[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 183 (Tuesday, November 29, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6833-S6846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                            Club Q Shooting

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, before the Thanksgiving break, I planned 
to use my time today to talk about the Respect for Marriage Act, with 
which the Presiding Officer has had such an important role playing, and 
I want to congratulate her on the incredible work that she has done to 
get this over the finish line, because we are on the verge of passing 
the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. Senate. It is a historic piece 
of legislation to ensure that if a same-sex or interracial couple 
marries in one State, that every State has to honor that marriage. The 
Federal Government has to honor that marriage as well.
  There may be no right closer to the heart than marrying the one that 
you love, and Colorado understands that. And I was going to come down 
here to talk about how, over decades, my State has led the way on 
equality. We recognized civil unions in 2013. We banned conversion 
therapy in my State. We passed our own version of the Equality Act in 
Colorado.
  I was going to come down here and tell you about how Colorado 
understands what equality has come to mean in America in 2022, but in 
the last week, I have been reminded again just how far we have to go.
  Last Sunday, Coloradans woke up to the news that Club Q--a loving, 
accepting, 20-year old LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs--had been the 
target of a mass shooting. Five Coloradans were killed, and at least 22 
were injured.
  In the days since, Coloradans have described Club Q as a center of 
community building, a place where everyone could be their true selves 
and live without fear.
  Club Q's owner, Nic Grzecka, said he founded the club to ``be that 
safe place for people to come and feel and understand that they are 
normal--that the way they feel is normal and there are people just like 
them.''
  As a father, that is what I hope for my three daughters, and, as a 
former school superintendent, that is what I wish for the children that 
I worked for. We want our kids to feel normal and loved and like they 
belong.
  But on November 19, these feelings of safety and acceptance that Club 
Q had built over two decades were shattered. On the same day that we 
recognized Trans Day of Remembrance, we added more names to the solemn 
toll in this country, when a violent young man, radicalized by hateful 
and divisive rhetoric, killed five people and forever changed a 
community, forever changed my State.
  In minutes, he robbed from us brothers and sisters and daughters and 
sons, friends, and loved ones, who were there just being themselves, 
not bothering anybody.
  He took from us Derrick Rump, a 38-year-old bartender and co-owner of 
Club Q, who bought groceries for others during the hardest 2 months of 
the pandemic; Daniel David Aston, 28 years old, a bar supervisor known 
as the ``master of silliness'' because of his contagious happiness and 
joy; Kelly Loving, 40 years old, who had just moved to Colorado and was 
trying to enjoy a weekend trip to Colorado Springs; Ashley Paugh, 35 
years old, a devoted mother and nonprofit worker, who loved hunting and 
fishing, like so many other Coloradans, and was there to support the 
community; and Raymond Green Vance, 22 years old--22 years old--who 
grew up in Colorado Springs and had just started a new job and was 
saving up for his own apartment.
  I am thinking of them and their families and all of those who 
survived this terrible tragedy in Colorado--people who imagined that 
there was one space that you could go to feel safe, and then this 
happens.
  It fills me with rage that it happened. It fills me with sadness. It 
should fill the entire Senate with rage and sadness.
  And if it weren't for the courage of people like Richard Fierro and 
Thomas James, the list of names I read, already too long, would have 
been longer.
  Thomas James, a petty officer second class in the Navy, used his 
military crisis training to help subdue the

[[Page S6834]]

attacker. He said he jumped into action because he ``simply wanted to 
save the family [he] found'' at Club Q.
  And Richard Fierro. Richard Fierro, an Iraq and Afghanistan combat 
veteran, was watching a friend's performance with his wife, daughter, 
and friends inside the club when the gunfire started, and his 
protective instincts--Richard's protective instincts from four combat 
deployments--kicked in. He said he went ``into combat mode.''
  No one enjoying a night with their friends and their family should 
have to go ``into combat mode'' in the United States of America. That 
is not the country that I grew up in.
  It is our country today. It is the country that the pages in this 
institution are inheriting from us. My daughter's generation and the 
children I used to work for in the Denver Public Schools, they bear a 
burden that I never bore growing up in the United States. They have 
grown up living with a reasonable fear that they could be shot in their 
classrooms or in their churches or in a grocery store or in a bar that 
is the one safe place in their community that they could go to.
  In 2020--the pages that are here may not know this. In 2020, the 
leading cause of death for kids in America was guns--guns--not car 
accidents, not drugs, but guns.
  In one study of 29 industrialized countries, the United States 
accounted for 97 percent of firearm deaths among children 4 years old 
and younger. That is almost 100 percent of the kids who are dying on 
planet Earth from gunfire who are 4 years old and younger. What a 
disgrace. What a disgrace.
  We shouldn't need to count on a stranger's bravery when we go to a 
birthday party. We shouldn't need to count on a stranger's bravery when 
we go to the grocery store.
  It was just last year when I spoke on this floor to remember the 
lives we lost in Colorado at a King Soopers in Boulder, and it is with 
unimaginable pain that I am here once again on this floor with a list 
of names of people who have lost their lives senselessly.
  Colorado is hurting. We are tired of this. For more than two decades, 
we have had to grieve over one incident after another.
  So while we stand here on the verge of taking a historic step toward 
equality--a vitally important step toward equality--we are reminded 
once again of just how much work is left to do to give our children the 
safe and accepting future that they deserve, that they want to have, 
that we are obligated to give them. We haven't finished that work in 
the U.S. Senate.
  Earlier this year, the Supreme Court stripped away the first 
fundamental right since Reconstruction by overturning a 50-year 
precedent in Roe v. Wade, and in that decision, the majority took aim 
at the fundamental right of privacy and, with it, the right of every 
single American to marry whom they love.
  It is a profound reminder--once again, a reminder--to everybody in 
this body and to the country, that our history has been from the very 
beginning a battle between the highest ideals that humans have ever 
written down on the page--the words in the Constitution of the United 
States--and the worst impulses in human history.
  And when a Justice of the Supreme Court writes that if it wasn't a 
freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today, we are in that struggle 
today.
  When a 22-year-old can walk into a club and kill 5 people and wound 
more than 20 people, we are in that struggle today.
  The reason we are here today doing the important work that we are 
doing in the marriage act that we are passing today is that Americans 
understand that no good comes from hoarding freedoms and equality. They 
know that when we take the opposite view, we act against our best 
traditions, against our highest ideals. As a nation, we will never 
flourish if we choose to depend on a permanent underclass, deprived of 
some or all of the rights and freedoms others enjoy.
  Free people do not remain free by denying freedom to others. Today, 
the Senate of the United States stands on the precipice of advancing 
freedom, of advancing equality, of moving us closer to our highest 
ideals.
  But, tomorrow, we have more work to do to live up to the words of our 
Constitution and to realize the promise of equality for all of our 
citizens.
  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. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 6482 to Amendment No. 6487

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 6482, and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee], for himself and others, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 6482 to amendment No. 6487.

  The amendment (No. 6482) is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

        At the end, insert the following:

           TITLE II--RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND MORAL CONVICTIONS

     SEC. 201. PROTECTION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS 
                   BELIEFS AND MORAL CONVICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, 
     United States Code, section 1738C of title 28, United States 
     Code, or any other provision of law, the Federal Government 
     shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, 
     wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or 
     acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief, 
     or moral conviction, that marriage is or should be recognized 
     as a union of--
       (1) one man and one woman; or
       (2) two individuals as recognized under Federal law.
       (b) Discriminatory Action Defined.--As used in subsection 
     (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the 
     Federal Government to--
       (1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause 
     any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, 
     delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 
     501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person 
     referred to in subsection (a);
       (2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any 
     charitable contribution made to or by such person;
       (3) withhold, reduce the amount or funding for, exclude, 
     terminate, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, any Federal 
     grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, 
     guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, 
     accreditation, employment, or other similar position or 
     status from or to such person;
       (4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise make 
     unavailable or deny, any entitlement or benefit under a 
     Federal benefit program, including admission to, equal 
     treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from an educational 
     program, from or to such person; or
       (5) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise make 
     unavailable or deny, access or an entitlement to Federal 
     property, facilities, educational institutions, speech fora 
     (including traditional, limited, and nonpublic fora), or 
     charitable fundraising campaigns from or to such person.
       (c) Accreditation; Licensure; Certification.--The Federal 
     Government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified 
     for purposes of Federal law any person that would be 
     accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such 
     purposes but for a determination against such person wholly 
     or partially on the basis that the person speaks, or acts, in 
     accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral 
     conviction described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 202. JUDICIAL RELIEF.

       (a) Cause of Action.--A person may assert an actual or 
     threatened violation of this title as a claim or defense in a 
     judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain compensatory 
     damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or any other 
     appropriate relief against the Federal Government. Standing 
     to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be 
     governed by the general rules of standing under article III 
     of the Constitution.
       (b) Administrative Remedies Not Required.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, an action under this section may 
     be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a district court 
     of the United States without regard to whether the person 
     commencing the action has sought or exhausted available 
     administrative remedies.
       (c) Attorneys' Fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting ``title 
     II of the Respect for Marriage Act,'' after ``the Religious 
     Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,''.
       (d) Authority of United States To Enforce This Title.--The 
     Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive or 
     declaratory relief against an independent establishment 
     described in section 104(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
     or an officer or employee of that independent establishment, 
     to

[[Page S6835]]

     enforce compliance with this title. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise 
     affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the 
     United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the 
     United States, acting under any law other than this 
     subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding.

