Respect for Marriage Act

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 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

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

``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

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. President, as I reflect on my 28 years serving in the U.S. Senate, I am reminded of the lessons I learned from my former colleagues and friends who have served beside me in the Senate. I had the privilege of serving with many great titans for a fairly long period of time. Some maybe thought too long. I had the privilege of serving with the people whom I have known very well--people like Orrin Hatch and Mike Enzi, friends I miss dearly. I single them out because they are no longer with us.

In Senator Hatch's farewell speech in 2018, he reflected on the striking shift in polarization and partisanship of the Senate, and he yearned for the days of Members finding common ground and breaking bread together.

Orrin reflected on this in his farewell speech. He said: Could two people with polar-opposite beliefs and from vastly different walks of life come together as often as Teddy and I did? And the answer is yes. Can conservative Republicans and Democrats come together today? All the time, and they will in the future. But you may not hear about it because it is not newsy. The media doesn't really care if everybody loves everybody.

Then there is Barbara Boxer. Not too many people who are making their last speech talk about Members of the other party, but I will do this. I have shared this story many times with all of you about how former Senator Barbara Boxer of California and I worked together for many years as chair and ranking member of the EPW Committee to get things done. You can't get two more ideologically different Senators than Barbara and me--Barbara, a proud Democrat of the most far left State in the Nation, and me, a

proud Republican from the most conservative State in the Nation. But we were able to see past our ideological differences to work together, and we did. We got stuff done. We passed landmark legislation, from highway bills like the FAST Act to the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. You remember that. Most people still remember that. We did it, and we did it time and time again.

Every Wednesday, as Republicans in this meeting in the Senate where the chairmen will go--I shouldn't probably be telling all you guys what Republicans do. But they go around the room and give an update on what their committee is working on. And I would always say at that time: Now is the time to hear from the committee that gets things done.

And I can say that--that Barbara Boxer and I got things done. And do you know what? We actually enjoyed it. Nobody believed that we would enjoy it so much and actually get things done.

Then there is Jack Reed. Today, I have a similar relationship with the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am a Republican, and he is a Democrat. Jack is from Rhode Island, a very blue State, but we have worked together for years to pass the annual Defense authorization bill, which is the most important bill we pass every year.

I believe the secret to getting this bill done--and any bipartisan bill, for that matter--is determination, but also trust and respect in the Member that you are sitting across the table from, a lesson Senator Hatch set very well. In working with Senator Reed over the years, he has my trust, and I have his respect. And it is why we have been successful in what I consider to be the most significant thing that we do every year.

For me, I was a builder and developer prior to running for public office and never contemplated getting involved in politics until one day on the job in South Texas. I was told that I needed more than a dozen permits to build a single dock. Now, that didn't make much sense to me, and so I decided at that time to run for office and try to get things done where people in this body are actually responding favorably.

I remember when I first came to the Senate from the House. After I gave a very spirited speech on the Senate floor, Senator Byrd came up to me and he said: Young man, the Senate doesn't work like the House. Let me tell you about the Senate. That day happened to be November 17, 1994, which was my 60th birthday. Until the day he died, I was still ``young man.'' And Senator Byrd explained to me--and this is something that a lot of the new Members who are just being sworn in as we speak, and are here for the first time, realize--that this is discipline and major differences. If you make enemies in the Senate, you are wiped out. That is not true in the House. I spent a lot of years in the House before.

Also, I remember friends across the aisle, like former Hawaii Senator Danny Akaka, who led our Prayer Breakfast each week; Ted Kennedy, who I helped out of the Capitol during one of the September attacks that was taking place; and former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who would sometimes move our voting schedule around so that I could get home and watch my grandkids' football games.

And then there is the one that we all love, Susan Collins, who is well-respected because she makes this institution a better place, and not just because of the Maine lobster rolls that are her signature fare for the eating groups.

Real friendship does exist in the U.S. Senate, but nobody knows it. It is a big secret around here.

Then there is a bipartisan Bible study that we have. Some of you know about the Senate Bible study that meets every Thursday in my hideaway in the Capitol. I have made a point not to miss a Thursday Bible study in 28 years. So I have a record going. There is no one who is going to beat it. Well, they could beat it, I suppose. After I was first elected to the House in 1986, I attended a Bible study led by a guy named Tom Barrett.

