Stephanie N. Murphy

Mr. Speaker, for the final time, I rise to address this Chamber, and I am leaving here with a heart full of gratitude.

When I reflect on the path I have traveled, I still can't believe it is real--a baby girl born in post-war Vietnam to parents facing persecution by the Communist government. We fled our homeland by boat and were rescued by American sailors. Our family was given refuge, granted citizenship, and provided opportunity in the United States.

My mom and dad worked so hard to make ends meet. They struggled to overcome barriers of language and culture, all so that I could have a better life than they did.

My happiest childhood memories are of fishing with my father. On the water, he told me stories of his old life in Vietnam. His new life in America wasn't easy, but I know he felt blessed to be an American.

Those who have endured the absence of freedom and safety rarely take their presence for granted.

As I grew up, I was encouraged and mentored by so many generous people who expected nothing in return. I remember hoping that, one day, I might be in a position to help people just as they helped me.

Over time, I realized that government service was a good way for me to chisel away at the infinite debt of gratitude I owe this country. I also discovered that it infused my professional life with a sense of purpose.

After the 9/11 attacks, I spent a few years at the Department of Defense, and it was a privilege to work alongside American patriots. I admired their singular focus on the mission: keeping our country safe from those who sought her harm. From them, I learned about courage and commitment.

A decade later, I heard the siren song of public service once again. I had moved to central Florida. I was the mother of two young children and worked at jobs in the private sector I enjoyed, but I was worried about polarization in our political system.

Although deep divisions in American politics have existed since the dawn of our Republic, there was something in the atmosphere that felt especially poisonous. Too many Democratic and Republican leaders failed to treat one another with civility and decency. They were unwilling to express policy differences without making personal attacks or using irresponsible rhetoric.

Extreme partisanship led to legislative gridlock, and communities across the country paid the price, including my own.

When a gunman shot 49 innocent people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, it seemed like yet another preventable tragedy that might have been avoided if common sense and political courage were on greater display in our Nation's Capitol.

If you want to change Washington, you have to change the type of people you are sending there, I said to myself, and I thought I could do my part to make things just a little bit better. So, I launched a long-shot campaign for the people's House, inspired by Teddy Roosevelt's view that the credit belongs to the man, or the woman, in the arena.

I was so excited when I became the first Vietnamese-American woman ever elected to Congress, and I thought about all the people who had lifted me up over the years. I confess I also thought about the people who underestimated me.

I wish my dad were alive to see what his daughter had done so that he would know his sacrifices were worth it. I vowed to work every day to prove I was worthy of the faith my constituents had placed in me.

As my congressional career draws to a close, I am proud of my service. I hope I earned the respect of those I represented, whether they were Democrats, Republicans, or neither, or whether they voted for me or would never dream of voting for me.

This job isn't easy, but nothing truly worth doing is. There are few places where you can make such a difference in people's lives as you can in the United States Congress.

Ask the veteran who finally received the benefit they earned thanks to the congressional office who broke through the bureaucratic red tape.

Ask the millions of Americans who got health and economic aid during the worst of the pandemic.

Ask the billions of people who will live on a cooler, cleaner planet because of the green investments we have made.

Ask the lion-hearted people of Ukraine who defend their land with weapons we gave them because their fight is our fight.

And ask the police officers who risked their lives on January 6 and who, hopefully, find comfort in the fact that there is a bipartisan committee that seeks to honor their valor by telling the truth about that terrible day.

I will miss this place, but, above all, I will miss the people. I have had wonderful colleagues, some of whom have become lifelong friends. My staff has been like a second family to me, loyal and devoted. We have had so much fun together and achieved so much for our constituents and our country. To honor them I will be entering their names in the Congressional Record. Thank you, Team Murphy.

To my real family--Sean, Liem, Maya, and Kona: I love you. None of this would have been possible or meaningful without you. You are going to be seeing much more of me, as you requested, and as you may come to regret.

I want to end with a word to young Americans, including young girls who look like me. I hope you consider government service. It requires many sacrifices, but the work is important and noble. Our Nation needs good people with steady hands to steer the ship of state: people with integrity; people with common sense who seek common ground; and patriots willing to put the public interest above their personal interests.

Representing my community and my country in Congress has been the greatest honor of my life.

I include in the Record the names of my staffers.

Michael Abare, Lauren Allen, Lauren Calmet, Eduardo

Carrizosa, Jennifer Carton, Rosnelly Chavarria, David Cox,

Gabriel Cruz, Alli Everton, Erica Fuller, Carolyn Haggis, Ken

Heidegger, Javier Hernandez, Brad Howard, Justin Karlins,

Rachel Kline, MacKensie Kvalvik, John Laufer, James Loomis,

Lale Mamaux Morrison, Katherine Marrs, Natalie Martinez,

Tamel McKinney, Phoebe Miner, Bruce Moody, Dao Nguyen, David

Ogle, Stephanie Palacios, Zoe Prince, Juliana Puente, Jeff

Rapp, Nicole Reyes, Adam Safran, Thomas Steenekamp, Christie

Stephenson, Kyle Thorp, Emma Trittin, Mark Tucker, Jonathan

Uriarte, Christy Wagner, and Madelyn Wiseman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these provisions is crystal clear.

As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not- for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S. Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.

The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others, providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national policy'' favoring same-sex marriage, and use this national policy to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.

Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.

Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable to this bill.

Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section 2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.

I'd like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill-- section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in each of our States, strengthening federalism and making our constitutional structure work.

Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of State law'' may deny full faith and credit to any ``public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.'' The phrase ``acting under color of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to the actions of State and local government officers and employees with respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Federal law.

It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendel/ Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.

I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a marriage ceremony under this bill.

It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.

The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and other agreements not arising from a marriage.

It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for Marriage Act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 438 through 440 on September 19, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Nos. 438 through 440.