government pedro and that means that republicans are going to have control of the house most likely. looks like the democrats will maintain control of the senate and president buy-in will maintain control of the executive branch so how do you leverage when you're in the minority, how do you leverage the policy through that we think is important in order to say reduce oil and gas prices or provide more security along the border or to reduce federal government spending so that we reduce pressure. >> were going to leave this discussion to join the senate washington journal online at c-span.org. the senate working on legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages and would repeal the defense of marriage act which defined marriage as between one man and one woman under federal law and in votes for earlier for senate leadership minority leader mitch mcconnell defeated florida senator rick scott for the republican leaders

position 37 to 10. >>

ength to resist the weakness of thinking the worst of others. lord, provide us all with the puritiy to -- the purity to overcome evil with good. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, ... under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 8404, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed though calendar number 449,

h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. president. i want to begin by thanking and recognizing the house judiciary chairman, jerry nadler, and the entire house equality caucus for introducing the house bill

and starting up this effort. this legislation passed the house of representatives with a strong bipartisan vote of 267- 157, with all democrats and 47 republicans supporting the bill. i also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my senate colleagues who have worshipped hierlsly to -- who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. i want to thank the leader sponsor of the bill, senator feinstein, and also thank and recognize the hard work and effort of senator collins, senator portman, senator sinema, and senator tillis for their steadfast commitment. we couldn't be where we are right now without their efforts. i also want to thank the staff of all of these offices for the

long hours and hard work that went into this legislation, including my own counsel, becka bronham and chief of staff ken reedy. lastly, i want to thank all of the advocates who have fault for marriage equality for decades. we are oant cusp -- we are on the cusp of an historic vote in the senate because of everybody's efforts. i decided, in thinking about what i wanted to share today, that i wanted to put a face on this debate, and actually more accurately, three faces. let me introduce you to my dear friends -- margaret denise and their daughter maria, and just tell you a little bit about them and then how this underlying

issue impacts them. the marriage and long partnership that my dear friends denise and margaret share began in oklahoma in 1981. they were there as organizers working to pass the equal rights amendment in that state. they were organizing support for the era so that we might add a few simple words to the united states constitution, specifically, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. that they met one another during a struggle for social justice surprised no one who knew either denise or margaret. for really the pursuit of equality and equity and justice has defined each of them as

individuals as well as life partners. their professional and personal lives and the movements for women's rights, lgbtq rights, educational equity, affordable housing, economic justice, they're all inextricably linked. their first date occurred in december of 1981 over coffee in oklahoma city. and as had a era campaign came to an unsuccessful close m 1982, they chose to move together to madison, wisconsin. and i vividly recall meeting them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984. denise hailed from milwaukee, wisconsin. this is denise. margaret from webster city, iowa. they were incredibly and are

incredibly committed to one another, but they also determined as they got a little older that something was missing. actually i wanted to say someone was missing. and denise and margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous, yet they never gave up. in 2003, after working with an adoption agency for many years, denise received video of their daughter, this lovely brown-eyed maria. and the family that you now see here -- this is actually several years old. maria is now a sophomore at the university of wisconsin madison campus, so a little bit dated.

but i wanted to put a face or a series of faces on this because it's such an all-american family and an all-american story. but as everyone knows about the debate we're about to enter is that marriage was not an option for margaret and denise until after the obergefell decision. and the things that most married people take for granted are things that couples like margaret and denise had to think about and had to figure out how do they protect one another, how did they protect their family. we often think, when we think about marriage, of the wedding and the ceremoniened a the celebration -- and the ceremony and the celebration, but p we don't often think about the hundreds upon hundreds of rights and responsibilities that civil

marriage confers upon couples. you know, margaret and denise were telling me about their recollection of when the city of madison passed a domestic partnership ordinance, allowing them to register. and when that happened, for the first time they could be on one another's health insurance. that's something that married couples kind of take for granted, that they can have one another on their health insurance. they had to think a lot about what they would do in an emergency situation where one might be in the hospital, because without marriage you are technically legal strangers. and literally if margaret were in the hospital after an accident, for example, denise, without having the appropriate papers, the health care power of attorney would be viewed as a legal stranger and