I am going to tell you a story that most people don't want to hear, but one day, Tom Barrett and a Member of Congress from Kansas invited me to the Members' dining room after Bible study. Keep in mind, this was 1986.

They said to me: Inhofe, we think that--we have been with you now for over a year, since you got here, and we think you never really accepted Jesus.

Well, I got mad. Who is this young guy there telling me about Jesus?

And they said: All right, when did you ask Him?

And I said: Well, every day.

They asked: How long have you and Kay been married?

At that time, we were newlyweds. We were probably, I think, celebrating our 29th wedding anniversary.

And they said: Do you propose to Kay every day?

And I said: No.

And they replied: Why?

And I said: Because we are already married.

Well, bingo, that meant something. And I thought--I was a little cautious because these guys were younger, and I wasn't sure I knew them that well. I said, just in case they were right in the Members' dining room at 2:30 in the afternoon on September 22, 1988, I reaccepted-- reaccepted--Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. Now, that is life- changing.

OK. Now there is Africa. Since joining the Senate, I have made 172 African country visits, alongside good friends from here, like Mike Enzi, John Boozman, Mike Rounds, Trent Kelly, Tim Walberg, and arguably my closest friend, Mark Powers, a real brother, but it all started with Doug Coe. You see, people think of Doug Coe as having been someone who was a great diplomat. He had political influence and all that.

Years back, an article about Doug said this:

The extent of Coe's influence in American politics is

[real] . . . important figures have acknowledged his role on

the national and international stage. For instance, speaking

at the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H. W.

Bush praised Coe for his quiet diplomacy.

Not many things are quiet around here. Doug spent his years in the countries across the world taking Jesus's name to the Kings. I remember him asking me for 8 years. He said: Inhofe, I wish you would go to West Africa.

And I had no interest in going to West Africa.

And he kept saying--and this lasted for 8 years. For 8 years, I said no to this guy, but he was very persistent. And I can't tell you why it happened, but then finally I said yes. And I still to this day can't figure out how that happened. But that changed lives, including mine, and it all came from Doug Coe.

You know, I would like to mention some of these people who were really heroes around here that most people don't even know. They don't remember. But they go back and they look them up and they see what great contributions they made. Not many people are aware of this, but here in the U.S. Senate, every Wednesday morning, we meet in the Spirit of Jesus. This is something Doug Coe started many years ago during the Eisenhower administration. It is scripturally based, Acts 2:42. We get together, eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk about the precepts of Jesus together.

I will always be thankful to Doug for his efforts to quietly speak of Jesus in most every country around the world.

Over my 172 African country visits as a Senator--sure, I did my military job while I was there--but I developed a deep love and appreciation for the people of Africa whom I will hold here with me forever.

One thing from my visits remains clear. Building meaningful and lasting relationships with African leaders is vital if the United States is to have a role on the African Continent. I was proud to lead the effort to establish AFRICOM. Some of you don't remember this, but AFRICOM didn't exist for a long period of time. Every other part of the world did but not Africa. But we set that up as a separate combatant command in 2007, and I have seen the benefits across the continent since that time.

The presence of U.S. military across Africa means a great deal to our friends and is a worthwhile investment for the United States. A strong and robust relationship with the United States has helped spur economic growth and regional stability across the continent.

I think it is important to talk about these things that other people don't talk about. I have faith that my colleagues in the House and Senate will continue the United States-African friendship long after I have retired from the Senate.

Western Sahara. Western Sahara. Over the years, I have been very outspoken about the situation in Western Sahara. A few years ago, I visited the Sahrawi refugee camps. I visited the children who lived there. They were joyous and happy and ordinary children who didn't know yet that they were part of the frozen, forgotten conflict, where their hopes and dreams were dying a cruel death.

I urge my colleagues to remember our ideals of democracy and extend that to the Sahrawians. Don't let the world forget them. I urge everyone in this body to stand strong to support Western Sahara's right to self-determination and reject Morocco's relentless attacks on Western Sahara.

Ethiopia. Then there is Ethiopia, a nation that is close to my heart for many reasons. The human suffering happening there is heartbreaking. Instead of focusing on the importance of creating lasting friendships with the Ethiopian people, some in the U.S. Government look for ways to punish them. Nineteen of my African visits have included Ethiopia, where I have watched firsthand the economic transformation that occurred.