     SEC. 203. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) No Preemption, Repeal, or Narrow Construction.--Nothing 
     in this title shall be construed to preempt State law, or 
     repeal Federal law, that is equally or more protective of 
     free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions. 
     Nothing in this title shall be construed to narrow the 
     meaning or application of any State or Federal law protecting 
     free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.
       (b) No Prevention of Providing Benefits or Services.--
     Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent the 
     Federal Government from providing, either directly or through 
     a person not seeking protection under this title, any benefit 
     or service authorized under Federal law.
       (c) No Affirmation or Endorsement of Views.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed to affirm or otherwise endorse 
     a person's belief, speech, or action about marriage.
       (d) Severability.--If any provision of this title or any 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this title 
     and the application of the provision to any other person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected.

     SEC. 204. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Federal benefit program.--The term ``Federal benefit 
     program'' has the meaning given that term in section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Federal; federal government.--The terms ``Federal'' and 
     ``Federal Government'' relate to and include--
       (A) any department, commission, board, or other agency of 
     the Federal Government;
       (B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (C) the District of Columbia and all Federal territories 
     and possessions.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means a person as defined 
     in section 1 of title 1, United States Code, except that such 
     term shall not include--
       (A) publicly traded for-profit entities;
       (B) Federal employees acting within the scope of their 
     employment;
       (C) Federal for-profit contractors acting within the scope 
     of their contract; or
       (D) hospitals, clinics, hospices, nursing homes, or other 
     medical or residential custodial facilities with respect to 
     visitation, recognition of a designated representative for 
     health care decisionmaking, or refusal to provide medical 
     treatment necessary to cure an illness or injury.

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, today, as popular winds blow against the 
man and woman of faith, we should look to the Constitution and remember 
that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . '' We do a 
disservice to all Americans if we elevate the rights of one group at 
the expense of another.
  On the one hand, there is no existing threat to same-sex marriage. It 
is and will remain legal nationwide regardless of the outcome of this 
legislation before us, the Respect for Marriage Act. On the other hand, 
we have current, real, sustained ongoing assaults on religious freedom.
  How we proceed today will do nothing to the status quo of same-sex 
marriage in this country. It is legal and will remain legal regardless 
of the outcome of this legislation. It will, however, if enacted, have 
profound consequences for people of faith.
  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, proponents of this legislation 
have conjured up a series of hypothetical scenarios, resulting in an 
imagined threat to the ability of same-sex couples to marry and enjoy 
the privileges of marriage.
  The rhetorical slippery slope goes something like this: First, they 
claim that some unknown, unnamed State is on the verge of passing an 
unknown, yet-to-be-proposed or imagined law prohibiting same-sex 
marriage. Next, they imagine that Federal district courts will uphold 
this hypothetical State law despite the crystal-clear direction within 
the Dobbs and Obergefell opinions from the Supreme Court.
  Should that adventure of unlikely hypotheticals transpire, they 
envision a case making its way all the way up to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. All of this despite the lack of political will 
anywhere in the United States to prohibit same-sex marriage.
  Should that happen, proponents of this bill contend that there is a 
nonzero chance that one Justice could decide to analyze the right to 
marry not through the prism of substantive due process, as it has been 
since Obergefell was decided in 2015, but rather through the lens of 
the 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause.
  Proponents of the bill cite a single line within Justice Thomas's 
concurring opinion and suggest that one Justice could effectively 
destroy legal recognition of same-sex marriage not just prospectively 
but undoing currently legal same-sex marriage.
  Now, this is a complete fantasy. I am not aware of a single State in 
the United States threatening to pass any law infringing the ability of 
any same-sex couples to marry or enjoy privileges associated with 
marriage; nor am I aware of a single State threatening to invalidate, 
within their borders, marriages entered into in other States; nor is it 
at all clear that Justice Thomas himself was suggesting that Obergefell 
be overturned. He was suggesting that it be analyzed, like all 
substantive due process juris prudence, to figure out whether there 
might be another provision of the Constitution under which it might be 
more appropriate.
  They are attributing to him statements he didn't make. They are 
attributing to him analysis he didn't even undertake in that one 
statement regarding the doctrine of stare decisis, and then they are 
attributing to States intentions they do not have and have not 
expressed.
  My colleagues have yet to offer even a single example of a same-sex 
marriage threatened by any current or pending State legislation--not 
one, not a single one--and they intentionally misinterpret Justice 
Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs and claim that the sky is falling. 
But it is just not happening.
  Unfortunately, we are aware of case after case where individuals, 
charities, small businesses, religious schools, and religious 
institutions are being hauled into courts to defend themselves for 
living out their faith. These people are not committing hate crimes 
against their neighbors. No, they are not abusing peers for their 
personal choices either.
  No, they are being hauled into courts across this country for serving 
the poor, the needy, and the refugee in compliance with their sincerely 
held religious beliefs. In Texas, the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops is currently being sued for operating in accordance 
with Catholic beliefs regarding marriage while providing foster homes 
for unaccompanied minor children.
  Now, proponents of this bill claim that these charities will be free 
to continue to operate. However, in that case, the question is whether, 
because the Conference of Catholic Bishops receives Federal funding to 
help with its work, it might be operating under color of law. If 
accepting grants and licenses from the government makes you an actor 
under color of law, then many of our religious charities and schools 
will be threatened by this legislation, which relies on that 
unnarrowed, undefined phrase. Either the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops can cease operating according to its religious tenets or 
abandon its God-given mission to care for the refugee.
  In at least three other cases, religious childcare service agencies 
deemed to be acting under color of law are being shut out of foster 
care and adoption. These religious ministries can either abandon and 
cease to act according to their convictions, their religious 
convictions about marriage, or they can abandon the orphan.
  This Nation and our orphans rely on these charities. We cannot and 
must not force that decision on them. That isn't who we are. From the 
very moment of our founding, we have been a nation that has welcomed 
people of all beliefs and of no belief at all.
  In recent years, the Obama administration, through the U.S. 
Department of Education, compiled a so-called shame list outlining more 
than 200 faith-based colleges and universities seeking religious 
exemptions from title IX guidance on transgender and sex 
discrimination. It is highly likely that these organizations could also 
risk losing their 501(c)(3) status.
  Considering that we are in the process of hiring 87,000 new agents 
within the Internal Revenue Service, it is not beyond the realm of 
possibility that some of these new IRS agents will be deployed 
specifically to review the tax-

[[Page S6836]]

exempt status of some of these traditionally exempt religious schools. 
These colleges and universities can either cease operating according to 
their religious convictions or run the risk of losing their ability to 
provide quality education at reduced prices. We may well find that they 
will not be able to do both, and that would be a tragedy.
  Dr. Andrew Fox created a chaplaincy program at the Austin Fire 
Department, where he served as the lead chaplain in a volunteer 
capacity for 8 years, earning the trust and respect of local 
firefighters. In a personal blog--nothing connected to his work, just a 
personal blog--Dr. Fox shared his religious views, his religious views 
specifically regarding marriage.
  City officials demanded he recant his statements and apologize for 
the harm that his blog post allegedly caused. He explained that he 
intended only to foster discussion and not cause offense, and he 
apologized if anyone was offended. His apology apparently wasn't enough 
for city officials who demanded total compliance with their preferred 
views on marriage, views that didn't embrace his own religious beliefs. 
They forced Dr. Fox to hand in his uniform. He could keep his job or 
his beliefs but not both.
  We should not be surprised by the current state of affairs. After 
all, it was abundantly clear during the Obergefell oral argument before 
the Supreme Court that this threat to religious nonprofits would be 
forthcoming. The prescient exchange between Justice Alito and then-
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli forecasted the present hostility and 
the corresponding threats to religious organizations.
  Justice Alito asked whether, should States be required to recognize 
same-sex marriages, religious universities could lose their tax-exempt 
status. His response, the response from Solicitor General Verrilli, was 
chilling. He said:

       [I]t's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I 
     don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.