potentially denied access. adoption is something that is, has made many a family in the united states, and yet prior to marriage rights, denise and margaret had to make a choice of only one would have the official adoption, but then they had to go through a whole bunch of legal rigmarole, if you will, so that margaret, if need be to go to a parent-teacher conference or to pick maria up at school, had some documentation at the school that she too was a parent. estate planning -- you have to think about that.

you had to think about that intently prior to marriage rights being conferred. i wanted you to get a quick chance to meet margaret and denise and maria because they reflect the experiences of literally tens of millions of people in the united states, and it is why the obergefell decision was so key. now i want to switch to a focus on why it is so critical that we adopt the respect for marriage act, because obergefell right now is the law of the land, but there is great concern that that legal precedent could be in

jeopardy. some of my colleagues have questioned the urgency and maybe even the necessity of passing the respect for marriage act. some have asserted that there's no threat to these rights in america. some have said that there's no case currently making its way up to the united states supreme court challenging these rights, so there's nothing really to worry about. others have suggested that proponents of the respect for marriage act are raising the issue just to drive further divisions for americans, among americans. i believe that there is an urgency to pass the respect for marriage act in order to heal such divisions and provide certainty to married interracial and same-sex couples that the protections, rights, and responsibilities that flow from their marriages will endure.

right now millions of americans americans -- our family members, our neighbors, our congressional staff members, and certainly our constituents -- are scared, scared that the rights they rely upon to protect their families could be taken away, and they are scared for good reason. let's face it, regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, the highest court of the land has just overturned a precedent of nearly 50 years. there's no questioning that. and the same legal arguments that the supreme court rested upon to reverse roe v. wade could just as easily be applied to reverse numerous other cases related to families, related to intimate relations, to contraception, and marriage. in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn

roe v. wade in the dobbs case, access to abortion care or denial of such care has been left in the hands of the states. by the way, in wisconsin we are subject to a criminal abortion law that was passed in 1849, one year after wisconsin became a state, and before women had the right to vote, and certainly before women served in the legislature that serves to rule upon their rights. there are landmark cases related to marriage that could be threatened should the supreme court consider cases challenging those earlier decisions. one such case is loving v. virginia. that was decided in 1967. the supreme court ruled neuropsychological loving -- the ruled in loving that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage

were unconstitutional, based upon the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment, and its liberty provisions. at the time of the loving decision, 16 states had laws banning interracial marriage, and you might be surprised to learn that it took until the year 2000 for the last state to repeal the law on its books banning interracial marriage. another landmark case relates to same-sex marriage. in obergefell v. hodges, the supreme court decided in 2015 that the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment prohibit states from outlawing and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. some 35 states across the country prohibit same-sex marriage in their laws, sciewbs,

or both -- laws, constitutions, or both. so the -- and the so-called defense of marriage act that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and was ruled unconstitutional by a narrow 5-4 supreme court, that law is still on the books. given this landscape, it is not unreasonable for same-sex and interracial couples to be fearful that the protections of their marriages are in real jeopardy. the fact that the constitutional principles of liberty, privacy, self-determination, and equal treatment under the law, upon which roe v. wade was originally decided, are the same constitutional principles on which the loving and obergefell case were decided, that makes the supreme court reversal of roe v. wade all the more

shocking and frightening to those in interracial and same-sex marriages. several of my colleagues have maintained that even if the court may someday revisit these cases, there's no urgency right now, since interest's no -- there's no case challenging interracial or same-sex marriage that is currently making its way up to the supreme court. but you think about today's world. given the supreme court's use of procedural mechanisms like cert before judgment or use of a shadow docket, cases often reach the supreme court faster than ever before. when it comes to the merits, one needs to pay attention to the concuring opinion of justice clarence thomas in the dobbs decision. in his opinion, justice thomas explicitly said that the

rationale used to overturn roe v. wade should be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations, and same-sex marriage. he was essentially providing an open invitation to litigators across the country to bring their cases to the court, inevitably instill fear among millions of americans. the supreme court should not be in a position to undermine the stability of families with a stroke of the pen. so, now congress must act, and congress is acting with a full-throated endorsement from the american people. more than 70% of americans support marriage equality, including a majority of democrats, republicans, and independents.