Their middle class is growing; they have become a regional superpower; and they are a good friend of the United States of America. Their military is professional, capable, and they are punching above their weight in the war against terrorism that continues to plague the continent.

They promote regional peace and security by being one of the top contributors to the United Nations when they are called upon. Hopefully, we can find ways to grow this friendship, the Ethiopian friendship.

Then there is Zegita Marie. Now, many of you already know that I have an adopted granddaughter who was born in Ethiopia. Her name is Zegita Marie. We call her the Z-girl. She has a very special story and has grown up to be a very impressive star. Knowing the joys of adoption in my own family, I have worked to ensure all families who choose to adopt can.

In 2017, when Ethiopia decided to close intercountry adoptions, I worked directly with my friend then-Prime Minister Hailemariam so the families who were pending adoptions were able to complete their adoptions to bring their children home. That was a major thing, a major undertaking. You wouldn't think it would be. That should be natural.

Now, the Constitution. Yes, you have heard me say this line before. There are two things we should remember here in Congress: infrastructure and defense. That statement rang true 28 years ago when I got to the Senate, and it will ring true in the years to come.

Infrastructure--and we have gotten a lot done together on that front over the years. We passed bipartisan landmark infrastructure legislation from SAFETEA-LU to MAP-21, to the FAST Act, all of which rebuilt our Nation's crumbling infrastructure so the future generations of Americans still have safe roads and bridges to cross.

Before 2005, Oklahoma--my State--was a donor State to the highway trust fund. Now, what that means is we were paying more into the highway trust fund than we were receiving out of it, and of course we were going to change that.

SAFETEA-LU created a fair formula for apportionment so Oklahoma--I just want to say this. I want to make sure that people in Oklahoma, since I am bugging out of this place, realize some of the things that I have done. I know it is controversial in some circles to say this, but I have been one of the staunchest defenders of congressionally directed spending also known as earmarks. And an ``earmark'' must be defined as something that is both authorized and appropriate and should be the job of Congress to decide how the American people--how their taxes are spent, not unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. And that is what we are trying to get away from when we are looking at why we should be using earmarks.

We have worked across the party lines to ensure the National Defense Authorization Act is signed into law every year. And as I said earlier, the NDAA is the most important bill that we do every year and for a good reason. This year will be the 62nd time that the NDAA has been signed into law--62nd time.

And I am proud to have had a hand in crafting the last 28 years of that bill. The Defense authorization bill ensures that our service men and women have the training, equipment, and other resources they need to defend America, here and on the road.

It also ensures that the families of the men and women who serve are taken care of. Some elected leaders criticize our military spending, but they need to know that our greatest expense in the military is taking care of our troops and building schools for the young people and how important that is. And why does it cost more for us to do that than other countries? than communist countries? It does because we do actually take care of our people.

With growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and others around the world, it is more important now than ever that our troops have what they need to counter this aggression. Ronald Reagan used to say we maintain the peace through our strength, and that continues to be true today. After all of these years serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have come to know with certainty that America cannot lose its focus on fully investing in its defense capabilities.

And I have got to say this about Oklahoma. Oklahoma has come out pretty well. You all don't need to feel sorry for Oklahoma because I will take care of that. They are very happy right now. Oklahoma has five major military installations. From training pilots to building bombs, each is unique in its mission to support our military.

Since 1988, we have gone through five BRAC rounds. That is Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. And in each round, the Department of Defense closed bases and military installations in accordance with their performance. This is something we ought to be doing. And in each round, Oklahoma and the Department of Defense grew its presence in Oklahoma. So Oklahoma has done very well in that period of time.

I am going to tell a story here that will surprise a lot of people because the star of the story is--none of these kids will remember, except for reading about it--Ronald Reagan. When I was about 6 years old, my dad was a claims adjuster in a building where Ronald Reagan was an announcer for WHO radio, a sports announcer in Des Moines, IA--my dad and Ronald Reagan. In fact, I thought he was--I was about 6 years old at that time, and I thought that he was related to me. My dad and Ronald Reagan used to play the pinball machine together. He would come out to the house, and I always thought he was an uncle or some relative.