  It is an issue today, and under this legislation it will only get 
worse tomorrow unless we take affirmative steps to prevent that from 
happening. And we have the opportunity to do so here, and we shouldn't 
miss it.
  Unlike the hypothetical but entirely nonexistent marriages being 
threatened or discriminated against, these religious organizations are 
currently, right now, in court fighting for their God-given and 
constitutionally protected rights to live and operate according to 
their beliefs and conscience. They are being targeted and harassed by 
those who would force them to abandon their convictions and embrace the 
convictions preferred by the government.
  Sadly, the hostages at risk in this standoff are those who have 
benefited from the charitable work of these institutions: the poor, the 
hungry, the refugee, the student, and the orphan. Instead of resolving 
the concern posed by Justice Alito, this legislation will put the 
weighty thumb of government on the scale against religious 
organizations and individuals.
  Now, they say: Don't worry; you can still believe as you wish. But 
if, in living out your faith, you offend the views sanctioned by the 
government, you will suffer the consequences.
  What do we get for this heavy sacrifice of religious freedom? Are we 
alleviating the suffering of same-sex families about to be destroyed by 
government interference? No. As I have said, we haven't heard of even 
one potential threat to same-sex marriage, not one. The only outcome we 
can expect from this legislation is for religious individuals, 
businesses, and institutions to spend more time and more money 
defending their God-given rights in court.
  In our pluralistic society, we must be willing to compromise and 
adapt so that we might live peacefully, peaceably with one another. In 
that spirit of compromise, let us ensure that we are protecting 
families--both traditional and same-sex families--and that we are 
protecting the right to believe as we wish and live out those beliefs 
without government interference. I believe we can do both. In fact, I 
know we can do both.
  Now, the Collins-Baldwin amendment takes a step in the right 
direction, and I am grateful for that. Rabbis, imams, and pastors 
should never be forced to perform a marriage contrary to their beliefs. 
But religious liberty is so much more than marriage. It entails so much 
more than what might go on within the four walls of a mosque, a 
synagogue, or a church. It certainly entails and must include the 
ability of people to practice their faith not only at church but at 
home and in the public square.
  In the hope that we can come to a place where we respect each other, 
I have offered an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly 
minimize the threats to these religious organizations and individuals. 
I am at the table. I am willing to compromise. In the spirit of 
compromise, I have publicly stated--and I reiterate here again today--
that I will support the legislation if my amendment is adopted.
  My amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from 
discriminating against schools, businesses, and organizations based on 
their religious beliefs about same-sex marriage. That is all it does. 
It is very simple, and I am grateful that we are going to have the 
chance to vote on it later today.
  I am also grateful for the work of my friend and colleague Senator 
Dan Sullivan from Alaska, who, working together with several of my 
other Republican colleagues, helped secure and schedule this vote. I am 
grateful to him for that effort.
  My amendment prevents the Internal Revenue Service, among other 
things, from revoking the tax-exempt status of these charities and 
organizations simply because they act according to their beliefs about 
the divine purpose of marriage. It prevents the Department of Education 
from targeting schools with honor codes based on the fact that they 
have got provisions in their honor codes based on religious beliefs.
  It protects individuals from being denied business licenses or grants 
or other statuses based on their views about marriage. It protects 
Americans who wish to act according to their religious beliefs from 
being forced to abandon their God-given mandates to love, serve, and 
care for the poor, the orphan, and the refugee.
  If we allow the government to threaten their ability to do so, then 
the religious liberty of every American is in peril. That is why I 
would ask those who have doubts about this to reconsider their doubts 
about my amendment. If they object to my amendment and are inclined to 
vote against it based on the fact that they regard it as unnecessary, 
then why not pass it.
  This is a legitimate concern--some may argue this--I have been told 
by many of the bill's sponsors that my amendment is unnecessary 
because, according to them, the Collins substitute amendment contains 
protections that already accommodate this concern.
  Now, the Collins substitute amendment does, in fact, contain some 
protections. I am grateful that those were included, and that is a 
meaningful step in the right direction. I must point out, however, that 
it doesn't do what my amendment does and therefore doesn't do what many 
of its proponents are claiming.
  Nowhere in that legislation is a statement prohibiting the Federal 
Government from taking adverse action against an individual or an 
entity based on a sincere religious belief about same-sex marriage, 
whether that religious belief is one that embraces or does not embrace 
same-sex marriage. It does not do that. It instead says that nothing in 
this act shall be construed to alter or deny any status or benefit of 
any group. Those are two very different things.
  That language does not do what my amendment does. You see, the threat 
is not and never was based on what the act itself would do. The act 
doesn't purport to itself deny or alter any status or benefit or right. 
So by taking that away, they are paying lipservice to the need for my 
amendment, but they are not actually addressing it.
  The threat has been present at least since Obergefell itself was 
decided for the reasons that prompted Justice Alito to ask then-
Solicitor General Verrilli a question about it and the same reasons 
that prompted Solicitor General Verrilli to acknowledge that it was 
going to be an issue. Those same reasons exist today. They don't go 
away because of this legislation. If anything, they are enhanced. The 
risk is enhanced as a result of this legislation.
  That is why this is the perfect opportunity, it is the right 
opportunity, it may very well be the only opportunity

[[Page S6837]]

to make sure that, as we are undertaking a legislative effort to codify 
rights for one group of Americans, we don't do so in a particularly un-
American way; that is, enhance the rights of some at the expense of 
others. That is not how we roll. That is not how we do things in this 
country. We can protect both of these interests at the same time, just 
as we can walk and chew gum.
  So for those who would say the Lee amendment isn't necessary because 
the Collins amendment already takes care of it, that is just not true. 
And even if it were true, why not accept the Lee amendment anyway? 
Which begs the question: Why wouldn't anyone want to deny the Federal 
Government the authority to retaliate against individuals, nonprofits, 
and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs? 
Think about that for a minute. Why wouldn't they want to deny that very 
power from a government that may wield it in a way that is 
categorically abusive?
  For my Republican friends who are sympathetic to the need for my 
amendment and are going to support it, I would ask that if they support 
it and if the amendment fails, that you not support the underlying 
bill, because if you support my amendment, hopefully, presumably, that 
means it is because you agree that it does something--that it does 
something necessary. It certainly doesn't counteract, contradict, or 
undermine the stated purpose of this bill in any way. So if you believe 
that it is necessary and you are going to vote for it, if it fails, you 
should oppose passage of this bill unless or until the Lee amendment is 
adopted.
  We could get this done. I understand that it is not going to happen 
as long as there are at least 10 Republicans willing to join with every 
Democrat in order to support this legislation. But if even 3 of the 12 
Republicans considering support for this legislation in the end--if 
even 3 of them supporting my amendment would decide not to support the 
bill unless or until the Lee amendment was added, I am confident--
indeed, I am certain--that it could and would ultimately be adopted.
  As I said, we must be willing to compromise to protect the interests 
of all. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would 
ensure that all Americans would have certain rights and that their 
religious beliefs and their moral convictions will be explicitly 
protected and provide some comfort that Congress is not purposely 
passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 6493 to Amendment No. 6487

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Rubio, I call up 
amendment No. 6493 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), for Mr. Rubio, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 6493 to amendment No. 6487.

  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To eliminate a private right of action)

        Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, as added by 
     section 4, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' has 
     the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.''.


                Amendment No. 6496 to Amendment No. 6487

  Mr. LANKFORD. I would like to also call up amendment No. 6496 and ask 
that it also be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Lankford] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6946 to Amendment No. 6487.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

        On page 3, beginning on line 3, strike ``No person acting 
     under color of State law'' and insert ``No State, territory 
     or possession of the United States, or Indian Tribe''
       On page 3, line 17, strike ``person'' and insert ``State, 
     territory or possession of the United States, or Indian 
     Tribe''.
       On page 3, strike lines 19 through 23.
       On page 5, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 
     6, line 3, and insert the following:
       (a) No Impact on Benefits, Status, or Rights.--Nothing in 
     this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be 
     construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right 
     (including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational 
     funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, 
     scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or 
     defense) of any entity or person--
       (1) if such benefit, status, or right does not arise from a 
     marriage; or
       (2) if such potential denial or alteration would be based 
     in whole or in part on the belief, practice, or observance, 
     of the entity or person about marriage.
       On page 6, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (c) No Impact From Partnerships.--For purposes of this Act, 
     and any amendment made by this Act, no faith-based 
     organization shall be considered to be acting under color of 
     State law on the basis of any partnership the organization 
     entered into with a government.

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in 2015, after the Obergefell decision 
came down from the Supreme Court, putting same-sex marriage as the law 
of the land, President Obama made a statement to the country. He came 
and spoke to the country when there was a lot of heat and a lot of 
emotion going on around the country around that particular decision. He 
was supportive of the Obergefell decision, but he made this statement. 
At that time, President Obama said:

       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 [religious] 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.

  That is a wise statement from President Obama during that time period 
to be able to say: There are going to be a lot of views. We as 
Americans need to have a wide set of conversations about same-sex 
marriage and about how we revere marriage in general. There are 
different religious views, different perspectives.
  Now we are approaching a bill that will be voted on in just about 2 
hours. This bill has a section in it dealing with marriage, and it says 
it has certain religious protections in it.
  As I read the bill initially to be able to check the religious 
protections that are in it, I was surprised at some things that were in 
it, and I was surprised at some of the things that were left out. So 
our team went to work writing an amendment to address the specific 
issues in this bill. We narrowly tailored this bill for our amendment, 
and we addressed it. Why? Because we were the only ones who thought 
there was a problem? Actually, no, we weren't the only ones who saw 
this bill as a problem dealing with religious liberty. In fact, 
religious liberty groups all over the country and religious 
institutions started contacting our office and putting out their own 
statements in opposition to this bill, saying the bill as currently 
written, even with the ``religious protections'' in it, does not 
actually protect the religious liberty of all Americans.
  This is just a short list of groups who are in strong opposition to 
this bill: the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of 
Christians Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban Renewal and 
Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian Employers Alliance, 
Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, the Ethics and Public Policy 
Center, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and 
Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Family Policy 
Alliance, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Liberty Counsel, 
Lifeline Children's Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, the 
Religious Freedom Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
Samaritan's Purse. The list goes on and on and on of organizations and 
entities that read through this bill and said there are major concerns 
with the religious liberty portions of this bill.
  Now, I am well aware that there are also groups who have put out a 
statement and said that they are comfortable with it, that it would 
protect them, but other organizations are putting out statements and 
saying: Yeah, that is nice for you, but it actually wouldn't protect us 
and our members.
  There are three major concerns that are in the bill itself under the 
issue of religious liberty, and if these three things are not changed 
in this bill, it will put the issue of religious liberty at great risk 
for millions of Americans who, as President Obama said, hold sincerely 
held beliefs that are different.
  The first is this: There is a section in the very beginning of the 
bill where it