this legislation unites americans. with the respect for marriage act, we can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away. by passing this bill, we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal and that they will continue to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that all other marriages are afforded. and this will give millions of loving couples the certainty, the dignity, and the respect that they need and that they deserve. for my dear friends, margaret and did he beneath, and their daughter, maria, passing this legislation will remove the weight of the world from their

backs. while they worry, just like the rest of us, about cost of living, staying healthy and saving for retirement, passing this bill will take away a worry that someday their marriage might be on the chopping block, at no fault of their own. by the way, i think i failed to mention it, but i was so honored back in december of 2018 to be a copresider at their wedding. their wedding took place 37 years after they first met and became a couple, and it happened on maria's sweet 16 birthday. but for the millions of other americans in same-sex and interracial marriages, this shows that the american government and people see them and respect them.

with that, i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the respect for marriage act, and to help come together to move our country forward. and with that, i yield. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine.ms. collins:m president. madam president, i rise today to express my strong support for the respect for marriage act, a bipartisan bill that senator baldwin and i have introduced with our colleagues, senator feinstein, senator portman, senator sinema, and senator tillis. madam president, this bill recognizes the unique and

extraordinary importance of marriage on an individual and societal level. it would help promote equality, prevent disthemiation, and -- prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of americans in same-sex and interracial marriages. it would accomplish these gold while maintaining, and indeed strengthening, important religious liberty and conscience protections. i'm proud to be the lead republican sponsor of this legislation, and i'm grateful that a similar bill passed the house with strong bipartisan support. madam president, as the senate considers and prepares to vote on this historic legislation, i

would be remiss if i did not begin by recognizing the tremendous progress that lgbtq individuals in this country, in our country, have made in recent times in achieving equal rights. it was not long ago that patriotic americans could not be honest about their sexual orientation while fighting to protect our country, our freedoms, in the armed forces. i led the fight, with former senator joe lieberman, of connecticut, to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law. it was not long ago in america that a person could be fired merely for being gay. i strongly supported the

employment nondiscrimination act, known as enda, which passed the senate in 2013, and would have prohibited such discrimination. seven years later the supreme court in bostock held that the civil rights act protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. and it was not longs ago in -- it was not long ago in america that individuals could not marry the person whom they loved if that person were of the same sex. the supreme court's landmark decision in obergefell found that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed by our constitution. madam president, let us remember that we are talking about our

family members, our friends, our coworkers, our neighbors. i'm proud to have stood with them, and i will continue to stand with them in efforts to protect and secure their rights, while at the same time steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. the respect for marriage act would accomplish two primary goals -- first, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one state is give be full faith and crettity by other -- full faith and credit by other states, meaning that states must recognize a valid marriage for purposes of public acts, judicial proceedings, and rights arising from a marriage,

regardless of that couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. that means that same-sex and interracial couples can rest assured that their marriages will be recognized, regardless of the state in which they live. we need to remove the cloud that is now over these couples, that is causing them such cob sternation -- consternation, as my colleague from wisconsin has mentioned. second, it would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. it would do so by getting rid of a law that is on the book known as the defense of marriage act, which has been invalidated by the supreme court's ruling, and

yet it remains on the books. with these changes, federal law will provide that all married couples are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. this includes, for example, making medical decisions for an ill spouse and receiving spousal benefits from programs like social security and medicare, as well as those benefits earned from service in our armed forces. to remove any ambiguity about the intent and scope of this bill, i have worked with my senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as with a coalition of religious organizations, to develop an amendment designed to clarify the language and address