When I was young, my family moved from Des Moines to Tulsa--Tulsa, OK--but we never missed a Dutch Reagan movie, which is what my dad called him, Dutch Reagan.

We would drive--I remember one time we went all the way down from Tulsa to Durant, OK, and that was before turnpikes. We drove for hours to watch a Dutch Reagan movie. Never missed one of those. It is not a big deal, but it is to me, and I am the guy who needed it.

Fast-forward to when, as mayor of Tulsa and Ronald Reagan was President, when President Reagan wanted someone to tout his domestic agenda, he used me. We would appear on all the TV shows, sometimes together, and tell the people what they needed to know and what was happening in the administration.

I will always remember when, as mayor of Tulsa, I pushed the construction of a low-water dam on the Arkansas River. It ended up being one of the largest public projects in America that was totally privately funded. It had a lot of opposition, but it is pretty amazing. Go back and read about this, and you will see that anything Ronald Reagan wanted, he got.

Then there is the Wiley Post flight around the world. Now, people may not know who Wiley Post is. Everyone knows who Will Rogers is. Well, Wiley Post and Will Rogers were both pilots. The difference is, Wiley Post had just one eye and he was good. In fact, they were together when they died.

Back in 1991, I was still in the House, and a few friends and I created a Wiley Post 1931 flight around the world in my twin engine Cessna aircraft. It is hard to believe that was 30 years ago when we made that trip that left out of Oklahoma, with several stops on the east coast, then in Europe, and then in the Soviet Union. Wiley Post had my plane beat on the travel time. He did his in 8 days; it took me 16 days.

Looking back, I am not sure how Tom Quinn and I survived those stops in the Soviet Union. I remember praying: Lord, you got more for me to do. Get me out of this mess.

Fighting far-left environmentalists, it is no shock to anyone that the Washington Post has dubbed me public enemy No. 1 for radical environmentalists for decades now.

For much of my time in the Senate, I was chair and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Throughout that time, I pushed back against the Obama administration's far-left policies designed to upend the--sought to upend the lives of Oklahomans, like the Paris climate agreement, the waters of the United States rule, the Clean Power Plan, and many others. These policies were really about giving Washington bureaucrats sweeping control over the lives of millions of Americans. We are debating a lot of these same issues today, and I expect these disagreements will continue into the future.

Lastly, I want to take a second to say thank you to all of my current and former staff. They are hanging around out here now. I didn't get much work out of them today. They were pretty busy, but my staff knows that once they leave my office, they always have a place here. We have become very close. We don't have people who leave; they become friends.

I lovingly call my former staff the Has-Beens. It is something of a mark of honor. And to all of you, thank you. You are all about to be Has-Beens.

Most importantly, to my family: I love you.

When Kay and I got married 63 years ago, I could never imagine I would be standing here today with 20 kids and grandkids saying goodbye.

Thank you to all you guys for all you have done all these years, and thank you for putting up with me.

To Kay, my best friend and rock, I can never put into words what you mean to me.

Finally, I want to say to the people of Oklahoma that I really thank you for what you have done for me all these years. Thank you very much. I love you guys.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 6482, and ask that it be reported by number.

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-

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

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.

Mr. President, as the junior Senator from Oklahoma, I can't tell you what an honor it has been to be able to serve with my senior Senator.

Jim Inhofe has for decades served our State. He has been reelected over and over and over again because the people of our State know he loves them, know he cares about them. They trust him in some very hard decisions that had to be made in this place, and they know Jim Inhofe has been there for our State.

I jokingly say--and Senator Inhofe mentioned his passion for infrastructure and for the U.S. military--that when I run into somebody who is griping about the construction traffic that they are currently sitting in, I will jokingly say to them: Well, blame that on Jim Inhofe because that new road, that new place, that new infrastructure has been his passion all along to be able to make sure our State and our Nation, quite frankly, continue to be able to advance.

In the days ahead, Senator Inhofe will be dearly missed in our State. There is not a town that I go to as I travel around our State that they don't ask me: What are we going to do when Senator Inhofe retires? Not one. They are all grateful, and they are all spoiled by Senator Inhofe's service to them.

But I can't tell you how excited my wife Cindy and I are for him and Kay getting time together because they have sacrificed much for our Nation and for our State for decades, and I am excited for them to be able to finally get some time to be able to wake up every day and to be able to see each other and, quite frankly, for Jim to not have to be in yet another vote-a-rama all night voting, that he can actually spend his time with Kay.