[[Page S6838]]

says any entity that is acting under the color of State law, and then 
it puts all the restrictions there on them. That is a broadening, 
actually, of what Obergefell actually did. This says any entity, 
actually, or individual who is acting under color of state law. What 
does that mean? Most people don't live in that legal kind of counsel. 
Well, this would be an entity that a State actually hires to fulfill 
something for them on behalf of the State.
  Let me give you a for-instance on this. A private prison may be one 
of those examples, but it could also be adoption agencies, foster care 
agencies. It could be an entity that actually does housing for 
immigrant and migrant families. It could be a homeless shelter that is 
contracted by the State to be able to provide services. It could be any 
number of entities. Many of these entities are actually done by 
religious organizations that the State actually contracts with them to 
be able to do those services. In this new statute, if this passes in 2 
hours, there would be a new restriction on those religious entities 
that formally held contracts that then would very well be pushed out 
from providing those services.
  Let me remind you, our Nation functions under not just government 
operations but cooperation with families and with faith-based entities 
and nonprofit entities around the country. Our safety net, I talk about 
often--our first safety net is the families, the second safety net is 
nonprofit entities, and the third safety net is government. Many 
governments partner with nonprofit--including faith-based--entities to 
be able to carry out social services. For those entities, they would 
now have a target on them because they are functioning under the color 
of State law, and they would have new restrictions. So their choice 
would be either not to provide those services or to abandon their 
faith.
  Now, what are the challenges to them in particular in this? Well, the 
first challenge is that they would face litigation from the Attorney 
General's Office. The second challenge would be they now face a new 
what is called a private right of action. That is what the second area 
my amendment specifically deals with. First, it corrects this looping 
into lots of new faith-based entities and saying: You are now a State 
actor; you are under new restrictions. The second one would be this 
private right of action.
  The private right of action would now be--anyone who is functioning 
``under the color of State law'' would now be a target from an 
individual who senses that they have been harmed by the entity. Now, it 
is not defined--what ``harmed'' means--in this new statute; it just 
says that if someone feels they have been harmed by it, they would now 
have the opportunity to be able to sue someone else because of that.
  It is not hard for me to be able to say something that is fairly 
obvious; that is, if Congress creates a new right to sue people, there 
will be a lot more lawsuits, and there will be new tests and 
evaluations on that. For anyone who believes that this new right to be 
able to sue people won't be used and won't be used quickly by lawyers 
and outside groups all around the country, you are kidding yourself. 
What will happen in the days ahead, there will be--who knows?--
countless numbers of lawsuits testing every new definition of what, 
under the color of State law, what a partnership with government might 
look like. Whether that is a vendor who is at an official State event 
or whether that is an entity that is providing something like a private 
prison or adoption services, they will all face lawsuits and challenges 
in the days ahead by entrepreneurial attorneys testing out the limits 
of this new law.
  We don't know what those limits will be determined by the courts. We 
have no idea because it is not defined what it means when they say they 
have been harmed and what that definition might mean to different 
courts around the country. But we do know this is going to be a major 
issue.
  My first question is, Why is this even included in this bill at all? 
There is already a protection that the State has the opportunity to be 
able to make sure they are enforcing the law within their State. This 
new private right of action, though, goes above and beyond that and 
gives the opportunity for entrepreneurial lawyers to be able to 
practice their craft at the detriment of entities all over the country.
  What it really does is it silences any individual who may disagree 
and discourages any faith-based entity from cooperating with 
government; to say, if you want to be able to partner with the State in 
the area, you probably aren't welcome here because you don't share the 
same beliefs.
  The third big issue that we try to correct in this that is a major 
problem in this bill is, in the bill, if you actually read from the 
text 7(a)--now, 7(a) probably means nothing to many people outside this 
room, but the 7(a) section is designed to be able to protect the rights 
of individuals or entities not to be able to lose their nonprofit 
status or grants or contracts or whatever it may be, but it has very 
specific language that is built into this. The specific language is, if 
that benefit or right does not arise from a marriage. It is very 
carefully written.
  When I passed it around to different attorneys to say what does it 
mean, it has been fascinating to me to learn different interpretations 
of this statute. This particular section 7(a) is written so vague that 
it is very difficult to understand what it does mean, but it is very 
clear what it doesn't mean.
  When it says all these different rights that have been granted based 
on does not arise from a marriage, it doesn't include your belief about 
marriage. It just says does not rise from a marriage.
  Why do I say that? Our amendment actually includes the belief about 
marriage included into it to make it very, very clear that if you have 
a different belief about marriage, you won't lose your nonprofit 
status, you won't lose your opportunity to have grants or contracts, 
but that is not included in this statute.
  What is included in the statute is just does not arise from a 
marriage. That will be a problem in the courts and, unfortunately, that 
will have to be litigated until that is actually determined what it 
would mean.
  What we could do instead is pass my amendment. The amendment makes it 
very clear. What I hear from even some of the bill's sponsors is they 
say: No, this is what it is intended to mean. I look at it and say: 
That is not what it actually says.
  So let's have that section say what you actually intended for that to 
say to make it clear. Let's take away the private right of action so 
that people around the country aren't perpetually worried about a 
lawsuit coming at them constantly. Let's take away this under the color 
of law section so that there is not a fear of faith-based nonprofits 
not partnering with their own government for fear government would step 
in and say: Oh, if you are going to partner with us, then you have to 
surrender these different beliefs.
  Again, I have had individuals who are sponsors of this bill say none 
of those things are what we intend. But courts don't rule on intentions 
of Congress; they rule on the text that we actually put out.
  Those are three major problems in this text. If they are not 
corrected and if they are not corrected today, my fear is President 
Obama's statement of just 7 years ago that we would not ``recognize 
different viewpoints [and] revere our deep commitment to religious 
freedom'' would today be ignored.
  I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I encourage everyone in 
this body to ask a very simple question of themselves: Is today about 
respecting the rights of all or is it about silencing some and 
respecting others?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of 
the Respect for Marriage Act. I want to summarize my remarks, though, 
and ask unanimous consent that my full remarks be printed in today's 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. The Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage as a 
constitutional right way back in 2015, and the overwhelming majority of 
Americans support that group. According to Gallup, over 70 percent of 
Americans believe same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid under 
law, including a majority of Republicans.
  Despite this strong support, the U.S. Code does not reflect that 
consensus in America. Current legislation allows States and the Federal 
Government to

[[Page S6839]]

refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. While it is true the 
Supreme Court has held this law is not enforceable, it still represents 
Congress's last word on the subject. The American people rightly expect 
their elected representatives to bring our laws in line with their 
beliefs. That is part of what this legislation does.
  It is time for the Senate to settle the issue. The Respect for 
Marriage Act, which passed the House with overwhelming partisanship 
support, including the support of 46 Republicans on the House side, 
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 other States if they move. 
This is all in accordance with well-established Supreme Court 
precedence.
  Settling this issue is well within the constitutional authority of us 
here in Congress. After all, the full faith and credit clause is part 
of our Constitution.
  Since the bipartisan passage of this bill by the House of 
Representatives earlier this year, in response to concerns over 
religious liberty, this already narrow bill has been significantly 
amended in the Senate to include robust religious liberty protections. 
By working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis with religious liberty 
scholars; faith organizations; Senate colleagues, including some I see 
on the floor here today; and other stakeholders, we have developed a 
substitute amendment that contains important protections for people of 
faith. It has five key changes to the underlying bill.
  Remember, this is a bill that already passed the House with 46 
Republican supporters, but these are religious liberty provisions that 
we have added to it.
  First, it has an express acknowledgement that decent and honorable 
people hold diverse views about the role of gender and marriage and 
that such people and their beliefs are due respect. This is an 
important statement that has implications that protect religious 
liberty.
  Second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and 
conscience protections under the First Amendment and Federal laws 
including the powerful protections provided by the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act.
  Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny 
benefits, including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, educational 
funding, licenses, accreditation, certification, and many others 
because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about 
marriage. This protects everything from the tax status of religious 
nonprofits to the accreditation of religious schools, to the contracts 
between faith-based adoption providers and the government from being 
attacked using this bill.
  Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including 
churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others cannot be 
required to provide facilities, goods, or services for marriage 
ceremonies or celebrations against their will.
  Fifth, it has an explicit prohibition on the recognition of 
polygamous marriages.
  These religious liberty provisions are significant and they are 
meaningful and they have earned the endorsement of important faith 
groups. In a joint letter to the Senate, eight different faith-based 
organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints, also known as the Mormon Church; the Seventh-Day Adventist 
Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the 
Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; the Center for Public 
Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom 
Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership--all of them concluded that 
our religious liberty amendments ``[protect] 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.'' And they said: ``If passed, it would 
continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.'' So that is what these 
religious groups--that is what they say about it. They helped write the 
language.