concerns that have been raised with the house version of our bill. first and foremost, this legislation would not diminish or be a row kuwait -- abrogate any religious rights to individuals or organizations under the united states constitution and federal law, including the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act. through our amendment, this being fact is now stated explicitly in our bill. the amendment also makes clear that this bill only applies to valid marriages between two individuals. in other words, it does not authorize or require recognition of plig poe -- of marriages --

this is a straw argument but we made it clear nonetheless in our amendment that in no way would the federal government or other states be required or authorized in any way to recognize poe those marriages. the bill could not be used to deny or alter the tax exempt status or any other status, tax treatment, grant, contract agreement, guaranteed occasional funding, loans, scholarship, certification, accreditation, benefit, claim or defense not arising from a marriage for any

otherwise eligible person or entity. in other words, no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple, no educational institution would have to worry that somehow their tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy if they do not perform same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. let me repeat that because this has been coming up time and again. for the first time and consistent with the first amendment and the laws of many states this legislation would make clear in federal law that nonprofit religious organization and religious occasional

institutions cannot be compelled to participate in or support the solemnization or celebration of marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. and madam president i would ask that an excellent analysis by the first amendment partnership be included on this issue in the record at the end of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, some have said that this bill is unnecessary because there is little risk that the right to have a same-sex or interracial marriage recognized by the government will be overturned by the supreme court. regardless of one's views on

that possibility, there is still value in ensuring that our federal laws reflect that same-sex and interracial couples have the right to have their marriages recognized regardless of where they live in this country. i strongly believe that passing this bill is the right thing to do. and the american people agreed. indeed, more than 70% of americans support marriage equality, including a majority of democrats, republicans, and independents. as i wrote in "the washington post" op-ed with my colleague senator baldwin, millions of american families have come to rely on the promise of marriage equality and the freedoms,

rights, and responsibilities that come with making the commitment of marrying the one you love. individuals and same-sex and interracial marriages need and should have the confidence that their marriages are legal. simultaneously we must also recognize that people of good conscience may disagree on issues related to marriage. for many americans marriage is more than just a legal union, it is a religious institution grounded in their faith. as justice kennedy, writing for the majority of the supreme court explained in the obergfell decision, marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender

differentiated merger of man and woman. this view has long held and continues to be held of good faith and reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. he went on to explain that neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. the same principle applies to our legislation and that is explicitly acknowledged in the amended bill. thus it is important to me that our bill would not affect or diminish in any way religious liberty and conscience protections, any interpretation of this legislation that would limit the applicability of these protections for individuals or entities because they have religious objections to same-sex

marriages would be contrary to the plain language of our bill. and, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that a series of letters from religious organization that endorse the religious liberty provisions of our bill be entered into the record at the conclusion of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: they include letters from elder jack gerard from the church of jesus christ, from alyssa reed, from the seventh adventist church, from the orthodox jewish congregations, from a host of other organizations, the council

of christian colleges and universities, the institutional religious freedom alliance, the center for justice and tim schultz of the first amendment partnership. we worked very closely with all of them. in closing, madam president, let me once again salute the leaderships of senator baldwin as well as senator portman, senator tillis, and senator sinema, for their tireless efforts on this important legislation. let's do the right thing. let's vote to proceed to this important bill and let us pass it. i urge all of my senate colleagues to join me in supporting the respect for marriage act. thank you, madam president. is it

mr. portman: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i come to the floor today to talk about legislation that's 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's good for our country. marriage is really important in our society. it's a sacred bond that two people make to each other. it respects a lifetime of commitment and love and care in times good and bad. it's also the foundational unit upon which our entire society is built. i witnessed this first hand over the past 36 years with my wife jaind 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's why there's a constitutional right to marry. same-sex marriage has also had a