So if I can say for the State of Oklahoma, we are grateful for Jim Inhofe. We are grateful for the legacy he has left for our State. We are grateful for his firm conservative stand that he has taken year after year after year. We wish him very well in retirement and are very excited to still continue to be able to walk with him in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, 29 years ago today--29 years ago today-- President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill sponsored by then- Representative Chuck Schumer that has aided in the defense of protection of one of the most fundamental freedoms that we have in our Nation; that freedom, religious freedom. The bill was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress today, 29 years ago, found that government should not substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling justification. It was truly a landmark piece of legislation to be able to add further protections to individuals who have religious liberty differences. And we have wide variations of religious expressions in the United States. It is part of what makes us such a unique nation. It is that we guard the rights of every individual to not have to believe the same as the government believes or not even have to believe the same as your next-door neighbor believes but to have the right to freely have a faith of your choosing, to change your faith at any point, if you choose to, or to have no faith at all and be respected as an American; quite frankly, to be protected as an American.

This landmark piece of legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has not been altered in the 29 years since it has been passed. The purpose of the act was to restore a compelling interest test to be able to make sure that if government acted in any way to affect anyone's religious liberty, there had to be a compelling reason for that from the government to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened and provide a claim or defense for those whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't pick winners and losers. It provides a balancing test. The government may burden someone's religious exercise only if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. Twenty-nine years ago today.

Then, today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill that, instead of promoting equality for all people of all opinions, it specifically highlights areas of religious faith differences and says their opinions won't count this time.

It deals with this issue of marriage, which has been a controversial issue in America but was, quite frankly--since 2015 in the Obergefell decision in the Supreme Court, there have been no cases moved in the country to deny same-sex marriage to any individual in any State across the Nation.

Today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill to open up debate-- without amendment, may I add--on a bill that would certainly affect the religious liberty of countless people across the country. That is not just my opinion. Religious liberty organizations from all faiths and from all backgrounds have already been speaking out on this issue. Just in the last 24 hours, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Christian Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian Employers Alliance, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Family Policy Alliance,

The Heritage Foundation, the Liberty Counsel, Lifeline Children's Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, Religious Freedom Institute, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have all spoken out and said this bill that is currently on the floor of the Senate will damage religious liberty.

Religious institutions are rising up, reading the text of this bill, rather than just listening to the debate of this bill, and saying: There is a problem here.

Practically, what would this mean? Practically, what could this mean?

I would say, first and foremost, we don't want anyone to be discriminated against in America--anyone to be discriminated against in America. All individuals should be honored. All individuals should be able to live their lives in freedom in America. But, practically, this bill puts faith-based child welfare organizations who are operating in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, namely, to place children in loving families--it puts them in jeopardy.

While some of my colleagues may say, Well, that is farfetched, may I remind you, the Supreme Court has already handed down a decision in Fulton and would remind us this is continuing to happen. Catholic Charities has been shut out of the child welfare system in Illinois, in DC, in California, and in Massachusetts already, and then this bill is coming.

Let me tell you some of the problems with the bill because I have had individuals tell me about what they say is in the bill, and then I actually pull the text of the bill out and show it to them and say: Show me where that is in the bill. And their response to me typically is: Well, that is the intent of the bill.

Well, we don't deal with intent here in Congress; we deal with legislation and text. The words matter in this, and the words in this do not provide the level of religious liberty protections, as many on this floor who have come to debate this say that is actually in this bill.

Let me give you just some simple examples of this. This bill gives a private right of action for both--well, I should say gives protections from the Attorney General to be able to file charges against an individual that shows discrimination or a private right of action for an individual to be able to sue another individual or entity in this, unless the discrimination is for religious liberty. They are peculiarly left out.

If there is discrimination against someone's religious liberty issues and their personal beliefs or their entity's beliefs, they don't get this same private right of action. So the private right of action only goes against people that have religious objections. Those religious individuals, if they are discriminated against, are on their own. They get no protections in this bill.

The bill itself, I have heard individuals say: Well, it has a section in it that is literally titled ``No Impact on Religious Liberty and Conscience.'' So that is the big, nice title of that section, section 6 of the bill. So let me read section 6 of this bill to you.