  A group of leading religious liberty scholars and advocates for 
religious liberty have analyzed the bill, and they have reached the 
same conclusion. These scholars include, by the way, Professor Doug 
Laycock, who argued on behalf of faith groups and won two foundational 
religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. On balance, a 
group of these distinguished professors determined that this bill is an 
``advance for religious liberty'' because, as they say, the 
``protections are important.''
  Notwithstanding these important protections and the opinion of 
leading experts in the field, the critics of this bill continue to 
level accusations about what this bill does that are simply not 
accurate.
  First, some critics claim this bill provides grounds for the IRS or 
other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status or other 
benefits from religious organizations that adhere to traditional views 
on marriage. This couldn't be further from the truth. Section 7(a) of 
our amendment actually expressly forbids the outcome that these critics 
are warning of. It prohibits the use of the bill to target the tax-
exempt status, certification, accreditation, grant, funding, loan, 
license, or any other nonmarital status, right, or benefit of religious 
organizations. To quote Professor Laycock's analysis:

       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.

  In addition to the statutory prohibition, this amendment contains a 
clear statement from Congress, again, that diverse beliefs about the 
role of gender in marriage, including the belief that marriage is 
between one man and one woman, come from decent and honorable premises 
and are due respect. This congressional statement distinguishes the 
belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the 
belief that interracial marriage is wrong. This distinction is 
important, and rather than portraying those who believe in traditional 
marriage as bigots, reflects a national policy that respects diverse 
beliefs about the role of gender in marriage, while also protecting the 
rights of same-sex married couples, and that is the key.
  Second, some critics argue that this bill will lead to more 
litigation between ``institutions and individuals trying to live 
according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.'' This is also 
false. The bill only governs the conduct of State actors and contains 
no litigation tools that would be used against private religious 
entities acting in a private capacity, even the ones that receive the 
majority of their funding from the State. To quote, again, from 
Professor Laycock's analysis, the Respect for Marriage Act and our 
bipartisan substitute amendment ``poses little or no new risk to 
religious liberty beyond those that already exist.''
  Third, some critics continue to make the bewildering argument that 
this bill will lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. Again, this 
has no grounding in reality. No State allows bigamy or polygamy, and 
this bill does not change this. Moreover, our amendment explicitly says 
now:

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to require or authorize Federal 
     recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.

  Finally, some critics argue this bill is deficient because it does 
not contain new enforceable rights for private businesses and other 
entities beyond the scope of this bill. This bill, as legal scholars 
and many faith groups agree, poses no new risks to religious 
organizations, while containing significant benefits and protections 
for people of faith.
  Of course, this bill does not cover or address every lawsuit or 
dispute that may arise between LGBTQ and religious interests, but it 
does address the disputes that could arise because of this bill.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new 
religious liberty provisions. Take a look at it. I hope you will be 
able to support the Respect for Marriage Act. The substitute amendment 
is a carefully negotiated, well-crafted piece of legislation that 
protects people of faith as well as same-sex married couples. A 
statement in a recent letter from the Council for Christian Colleges & 
Universities accurately states that our amendment

[[Page S6840]]

``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.''
  I think that is the major point here. They can coexist. That is what 
our legislation proves. That is why it deserves the support, in my 
view, of our colleagues.
  So I urge them to join me in taking this path forward to pass this 
bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support we saw in the House 
of Representatives. The American people want us to settle this issue 
and millions of American couples who are married, including many in 
Ohio, are counting on us to recognize and protect their marriage and 
give them the peace of mind that they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of the Respect 
for Marriage Act. I hope the Senate will pass this important 
legislation today.
  The Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional 
right in 2015 and the overwhelming majority of Americans support this 
view. According to Gallup, over 70 percent of Americans believe that 
same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by the law, including a 
majority of Republicans.
  Despite this vast support, the U.S. Code does not reflect the 
American consensus. Current legislation allows States and the Federal 
Government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. While it is 
true that the Supreme Court has held that this law is not enforceable, 
it still represents Congress's last word on the subject. The American 
people rightly expect their elected representatives to bring our laws 
in line with their beliefs.
  It is time for the Senate to settle the issue. The Respect for 
Marriage Act, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan 
support, simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who were validly 
married under the laws of one State, to know their marriage will be 
recognized by the Federal Government and by other States if they move 
in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent.
  This short, narrow bill has two main effects, both of which are well 
within the constitutional authority of Congress.
  First, it ensures that marriages legally performed in one State are 
recognized as valid in other States, regardless of sex or race. This is 
a straightforward application of the full faith and credit clause of 
the Constitution.
  Under this clause, States are required to recognize things like court 
judgments and public records from other States. This bill will simply 
clarify that marriage is one of the 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 the bill keeps the Federal Government out of the 
business of defining marriage and leaves that decision to the States, 
where it properly belongs.
  As you can see, this bill is extremely narrow, it is constitutional, 
and it does not infringe on State sovereignty. This is a bill that 
simply ensures, as a matter of statutory law, that interracial and 
same-sex marriages that were legal in the State they were performed 
will be recognized if the couple moves to a different State.
  In response to concerns over religious liberty, since the bipartisan 
passage by the House of Representatives earlier this year, this already 
narrow bill has been significantly amended in the Senate to include 
robust religious liberty protections. By working collaboratively on a 
bipartisan basis with religious liberty scholars, faith organizations, 
colleagues, and other stakeholders, we have developed a substitute 
amendment that contains important protections for people of faith. This 
amendment contains five key changes to the underlying bill.
  First, it contains an express acknowledgment that decent and 
honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender in 
marriage and that such people and their beliefs are due respect.
  Second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and 
conscience protections under the First Amendment and Federal laws, 
including the powerful protections provided by the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act.
  Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny 
benefits--including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, educational 
funding, licenses, accreditation, certification, and many others--
because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about 
marriage. This protects everything from the tax status of religious 
nonprofits, to the accreditation of religious schools, to the contracts 
between faith-based adoption providers and governments from being 
attacked using this bill.
  Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including 
churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others cannot be 
required to provide facilities, goods, or services for marriage 
ceremonies or celebrations against their will.
  Fifth, it contains an explicit prohibition on the recognition of 
polygamous marriages.
  These religious liberty provisions are significant, they are 
meaningful, and they have earned the endorsement of important faith 
groups that hold to an understanding that marriage is between one man 
and one woman. In a joint letter to the Senate, eight different faith-
based organizations--including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon Church; the Seventh-Day Adventist 
Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the 
Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; the Center for Public 
Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom 
Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership--concluded that the 
religious liberty amendment ``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'' and that, ``if passed, it would 
continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.''
  This view is not limited to faith groups. A group of leading 
religious liberty scholars have analyzed the bill and reached the same 
conclusion. These scholars include Professor Doug Laycock, who argued 
and won two foundational religious liberty cases before the Supreme 
Court. He argued on behalf of faith groups in the case Church of Lukumi 
Babalu Aye, the premier case on unconstitutional religious targeting, 
and Hosanna-Tabor, the leading case on the hiring rights of religious 
organizations. He won both unanimously.
  Professor Laycock was joined by Professor Thomas Berg, Professor Carl 
Esbeck, and Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson in his analysis of the 
bill. Professor Berg has advocated for religious liberty in briefings 
before the Supreme Court, including in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia 
to defend the rights of faith-based adoption agencies. Professors 
Esbeck and Wilson have themselves authored briefs and influential texts 
on religious liberty. On balance, these distinguished professors 
determined that this bill is an ``advance for religious liberty'' 
because the ``protections are important and [] any new risks it creates 
are quite limited.''
  Notwithstanding these important protections and the opinion of 
leading experts on the issues, the critics of this bill continue to 
level incorrect accusations about what this bill does. I want to take a 
moment to respond to three arguments that opponents have made.
  First, some critics claim that this bill provides grounds for the IRS 
or other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status or other 
benefits from religious organizations that adhere to traditional views 
on marriage. This couldn't be more wrong. Section 7(a) of the amendment 
expressly forbids the outcomes that the critics are warning of. It 
prohibits the use of this bill to target the tax-exempt status, 
certification, accreditation, grant, funding, loan, license or any 
other nonmarital status, right, or benefit of religious organizations. 
To quote Professor Laycock's analysis: ``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.''
  In addition to this statutory prohibition, this amendment contains a 
clear