constitutional right since 2015. today there are about a million same-sex households, about 60% of them are married. in the minds of most americans, the have a liddy of -- validity of these marriages is a settled question and the overwhelming majority of americans want this to be settled. according to gallup, 51% believe it should be law. it is seen across all age groups, religious affiliations and even political parties. polling last year showed 55% of republicans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. the respect for respect for marriage act act that we're about to vote on doesn't go that far. it says you get married in one state, another state has to honor it. why are we here given this broad american done census? -- consensus? why is the senate debating this

today to recognize something that the vast majority of americans recognize and support. it is because the current federal law does not reflect the beliefs of the american people. it allows states to refuse valid same-sex marriages. while this law is not currently enforceable because of supreme court rulings, it still represents congress's last word on the subject. it is important to clarify that and get the old legislation off the books. 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, it is time for the senate to settle this issue and pass the respect for marriage act as the house of representatives has done. that was an overwhelming vote in the house with 46 republicans supporting it. this bill simply allows inning ter racial or same-sex couples who are validly married under

one state to know their marriage will be recognized by the federal government and other states if they move in cord dance with established supreme court precedent. that's why we have to do this. second we have to do is because a recent supreme court case, there was this notion that maybe this would get revisited, this same-sex marriage. it's important we resolve the issue for both of those reasons. people in same-sex marriages are understandably very interested in having that resolved. they want to have it clarified. they made financial arrangements, adoptions. they want to be sure that marriage continues to be honored. so 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 marriage is 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 is 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've had a lot of conversations with my colleagues over the last week or so about this, and some cases they're 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 that 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 supreme court precedent. it certainly does not allow polygamy. this is a point that's been

raised by some of my colleagues. it's illegal in every jurisdiction in the united states and this bill does nothing to change that but adds another provision in our amendment we'll talk about in a second that explicitly prohibits polygamy. the bill did not permit lawsuits against individuals or tenties acting in a purely private capacity. and that's important. as can you see the bill is really very narrow. it's constitutional and it does not infringe on state sovereignty. it's a bill that simply ensures as a matter of statutory law that interracial and same-sex marriages that are legal in the state they are performed will be recognized if the couple moves to a different state. i also want to address several points of criticism defense 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.

i see tammy baldwin is here on the floor, susan collins, thom tillis. 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 i've heard is that this bill does not sufficiently protect people of faith. i disagree. i believe rtion freedom is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional order and i'm confident nothing in this bill will diminish the religion and conscience 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 a decent and honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender? marriage and that such people and -- gender in marriage and that such people and beliefs are due respect. this is very important. to many 6 the religious organizations we've dealt with who are strongly supporting this legislation to make the point that people are going to have different point also of view and we're 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 who have different points of view and it's important to lay that out. secondly, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the first amendment. any other constitutional provisions in federal law explicitly. i would argue it already did that but i think it's important to make it exmr. us sit. it guarantees 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, license, many others. so religious organizations helped us to put this language in place to ensure this bill cannot be used for that purpose. fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious

organizations, including churches, mosque, synagogue, religious schools and others cannot be required to provide facilities, 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 a professor at the university of virginia law school sent us a letter concluding that overall this legislation is, and i quote, an advance for religious liberty. end quote. now these are advocates. the professor himself has taken cases to the supreme court representing religious schools and he is saying that this bill on net, this bill actually increases religious liberty. numerous other important faith groups agree. the reverend walter tim described this amendment if it passes as, quote, the first

significant bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for all, including those who hold traditional views on marriage. in other words, he's saying this legislation, forgetting the parts about same-sex marriage which are very important but with regard to rtle liberty, it moves the ball forward in his view as the president of the national association of evangelicals. another criticism of this bill is 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 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'm k. the court would not tolerate it. but to ensure that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits to religiousious organizations, our amendment explicitly forbits it.