The first part of it, section (a), says:

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act,

shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious

liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an

individual or organization under the Constitution of the

United States or Federal law.

Now, that has got to be the biggest ``no duh'' statement out there. This piece of legislation doesn't overturn the Constitution is what it says. That is an unnecessary statement on it. Of course the Constitution stands above it.

The second part of this, in part (b), says, basically, a rabbi, an imam, or a pastor is not compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that they are religiously opposed to. That is the whole religious liberty section of it--the whole section. First, it says it doesn't overturn the Constitution, and, second, it says pastors, imams, rabbis don't have to perform religious weddings that they are personally religiously opposed to.

That doesn't help. In fact, there is a qualifying feature in the middle of all this in that section, section 6, which limits the individuals that would even get any kind of protections on this by saying ``whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion,'' meaning an individual would first have to prove that your principal purpose is to study, practice, or advance religion before you even got those exceptions.

Why is that important? Well, I asked some of the sponsors of this bill why that particular piece of text is in there, and their explanation was, well, because we didn't want to include, for protections on religious liberty, private individuals and their personal religious expression or private businesses; that maybe the owners of that business have a personal religious belief in how they carry out their business, but they would not have religious protections because they are not principally a religious organization. So they do not get a defense. They don't get a private right of action to defend themselves. They just have to cave to the religious beliefs of this law.

Twenty-nine years ago, this Congress said we were not going to impose beliefs onto people. Today, this Congress said: If you are a faith- based individual and you have a difference of conscience about marriage, too bad. You have to prove you are a principally religious organization to have an exception; an individual doesn't count. A private business is specifically excluded.

In section 7 of this bill--I have had several of the sponsors who have told me: Section 7 covers everything else. It makes sure it protects nonprofits. It makes sure it protects all of your tax-exempt status, your grants--it is all in there. Until you read the text. No, those words are in there, but there are two big qualifiers that are also in that section.

The first of the qualifiers begins with ``Nothing in this Act . . . shall be construed to deny or alter'' the benefits, meaning if it is in something else, that is not protected. It has to be something specifically in this act.

The second thing is the very end of this. It gives a long section on this.

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act,

shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status . . .

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

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

That is the qualifier:

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

Now, I have handed this around and asked legal counsel: Explain to me what that means. And the first response that I get is: Well, that is a clear protection for individuals that are married that if there is any right given to any other married couple, they get the same right.

And I was like, that makes total sense. What about for entities, because the word ``entity'' is in this list?

And that is where it gets fuzzy because it has this qualifier:

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

We don't know how that is going to be interpreted for entities. So it is left for the courts to decide in the days ahead how that is going to be interpreted.

So what has been done with this? All these things have been brought up. We have had this text now for about 36 hours. It literally just got dropped on us. So for about 36 hours we have been going through it--and it is not long; it is three pages--asking questions: How does it work? What happens with it?

Several individuals have said: Hey, this is a real problem for religious liberty. We should fix this.

And others have said: Yeah, that is a good idea. Let's make sure that it is actually clear--except, now that the debate has started, amendments have been shut out. There are no amendments. All of these gaps that I talk about for individuals, for small businesses, for individuals of conscience, for the right to be able to protect yourself if you are facing religious discrimination on this, for the limiting portions in this act or from explaining ``not arising from a marriage,'' what that may mean, the issue of principal purpose and not having to prove your principal purpose, in a court of law, is a religious issue--everyone seems to nod their head and say: Oh, yeah, those are problems.

Multiple Members have brought amendments and said: Let's fix it. Yet they are being told over and over again: No amendments. We are not going to fix it.

You know what that tells me? These are not mistakes in the drafting. This was purposeful. That is what that tells me.

Listen, I believe the rights of every individual should be honored, but this is not choosing to be able to protect the rights of every individual. This is saying some people are more equal than others. That is a problem.

After the Obergefell decision was made, President Obama spoke to the Nation. He supported the Obergefell decision from the Supreme Court, but then he said this:

I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide

range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has

been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who

welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact;

recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to

religious freedom.

Great words that seem to be on the cutting room floor today. It hasn't taken long for President Obama's statement after the Obergefell decision to say: Never mind.