[[Page S6841]]

statement from Congress that diverse beliefs about the role of gender 
in marriage--including the belief that marriage is between one man and 
one woman--come from decent and honorable premises and are due respect. 
This congressional statement distinguishes the belief that marriage 
should be between a man and a woman from the belief that interracial 
marriage is wrong. This distinction is important, and rather than 
portraying those who believe in traditional marriage as bigots, 
reflects a national policy that respects diverse beliefs about the role 
of gender in marriage, while also protecting the rights of same-sex 
married couples.
  Second, some critics argue that this bill will lead to more 
litigation against ``institutions and individuals trying to live 
according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.'' This is also 
false. This bill only governs the conduct of State actors and contains 
no new litigation tools that could be used against private religious 
entities acting in a private capacity, even ones receiving the majority 
of their funding from the State. To quote again from Professor 
Laycock's analysis, the Respect for Marriage Act and our bipartisan 
substitute amendment ``poses little or no new risk to religious liberty 
beyond those that already exist.''
  Third, some critics continue to make the bewildering argument that 
this bill could lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. This has no 
grounding in reality. No State allows bigamy or polygamy, and this bill 
does nothing to change this. Moreover, our amendment explicitly says 
that ``Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be 
construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages 
between more than 2 individuals.'' No court would entertain the 
fanciful arguments suggested by critics that a man married to multiple 
women is somehow not engaged in polygamous marriage.
  Finally, some critics argue that this bill is deficient because it 
does not contain new enforceable rights for private business or other 
entities that apply beyond the scope of this bill. This is not a fair 
criticism. This bill--as legal scholars and many faith groups agree--
poses no new risks to religious organizations, while containing 
significant benefits and protections for people of faith. Of course, 
this bill does not cover or address every lawsuit or dispute that may 
arise between LGBT and religious interests, but it does address the 
disputes that could arise because of the bill.
  Having addressed these erroneous arguments and criticisms, I also 
want to take a moment to address the three amendments that we will vote 
on today. None of the amendments that we are voting on solve perceived 
problems created by this bill. As I just described, this bill is 
narrow, it provides no new risks to religious organizations, and it 
contains important protections for people of faith.
  Senator Lee's amendment provides new affirmative rights that allow 
people to sue the government--including lawsuits for money damages--if 
the government discriminates against their beliefs about marriage in 
any number of ways. Now, because of the significant protections and 
prohibitions that we have added, none of the discrimination 
contemplated by Senator Lee could occur because of the Respect for 
Marriage Act. In other words, this new right proposed by the Lee 
amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill before us and seeks to 
address harms and resolve disputes that are not created by the Respect 
for Marriage Act. Although I disagree with Senator Lee that his 
amendment solves any potential problem created by the Respect for 
Marriage Act, I support the overall goal of providing a defense to 
discrimination in other contexts. I, therefore, will vote in favor of 
this amendment.
  Senator Lankford and Senator Rubio have proposed separate amendments, 
both which remove the private right of action from this bill. I do not 
support this change. It does not fix any alleged problem created by 
this bill or improve it in any way. A private right of action is a 
common way for Congress to allow Americans to enforce their statutory 
rights. It simply allows someone to go to court and to receive a 
judgment if they have been harmed. To illustrate just how common it is, 
Senator Lee's amendment that I just discussed--and will support--also 
provides a cause of action.
  There is no reason to strip the private right of action from this 
bill because it is extremely narrow and cannot be used against anyone 
acting in a private capacity. It also cannot be used to obtain money 
damages. This provision simply allows someone to get a court order 
requiring a State actor to recognize their valid marriage. Contrary to 
the claims of some critics, it absolutely does not allow lawsuits 
against private parties simply because they contract or receive funding 
from the government.
  The right of action is a necessary enforcement mechanism for this 
bill and removing it could leave those who have their rights under this 
law violated without a remedy. In other words, it undermines the very 
purpose of this bill. I will not support the Lankford or Rubio 
amendments for this reason.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new 
religious liberty provisions and to support the Respect for Marriage 
Act. The substitute amendment is a carefully negotiated, well-crafted 
piece of legislation that protects people of faith as well as same-sex 
married couples. A statement in a recent letter from the Council for 
Christian Colleges and Universities captures my views precisely, and so 
I will directly quote from it: This amendment ``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.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this path forward and to 
pass this bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support that we 
saw in the House of Representatives. The American people want us to 
settle this issue once and for all. Millions of American married 
couples, including many in Ohio, are counting on us to recognize and 
protect their marriage to give them the peace of mind they deserve. We 
shouldn't let them down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. My days since the first cloture vote on the Respect for 
Marriage Act, as amended, have involved a painful exercise in accepting 
admonishment and fairly brutal self-soul-searching--entirely avoidable, 
I might add, had I simply chosen to vote no.
  The Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. I 
accept God's Word, including God's Word as to the definition of 
marriage. I support my church's adherence to that Biblical 
pronouncement. I support Wyoming statute which codifies that 
definition. I find solace in people and organizations that share my 
beliefs.
  I, and many like me, have been vilified and despised by some who 
disagree with our beliefs. They do not withhold bitter invective. They 
use their own hateful speech to make sure that I and others who believe 
as I do know that we are hated and despised by them. Americans on the 
other side of this issue can relate to ill treatment as well.
  So why have I strayed with such anguish from a path that conforms to 
my beliefs, my instruction, my faith, to vote for the Respect for 
Marriage Act? The answer to that question lies in our history, in how 
we got here as a nation and as a people, and in where we are as a 
nation and as a people today.
  In the 1600s, colonizers Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William 
Penn of Pennsylvania cited Scripture and the Protestant reformers to 
defer to God as the judge of conscience.
  Williams referred to religious liberty as ``liberty of the soul.'' 
The charter of the Colony of Rhode Island required religious tolerance, 
``that all may . . . freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own 
judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments.''
  George Whitefield's groundbreaking message, without which these 
United States never would have come into being, emphasized an 
individual's personal relationship with God, where previously the 
individual deferred to the church. These became foundational for our 
current American approach to the relationship between church and state.
  In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Obergefell decision, 
established a constitutional right to same-sex unions, using the term 
``marriage.''

[[Page S6842]]

Tens of thousands of same-sex American couples have married in reliance 
on that Supreme Court decision.
  The term ``marriage'' now has two meanings: the Biblical and the 
secular. The Respect for Marriage Act, by design, references neither 
definition. It uses the term ``individuals.'' The act recognizes that 
both definitions exist and codifies that a marriage legally entered in 
one State will be legally accepted by the others. Further, the act 
provides protection from persecution by a government authority toward a 
church and its organizations of religious instruction that adhere only 
to the Biblical definition.
  These are turbulent times for our Nation. Americans address each 
other in more crude and cruel terms than ever in my lifetime. It is 
jarring and unbecoming of us as human beings. It is highly intolerant, 
and, frequently, the most so when expressed by those who advocate for 
tolerance. Many of us ask ourselves: Our Nation is so divided. When 
will this end, and how will it end?
  Just as when our Nation was founded, when the New World tore itself 
from the old, people of diverse faiths, beliefs, and backgrounds had to 
come to terms with each other, had to tolerate the seemingly 
intolerable about each other's views, and had to respect each other's 
rights, even before the Constitution enumerated those rights. They had 
to tolerate each other in order to survive as a nation. Somehow, most 
certainly with divine guidance, they did.
  For the sake of our Nation today and its survival, we do well by 
taking this step, not embracing or validating each other's devoutly 
held views but by the simple act of tolerating them. And that explains 
my vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, before I begin my remarks, let me 
commend the Senator from Wyoming for her very moving and perceptive 
comments. I was very glad to be here on the Senate floor to witness her 
speech, which I think imparts valuable lessons for all of us to follow.
  I rise today in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would 
ensure that all married couples--including same-sex and interracial 
couples--are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, 
regardless of the State in which they live.
  Let us remember that we are talking about our family members, our 
neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. I am proud to have stood--and I 
will continue to stand--with them in the efforts to secure their 
rights, while also steadfastly protecting and respecting religious 
liberty.
  With regard to marriage equality, the Respect for Marriage Act 
accomplishes two primary goals. First, it would guarantee that a valid 
marriage between two individuals in one State is recognized by other 
States, regardless of the couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national 
origin.
  Second, it would require the Federal Government to recognize valid 
marriages between two individuals.
  Our bill is also noteworthy, however, for the way that it advances 
the cause of religious liberty. Indeed, the substitute amendment that 
Senator Baldwin and I introduced with Senators Portman, Sinema, and 
Tillis, unambiguously adds significant religious liberty and conscience 
protections to the legislation.
  These protections were developed in consultation with and have been 
endorsed by a wide array of faith-based groups. These include the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist 
Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Union of Orthodox 
Jewish Congregations, the Council for Christian Colleges and 
Universities, the AND Campaign, the Institutional Religious Freedom 
Alliance, the Center for Public Justice, and the 1st Amendment 
Partnership.
  Every single one of these entities believes that marriage is between 
a man and a woman--every single one of them. They support the religious 
liberty provisions in the substitute because these provisions provide 
important safeguards against government retaliation, as well as 
meaningful recognition of their beliefs embodied in public policy.
  Prominent constitutional scholars agree. In a letter led by Professor 
Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law, four 
constitutional scholars who have long advocated for religious liberty 
have concluded that the substitute amendment is ``an advance for 
religious liberty.'' They call it a ``good and important step for the 
liberty of believers to follow their traditional views of marriage.''
  Now, let me address some of the unfounded criticisms of our 
amendment. It has been suggested by some that the amended Respect for 
Marriage Act would somehow demean individuals who have traditional 
views on marriage. To the contrary, this legislation would explicitly 
recognize in Federal law, for the first time, that such views and the 
people who hold them are ``due proper respect.'' It reads:

       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. Therefore, 
     Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs 
     are due proper respect.