the amendment specifies this legislation may not be used to alter or deny any benefit or status or right related to marriage. this ensures tax treatment, educational funding, licenses and other benefits cannot be affected by this legislation. the third criticism i've heard is take this bill could lead to legalize and recognize polygamy. again to address it we put an explicit prohibition in place even though no state permits it. there cannot be recognition of polygamist marriages, period. as you can tell, we have worked hard to address the concerns that have within raised and to craft an amendment that provides robust affirmative protections of people of faith without diminishing the rights for couples in same-sex marriages. this is very important. the president of the council for christian colleges and universities observed that this amendment, and i quote, sends a strong bipartisan message to congress and 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, end quote. that's what's extraordinary about this bill. these two sometimes competing interests are working together and as she said, we've shown here through this legislation that these rights can coexist, 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 that have worked with my colleagues to develop this legislation, including the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints known as the mormon church, the national association of evangelicals, seventh day advent tis church, union of orthodox jewish congregations of america, council for christian colleges and universities, center for public justice, the campaign and institution of religious

freedome alliance and the first amendment partnership. it is my hope that with the changes we've talked about today and we've all agreed to, we can pass the 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 in ohio, 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. thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, today the senate has a chance to live up to its highest ideals by taking up legislation take will protect the rights of all americans regardless of who they choose to marry. in many ways the story of america has been a difficult but

a march towards greater equality for all people. throughout our history sometimes we've taken very important steps forward. other times unfortunately we've taken steps backward. but today the senate is taking a truly bold step forward in the march towards greater justice, greater equality by advancing the respect for marriage act. it's a simple narrowly tailored but exceedingly important piece of legislation that will do so much good for so many americans. it will make our country a better, fairer place to live. passing this bill is as personal as it gets for many of us in this chamber. myself, madam president, included. my daughter and her wife, my daughter-in-law are expecting a baby next spring. and i want to do everything possible to make sure their rights are protected under federal law. i want them and everyone in a

loving relationship to live without the fear that their rights could one day be stripped away. so there are many of us who are deeply invested in seeing this bill succeed. originally it was our intention to take action on the respect for marriage act back in september. fresh off the house's strong bipartisan vote for the summer. remember, 47 house republicans joined democrats to pass this bill. but at the urging of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, i agreed to hold off on scheduling a vote in order to make sure we had enough support to move forward. my job at the end of the day will always be to prioritize getting things passed through this chamber and marriage equality is too important an issue to risk failure. so i made the choice to trust the members who have worked so hard on this legislation and wait a little bit longer in order to give the bipartisan

process a chance to play out. much better to pass this legislation and move equality forward than simply have a show vote which would bring political reckoning but no real change for the american people. i want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have led the charge in getting this bill ready for the floor and hopefully soon on to the president's desk. including our two leaders on our side senators baldwin and sinema who have done a fabulous job and have worked this bill so hard and so well and so consistently. i want to thank senators portman and tillis and collins on the other side who were part of this bipartisan team. they've managed this process stupendously and i'm optimistic their efforts will prove successful later today. to the rest of my colleagues and to all americans who are watching what the senate does,

this is a great chance to do something very important for tens of millions of americans. no one, no one in a same-sex marriage should have to worry about whether or not their marriage will be invalidated in the future. they deserve peace of mind knowing their rights will always be protected under the law. with this bill we can take a significant and much needed step in that direction. the majority of americans support us in this endeavor. they're joined not only by hundreds of major american companies who support this bill but also religious organizations who affirm, would affirm that the respect for marriage act is a sound and a commonsense piece of legislation. so if both parties can come together, today could be truly one of the highlights of the year for this body. this has been an incredibly productive year in congress, full of many significant achievements, but i think that passing the respect for marriage act would be one of the more

significant accomplishments of the senate to date. and like so many other bills this year, it will be an unequivocal bipartisan win. so i urge my colleagues think about those who you know and love who are in a same-sex marriage. maybe it's your friends. maybe it's your family. maybe it's someone on your staff. i hope with them in your heart you will support this bill. there's every reason under the sun to move forward and begin debating this important legislation for the sake of ensuring equal justice under law, for the sake of millions of married couples who want their lives -- to want to live their lives without discrimination and for the sake of every person out there, young and old alike, who wonder if they, too, deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity and basic decency. i strongly urge my colleagu