This is fixable, but when people see the problem and the issue with it and choose to ignore it, I have to ask why.

Twenty-nine years ago today, President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and 29 years later, Congress is saying: Never mind.

I find that a problem.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk about legislation that is going to come before this Chamber this afternoon called the Respect for Marriage Act. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation and pass it. I think it is good for our country.

Marriage is really important in our society. It is a sacred bond that two people make to each other. It represents a lifetime of commitment and love and care in times good and bad. It is also the foundational unit upon which our entire society is built. I have witnessed this firsthand over the past 36 years with my wife Jane and our amazing family. I was fortunate to have an upbringing with parents who were together for five decades. The recognition and protection of this bond makes the couple, the family, and our country stronger. That is why there is a constitutional right to marry.

Same-sex marriage has also been a constitutional right since 2015. Today, there are about a million same-sex households. About 60 percent of them are married.

In the minds of most Americans, the validity of these marriages is a settled question, and the overwhelming majority of Americans want this question to be settled. According to Gallup, 71 percent of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by law. The majority of support for same-sex marriage, by the way, is seen across all age groups, races, religious affiliations, and even political parties. In fact, polling from just last year shows that 55 percent of Republicans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Now, the Respect for Marriage Act we are about to vote on actually doesn't go that far. It simply says that if you get married in one State, another State has to honor it.

So why are we here? Given this broad American consensus, why is the Senate debating this today as to whether we should recognize something that the vast majority of Americans already recognize and support? The answer is, because current Federal law does not reflect the will or beliefs of the American people in this regard. The current statute allows States and the Federal Government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages.

While it is true that this law is not currently enforceable, I would argue, because of Supreme Court rulings, it still represents Congress's last word on the subject. So it is important to clarify that, to get the old legislation off the books. Likewise, current Federal law is silent on the question of interstate interracial marriage, believe it or not, so that needs to be addressed.

Given this disconnect between the American people and our current legislation, it is time for the Senate to settle the issue and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, as the House of Representatives has already done. By the way, that was an overwhelming vote in the House with 46 Republicans supporting it.

This bill simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who are validly married under the laws of one State to know that their marriage will be recognized by the Federal Government and by other States, if they move, in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent. That is why we have to do this.

Second, we have to do it because in a recent Supreme Court case, there was this notion that maybe this would get revisited, this issue of same-sex marriage. So it is important that we resolve the issue for both of those reasons. And people who are in same-sex marriages are understandably very interested in having that resolved. They want to clarify it. They've made financial arrangements, maybe adoptions, and so on. They want to be sure that their marriage can continue to be honored.

I think, in short, there are two main effects of this bill, and both are well within the constitutional authority of the Congress to address. First, to ensure that the marriages legally performed in one State are recognized as valid in other States, regardless of sex or race.

This is a straightforward application, by the way, of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution anyway. Under this clause, States are required to recognize things like court judgments and public records from other States. This bill simply clarifies that marriage is one of those things that must be recognized across State lines.

Second, this bill specifies that the Federal Government will recognize a marriage that is valid in the State where it was performed. This portion of

the bill keeps the Federal Government out of the business of defining marriages, which is something, on my side of the aisle, among Republicans, particularly important because that leaves the decision to the States where it properly belongs.

I also want to take a moment to address what this bill does not do because I have had a lot of conversations with my colleagues over the last week or so about this; and in some cases, they are talking about things that this bill simply doesn't do. It does not require any State to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses not to, in the event the current Supreme Court case, let's say, is overturned. It just doesn't do that. It does not require anything not already required by the Supreme Court precedent.

It certainly does not allow polygamy. This is a point that has been raised by some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle. Polygamy is illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States, and this does nothing to change that. It actually adds another provision in our amendment--that I will talk about in a second--that explicitly prohibits polygamy.

This bill does not permit lawsuits against individuals or entities acting in a purely private capacity. That is important.

As you can see, the bill is really very narrow. It is constitutional, and it does not infringe on State sovereignty. It is a bill that simply ensures, as a matter of statutory law, that interracial and same-sex marriages that were legal in the State in which they were performed will be recognized if the couple moves to a different State.