  This finding directly rebuts the claim that the bill can be construed 
to establish a public policy against people of faith. It does precisely 
the opposite.
  Opponents point to the example of an institution that lost its tax-
exempt status on the basis of racially discriminatory policies that 
were contrary to public policy. That analogy ignores the important 
finding in our bill.
  As Professor Laycock and his colleagues explained, ``explicit 
congressional affirmation that the traditional male-female definition 
of marriage is `reasonable' and `honorable' would counter the analogy 
to racism and weaken the grounds for relying on Bob Jones''--that is a 
Supreme Court case--``to justify rejecting traditionalist believers' 
religious-freedom claims.''
  Despite this strong policy statement, some have continued to argue 
that the Respect for Marriage Act, with the substitute amendment, could 
still somehow be used to deprive religious organizations of their tax-
exempt status. We have heard that on the floor today. This is simply 
false.
  To avoid any ambiguity, the amendment states in section 7(a) that 
this bill cannot be used to deny or alter such status, as well as the 
``tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, 
guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, 
claim, or defense.''
  In light of these provisions, the constitutional scholars concluded 
that ``those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for 
denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female 
marriage . . . are disregarding the statutory text.'' The very text of 
our bill would prohibit that.
  Opponents of this legislation are also mistaken in asserting that it 
would provide new grounds on which to sue churches, nonprofit religious 
organizations, and people of faith based on their religious beliefs. 
This, too, is inaccurate.
  The bill simply requires government actors to recognize valid 
marriages and provide marriage-based rights to which married couples 
are entitled, and it provides a way to pursue claims against those 
government actors only in instances where that recognition is denied. 
Government actors are already required to recognize same-sex marriages 
under the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell, and the enforcement 
provisions in our amendment do not apply to individuals or religious 
organizations who are not government actors.
  As the 1st Amendment Partnership, an organization dedicated to 
protecting religious freedom for Americans of all faiths, wrote in its 
analysis, ``if you cannot be sued now under Obergefell, then you still 
can't be sued under the'' Respect for Marriage Act.
  Of course, providing a way to pursue rights in court when those 
rights are unlawfully denied is not unusual. Indeed, other amendments 
filed to this legislation contain private causes of action. The 
amendment offered by our colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, ironically 
would empower individuals to bring lawsuits even on the basis of 
``threatened violation[s].''
  Notably, not only would the amended Respect for Marriage Act not 
diminish or abrogate any religious liberty or

[[Page S6843]]

conscience protection, it also would provide affirmative protections 
and litigation defenses for people and organizations of faith that do 
not exist under current law.
  For instance, the amendment contains an affirmative protection that 
prohibits any religious nonprofit organization--including churches, 
synagogues, temples, mosques, religious schools, and faith-based social 
agencies--from being forced to provide goods, services, or 
accommodations in connection with the solemnization or celebration of a 
marriage against their beliefs. Moreover, the legislation flatly 
prohibits any litigation for such a denial.
  The leader of one religious group recently wrote that our 
legislation, as amended, ``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.''
  I agree, and that is what our bill does. It advances the rights of 
couples--same-sex and interracial couples--who are married to one 
another, and it advances religious liberty.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and 
historic step forward for religious liberty and for ensuring the 
dignity and respect for all Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes before the rollcall begins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am glad that I am on the floor today 
to hear the previous speakers. I think Senator Collins of Maine gave a 
thoughtful presentation about the substance of this bill and addressed 
many of the worries and criticisms that were raised on the floor 
earlier.
  I think one thing stuck with me: If there is a protection under 
Obergefell, it is the same protection under this bill. It is not an 
expansion of rights.
  But I also want to thank the Senator from Wyoming. That was an 
outstanding statement. It really was, and I join Senator Collins in 
commending her for saying it. I am sure her position has not been an 
easy one at home, but it reflects some thoughtful consideration on her 
part. Most importantly, it reflects her appeal to us in this Chamber 
and to the Nation to really seize this opportunity for tolerance. If 
there was ever a time when we needed more of that in this Nation, I 
can't imagine when it was. We need it now more than ever.
  It wasn't but just a few days ago that there was a mass shooting 
involving those who were at a gay nightclub, and innocent people were 
killed. Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and say there needs to 
be tolerance in America, and her statement really touched my heart. I 
thank her so much for coming to the floor and delivering it.
  I take a look at this and say many times I have been critical of 
Supreme Court Justices, particularly Supreme Court Justice Thomas. We 
disagree more than we agree. But I, in a way, have to be grateful to 
him for bringing us to this moment because it was his statement in the 
Hobbs decision about the possibility of raising questions on other 
Supreme Court decisions that led us to the introduction of this Respect 
for Marriage Act.
  I thank the Senators who led in that effort. I want to make sure that 
the Record reflects Senator Baldwin, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, 
who spoke on the floor earlier, and Senator Sinema and Senator Tillis, 
the original cosponsors--bipartisan cosponsors--of the Respect for 
Marriage Act.
  What we are considering here is very fundamental. I went back to read 
Obergefell, and what Justice Kennedy wrote in that majority opinion was 
the acknowledgement that there is a constitutional protection based on 
due process and equal protection under the laws for same-sex marriage--
fundamental. He said we don't have to wait on the legislature to spell 
this out; it already exists. And that, to me, says how powerful this 
issue is.
  My wife and I are blessed to have so many friends who are in same-sex 
marriages and are wonderful people in so many respects. It has really 
opened our eyes to the reality of life for so many good Americans who 
simply want to have the opportunity under the law to marry the people 
they love.

  The vast majority of Americans believe in that. I do, and I think 
what we are trying to do today is to protect that right as best we can. 
Maybe what we are doing is not as expansive as Obergefell, but it is a 
genuine good-faith effort.
  Senator Lee, in his amendment, claims that it is necessary for his 
amendment to protect religious liberty. But he ignores the robust 
protections for religious liberty already in the Respect for Marriage 
Act.
  The bipartisan substitute has been quoted over and over, but it bears 
repeating:

       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.

  Of course, the free exercise of religion must be protected. No one 
disputes that, and that is why the bipartisan substitute amendment 
makes clear that this bill does not override existing religious freedom 
protections.
  I commend those religious organizations that have stepped forward, 
read this bill carefully, and supported it publicly. It is across the 
political spectrum and religious spectrum of America. I think they 
understand the lengths that we went--those of us who supported it, as 
well as those who wrote it--in putting in provisions to protect the 
free exercise of religion.
  But we must remember that this critical First Amendment right is a 
shield, not a sword. It cannot and must not be wielded to discriminate 
against individuals solely based on whom they love. We have seen too 
many who have tried to turn this crusade the wrong way. I hope today's 
vote on the U.S. Senate floor makes it clear that we are here to 
protect civil rights and not enable civil rights violations. We need to 
protect LGBTQ families and ensure that same-sex marriages are offered 
the same stability and dignity that all marriages are entitled to.
  For these reasons, I oppose Senator Lee's amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 6482

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 6482, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back 
all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 6482.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar

[[Page S6844]]


     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Sasse
     Toomey
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). On this vote, the yeas are 48, 
the nays are 49. The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the 
amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 6482) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 6496

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
6496, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this amendment is very, very narrowly 
tailored. It is in response to the bill. I have talked to several of 
the bill's sponsors, and they have told me their intent is to be able 
to protect religious liberty, which I appreciate that to be able to 
have a balanced perspective in this particular bill because people of 
good will on both sides have disagreements in this area.
  The problem is, there are three certain areas of the text that do not 
actually meet that standard of being a balanced protection. So this 
amendment goes into those three areas and corrects the text to make 
sure it actually says it is going to protect religious liberty. It is 
three areas.
  One is a very wide perspective of operating under the color of State 
law. That has a very broad net on it. We tried to be able to correct 
that one.
  The second one deals with striking the private right of action on 
this, which will dramatically increase the number of lawsuits. I can 
assure you, if Congress passes a law that opens up a new lane for 
lawsuits, there will be lots of new lawsuits in that area.
  The third area is in 7(a), where it talks about protecting all these 
rights if it does arise from a marriage, not from a belief in a 
marriage. So we are trying to correct that text to make sure it is not 
just the action of marriage but also the belief of marriage.
  That is what this amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Senator Lankford's amendment would eliminate the only 
practical recourse for same-sex and interracial couples to protect 
their marriages under the Respect for Marriage Act. It would create an 
exemption far beyond current law for partnerships between government 
and faith-based organizations, the latter of which continue to enjoy 
robust religious liberty and conscience protections that remain intact 
under the Respect for Marriage Act.
  This amendment would upend a carefully negotiated, bipartisan 
compromise that protects the interests of religious organizations and 
individuals while affording the dignity of marriage recognition to 
same-sex and interracial couples. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  I yield back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 6496

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 6496.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Sasse
     Toomey
     Warnock
  The amendment (No. 6496) was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 6493

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Under the previous order, there 
is now 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 6493, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, 
for the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 6493.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 361 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Sasse
     Toomey
     Warnock
  The amendment (No. 6493) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment Nos. 6488 
and 6489 are withdrawn, amendment No. 6487 is agreed to, the cloture 
motion with respect to H.R. 8404 is withdrawn, and the bill is 
considered read a third time.
  The amendments (No. 6488 and 6489) were withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 6487) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on passage of H.R. 8404, as amended.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8404, the 
Respect

