable, shoot, 
if you ask any Member of this body in public whether that is fair and 
reasonable, I think they would have to say yes because it is.
  When legislation goes through this body and through this Congress in 
the proper way, we have a better chance of ironing out these details, 
of making sure that we are not expanding the zone of protected rights 
and interests of some at the expense of others. We do that pretty well.
  Mr. President, you and I serve together on the Judiciary Committee. 
That is the committee of jurisdiction for legislation like this. This 
legislation should have gone through the Judiciary Committee, and yet 
we have not held a single hearing on it. We have not marked up this 
bill in Judiciary. We haven't independently voted on this bill in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  In fact, it hasn't been through any committee process in the Senate 
that I am aware of. If it had, you know the kind of work we would have 
run it through, the kind of work we would have put into it, and the 
kind of carefully crafted language we could have produced as a result 
of it.
  I am confident we could have and would have and definitely should 
have worked this out in committee had we had the opportunity to do so.
  This legislation bypassed committees. Sometimes that happens. I 
understand that it happens from time to time. It is usually a very 
unfortunate thing when it does. But when it does, it does not excuse us 
from the obligation to try to replicate that process by at least making 
sure that we are not harming other people outside the immediate zone of 
intended protected beneficiaries of the legislation in question. That 
is all I am asking for here, and it isn't too much to ask.
  States and the Federal Government can, and surely will, continue to 
recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, and they can do so 
without trampling on the First Amendment rights of those who believe in 
traditional marriage.
  That is what it means to live in a pluralistic society. That is what 
it means to live in a society where we respect each other's 
differences, we allow each other to be who we are, live as we choose to 
live. That can't be done unless we allow each other to believe as we 
believe and not retaliate against others simply because they believe 
differently than we do.
  Americans of good faith can continue to live by their own religion 
and daily life by living as they do and doing so without posing any 
threat to those who disagree with them. I am confident of that. But 
this bill does not strike that balance. It purports to do so, and it 
fails.
  It labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to endless 
harassing litigation and discrimination and threats by that same 
government that was founded to protect their religious liberty.
  Let's do this the right way, not the wrong way. We need to protect 
religious freedom. This bill doesn't do that. It places it in grave 
jeopardy. Let's fix the problem.
  Mr. LEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we continue to work on an agreement on 
the marriage equality bill. If we do not reach agreement, the vote on 
the motion to proceed will occur at approximately 10 p.m. this evening, 
so Members should stay close by.

                          ____________________