I also want to address several points of criticism against the bill and the significant efforts that we have made to address those through a substitute amendment, which was written by all of us who have been involved in this process but also a number of outside groups. This amendment contains robust religious liberty protections. The amendment was developed collaboratively, again, between us--as Tammy Baldwin is here on the floor, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, also Kyrsten Sinema-- also by listening to feedback and working extensively with many of our Senate colleagues, with faith-based groups on the outside, and also other stakeholders.

The first criticism that I heard was this bill does not sufficiently protect people of faith. I disagree. I believe religious freedom is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional order, and I am confident nothing in this will limit the religious and constitutional protections that exist under the First Amendment or any other Federal laws.

To further advance and protect our cherished religious freedoms, however, our amendment contains four very important provisions. First, it acknowledges that decent and honorable people who hold diverse views about the role of gender in marriage and that such people and their beliefs are due respect. This is very important to many of the religious organizations we have dealt with who are strongly supporting this legislation, to make the point that people can have different points of view. We are going to respect that.

It also has a very important application to the lawsuits that people are concerned about that might come up. In the Bob Jones case, as an example, there was a notion that was different with regard to interracial marriage. In this case, though, with regard to same-sex marriage, again, we respect people have different points of view. It is important to lay that out.

Secondly, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the First Amendment, any other constitutional provisions, and Federal laws explicitly. I would argue it already did that, but I think it is important to make it explicit.

Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits, including tax-exempt status which is very important to a lot of religious organizations; also, grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, and many others. Religious organizations helped us to put this language in place just to ensure that this bill cannot be used for that purpose.

Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others, cannot be required to provide facilities or goods or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will.

These religious liberty provisions are very significant. Several constitutional scholars, by the way, and advocates for religious liberty, led by Professor Doug Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School, have carefully analyzed this bill and sent us a letter concluding that overall this legislation is ``an advance for religious liberty.'' These are advocates, especially Laycock himself, who has taken cases to the Supreme Court representing religious schools. He is saying that this bill, on net, this bill actually increases religious liberty. Numerous other important faith groups agree. The Reverend Walter Kim, President of the National Association of Evangelicals described this amendment, if it passes, as ``the first significant bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for all, including for those who hold traditional views on marriage.'' In other words, he is saying this legislation--forgetting the parts about same-sex marriage, which are very important--but with regard to religious liberty, it moves the ball forward, in his view, as the President of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Another criticism of this bill is that it will be used to target religious organizations by revoking their tax-exempt status under Federal law. I don't see how this would be possible without even having an amendment, but we wanted to clarify that. This bill does not require anything that is not already required by the Supreme Court. However, penalizing or targeting a private organization because of sincere views on same-sex marriage would be a clear First Amendment violation. I am confident the Court would not tolerate it. But to ensure that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits to religious organizations, our amendment explicitly prohibits it. The amendment specifies that this legislation may not be used to deny or alter any ``benefit, status, or right'' unrelated to marriage, period. This gives assurances to people and organizations of faith that their tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, licenses, and other benefits cannot be affected by this legislation.

The third criticism I heard is that this bill legalized and recognized polygamy. To address this, we put an explicit prohibition in place, even though no State permits it, so there cannot be a recognition of polygamous marriages, period.

As you can tell, we have worked hard to address concerns that have been raised and to craft an amendment that provides robust, affirmative protections of people of faith without diminishing the rights of couples in same-sex marriages. This is very important.

President Hoogstra of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that is endorsing this legislation, observed this amendment ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can coexist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.''

That is what is extraordinary about this bill. These two sometimes viewed as competing interests are working together. But as she said, we have shown here through this legislation that these rights can co- exist--religious freedom, on the one hand, LGBTQ on the other hand.

Achieving this kind of compromise could not have happened without hard work, good faith, and bipartisan negotiation. I want to extend specific thanks to the following groups who have worked with my colleagues to develop this legislation, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church; the National Association of Evangelicals; the Seventh Day Adventist Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; the Center for Public Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership.

It is my hope that, with the changes we talked about today and we have all now agreed to, we can pass this legislation with the same kind of overwhelming bipartisan majority we saw in the House of Representatives, and,

therefore, settle this issue once and for all. Millions of American couples, including many Ohioans, are counting on their elected representatives in Congress to recognize and protect their marriage, to give them the peace of mind to know that their marriage is, indeed, protected and secure. We must not let them down.

I yield the floor.