[[Page S6845]]

for Marriage Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Senate 
companion version of this measure, S. 4556, which has been introduced 
by Senator Feinstein.
  The House passed this legislation by a bipartisan vote of 267 to 157 
in July 2022, and the Senate is now poised to pass this legislation 
with a strong bipartisan vote as well.
  In 2010, Maryland began to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages 
that were legally performed in other States. And in 2012, Governor 
Martin O'Malley signed a law guaranteeing Marylanders the freedom to 
marry regardless of their gender, which was later upheld and confirmed 
by the voters of Maryland in a statewide referendum.
  In 2015, the Supreme Court held in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges 
that the Constitution protected the right of same-sex couples to marry 
and therefore granting this right nationwide. Let me quote just a few 
passages from this historic decision, written by Justice Anthony 
Kennedy more than seven years ago: ``Especially against a long history 
of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples 
of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition 
of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and 
subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process 
Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental 
right to marry.''
  Justice Kennedy concluded in part that: ``No union is more profound 
than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, 
devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people 
become something greater than once they were. As some of the 
petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that 
may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women 
to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do 
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment 
for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in 
loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. 
They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution 
grants them that right.''
  So why are we here today, if Obergefell is still the law of the land? 
We are here because the Supreme Court of the United States decided to 
strip away a woman's fundamental reproductive rights this summer. The 
Court overturned its Roe v. Wade decision--and a half century of 
associated precedents--in its radical Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization decision.
  In that decision, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence which warned 
that the Court should ``reconsider, [in future cases], all of this 
Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, 
Lawrence, and Obergefell.'' These decisions protected the right to 
access contraception, the right to have same-sex relations, and the 
right to enter into a same-sex marriage, respectively. Do most 
Americans really want to turn back the clock on these civil rights, in 
terms of being able to responsibly plan the size of their family, make 
personal medical and healthcare decision with their doctors, and fall 
in love and marry their partner of their choosing, regardless of their 
gender? I don't think so.
  The dissent in Dobbs correctly pointed out: ``The lone rationale for 
what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is 
not `deeply rooted in history': Not until Roe, the majority argues, did 
people think abortion fell within the Constitution's guarantee of 
liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the 
majority claims it is not tampering with.''
  The dissent continued: ``The majority could write just as long an 
opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, `there 
was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain 
[contraceptives].' So one of two things must be true. Either the 
majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, 
all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century 
are insecure. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, 
or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the 
other.''
  I am therefore pleased that the Senate came together in its best 
traditions to form a bipartisan working group--led by Senators Baldwin 
and Collins--to codify the right to be married regardless of your 
gender and to rescind Federal laws to the contrary that are still on 
the books. I thank Leader Schumer for giving this working group 
additional time after the mid-term elections to reach compromise 
language that enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, which can 
overcome a filibuster.
  According to the Human Rights Campaign and a recent Gallup poll, 71 
percent of Americans now support marriage equality, compared to only 
about 27 percent in 1996, when President Clinton signed the Defense of 
Marriage Act--DOMA.
  As Senators Baldwin and Collins recently wrote in a compelling op-ed: 
``Individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages need, and should 
have, the confidence that their marriages are legal. These loving 
couples should be guaranteed the same rights and freedoms of every 
other marriage . . . This legislation has earned bipartisan support in 
Congress because it grants same-sex and interracial couples the 
certainty that they will continue to enjoy the same equal treatment 
under federal law as all other married couples. . . . [W]e should be 
able to agree that same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of 
where they live, both need and deserve the assurance that their 
marriage will be recognized by the federal government and that they 
will continue to enjoy freedoms, rights and responsibilities that come 
with all other marriages.''
  This legislation has three major components. First, this legislation 
would formally repeal the Defense of Marriage Act--DOMA--of 1996. 
Section 2 of DOMA purports to allow States to refuse to recognize valid 
civil marriages of same-sex couples. Section 3 of the law carved out 
all same-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, from 
benefitting from any Federal statutes, regulations and rulings 
applicable to all other married people. This provision denied same-sex 
couples roughly 1,100 Federal benefits and protections.
  Second, the legislation establishes that ``place of celebration'' is 
the standard of recognition for Federal benefits of a same-sex 
marriage, in terms of recognizing a marriage as legal if valid in the 
State it was performed. The legislation would also guarantee Federal 
marriage benefits if a State rescinded same-sex marriage recognition.
  Third, this legislation guarantees that legal marriages are given 
full faith and credit by every other State. Article IV, section 1 of 
the Constitution provides that ``full faith and credit shall be given 
in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of 
every other state, and the Congress may be general laws prescribe the 
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, 
and the effect thereof.'' This section of the legislation additionally 
gives the Attorney General enforcement authority to carry out its 
provisions and creates a private right of action for any harmed 
individual.
  The compromise language in the Senate measure clarifies that it will 
have no adverse impact on religious liberty and conscience protections. 
The revised legislation would explicitly protect all religious liberty 
and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal 
law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act. The amendment clarifies that nonprofit religious organizations 
will not be required to provide any services, facilities, or goods for 
the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
  President Biden is absolutely correct when he stated: ``The right to 
marriage confers vital legal protections, dignity, and full 
participation in our society. No person should face discrimination 
because of who they are or whom they love, and every married couple in 
the United States deserves the security of knowing that their marriage 
will be defended and respected.''

       The Biden administration supports passage of this 
     legislation, stating that ``H.R. 8404 would repeal the 
     Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional and 
     discriminatory law, and would enshrine the right to Federal 
     recognition of marriage for same-sex and interracial couples. 
     This legislation would strengthen civil rights, and ensure 
     that the promise of equality is not denied to families across 
     the country.''
       The Senate should pass this legislation and send it to the 
     House for its consideration and

[[Page S6846]]

     passage in December. I am hopeful that President Biden will 
     sign this legislation into law before the 117th Congress 
     adjourns sine die. This would be another major bipartisan 
     accomplishment for this Congress and mark an important step 
     forward on our unfinished march for civil rights, as we 
     strive to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and 
     guarantee equal rights and equal justice under the law for 
     all Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly, we will have the opportunity to 
make history by passing important legislation that will advance two 
goals: one, the goal of marriage equality for same-sex and interracial 
couples, and second, the goal of strengthening religious liberty and 
conscience protections.
  I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked so hard on this legislation, and I also want to thank the broad 
array of faith-based groups who worked with us on the religious liberty 
provisions of our bill.
  I want to thank Senator Baldwin, who has been the lead on this bill; 
Senator Sinema, who has worked so hard; Senator Portman, who has poured 
his heart and soul into it; and Senator Tillis in particular. But I 
also want to thank all of the Republicans who have supported this. I 
know that it has not been easy, but they have done the right thing.
  I urge a vote in favor of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
be extended an additional minute so that I might recognize the leader 
after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I want to express, as did my colleague 
Senator Collins, that there are many thanks to go around. I thank the 
leader. I want to thank the original bill sponsors in the House and 
Senate--Congressman Nadler and Senator Feinstein--and the team of 
Senators Collins, Portman, Sinema, and Tillis for your unrelenting 
commitment that has brought us to this final vote to pass the Respect 
for Marriage Act.
  I want to thank the advocates who have been fighting for marriage 
equality for decades, and I want to recognize the millions of same-sex 
and interracial couples who have truly made this moment possible by 
living their true selves and changing the hearts and minds of people 
around this country.
  Many of these same-sex and interracial couples are fearful. They are 
worried that the rights, responsibilities, and freedoms they enjoy 
through civil marriage could be stripped away. Right now, the Senate 
has the opportunity to put those fears to rest and give millions of 
people in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty, dignity, 
and respect they need and deserve. By passing this bill, we are showing 
that the American Government and people see them and respect them.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the Respect for Marriage 
Act and move our country forward.
  I yield to our leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, for millions of Americans, today is 
a very good day, an important day, a day that has been a long time in 
coming. The Senate is passing the Respect for Marriage Act.
  Today, the long but inexorable march toward greater equality advances 
forward. By passing this bill, the Senate is sending a message that 
every American needs to hear: No matter who you are or whom you love, 
you, too, deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law.
  As the Chamber knows, this is personal to me, and the first people I 
will call when this bill passes will be my daughter and her wife.
  I want to thank my colleagues, joining the others, for making this 
legislation possible--and especially the teams of Senators Baldwin and 
Sinema and Collins, Tillis, and Portman. To all of you, I say: Bravo, a 
job well done. And to all who make the choice to support this bill, 
thank you. None of this was inevitable.
  At the urging of my colleagues, we took the calculated risk of 
holding off on a vote back in September because they believed, with 
more time, we could build enough bipartisan support to push this bill 
over the finish line. Today, we have vindication that the wait was well 
worth it. I thank my colleagues for their work.
  Above all, I want to thank the American people, the vast majority of 
whom understand deep in their hearts that the inexorable march toward 
equality is what America is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.


                     Vote on H.R. 8404, as Amended

  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, as amended, pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 362 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     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
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--36

     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
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Sasse
     Toomey
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The yeas are 61; the nays are 36.
  The bill (H.R. 8404), as amended, was passed.
  PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, what a great day. What a great day.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. President, and now, moving forward, as we always try to do in the 
Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive 
session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 1133; and that the 
cloture motions with respect to Calendar Nos. 1133, 1147, 1148, and 
1129 ripen at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30; further, that at 
11:30 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate vote on motions to invoke cloture on 
Executive Calendar Nos. 1133 and 1147; that if cloture is invoked on 
the nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 2:15 on 
Wednesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________