-- i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes with respect to the marriage act later today. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. i along with my colleagues who have spoken before me, i'm proud to be able to work on a very sensitive issue in a very collaborative and very bipartisan fashion. we did it in a way that was always respectful of the fact that many americans come from different walks of life and many diverse beliefs and viewpoints. we know that nearly a million americans are already committed to same-sex marriages who simply want long-term certainty, not only a million who are already committed to a same-sex marriage but the millions of people who attended the ceremonies, their friends, and their families. as we went through this bill, we listened to the very sincere concerns of americans with strongly held religious beliefs

who simply wanted to make sure that congress protects their first amendment rights, especially the freedom of religion. by casting politics aside and working hard behind the scenes over the past several months, we managed to strike a balance with this legislation. there will be permanent certainty for same-sex couples, and they can rest easy knowing their families are secure. and there will be robust protections for churches, religious organizations, protections that are more robust and ex-spanningive -- and expansive that currently exist in federal law. i want to talk about the compromise we reached and what it will mean for constituent whose voiced their concerns over the past few months. in bill protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the constitution and federal law, including the religious freedom restoration act commonly

referred to as rfra. this bill cannot be used toddy minutish or repeal any such protection. the bill also makes clear that no religious organization will be required to provide any services for the celebration of same-sex marriage. simply put, that means that no church or religious organization will be required to perform, recognize, or celebrate same-sex marriages. we also took steps to protect the tax-exempt status of religious nonprofit organizations. we didn't leave anything ambiguous. we included language that guarantees the bill companies bude to deny or -- cannot be used to deny or alter any right or status of any otherwise eligible person or entity. this includes at that tax-exemp, loans, scholarship, licenses and certifications.

put together, the respect for marriage act essentially preserves the status quo we've had in our country for the last seven years since the supreme court ruling. same-sex couples will continue to have the right to get married. now without the fear of government intervention. and churches and religious organizations will continue to operate and worship free from government interference. this is a good compromise. it's one that's based on mutual respect for our fellow americans, protecting the rights of americans who may have different lifestyles or different viewpoints. i'm proud of the work we did with this bill. i'm looking forward to voting yes on it, and i am grateful for the leadership of so many people who were involved. of course, senators collins, senator portman, senator baldwin, and senator sinema but i also with aens to thank the church of latter-day taints, the seventh day adventists, the

council for christian colleges and universities that represent 150 different religious institutions of higher learning here in the united states alone, and they have operations abroad; the national association of evangelicals, the have the for public justice, and its -- or its institutional religious freedom alliance. madam president, i believe this is a good bill. and bipartisan bills in any environment are difficult. and i think it's why it was so important that we qaim together, had the courage to work together, recognized the viewpoints at either end of the spectrum and come up with a carefully crafted compromise that i believe is good for all americans. and i look forward to everybody voting in favor of it. we will have some opposition, but at the end of the day, you think we'll prevail and that's a message to so many people out there who want this done. madam president, thank you. and i yield the floor.

ms. baldwin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. sinema: thank you, madam president. i rise today as our country takes an important step to protect the rights and freedoms of all americans. together with broad bipartisan support, the senate will provide certainty to millions of americans in loving marriages and enshrine into law the basic protections afforded all americans while respecting our country's critical principle of religious liberty. this historic milestone builds off of years of incredible strides we've made advancing freedom and equality, including hard-fought victories i've been honored to help lead. nearly two being dids ago in 200, at a time when our country was just beginning to debate marriage, arizona proposed a ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage in our state's constitution. this issue is personal to me and

to many other arizonans. similar ballot provisions had passed in states across the country -- red and blue states alike -- you and the stakes were high -- and the stakes were high. the pundits didn't give arizona much of a chance. i knew that in order to buck the trend and when, we'd need to run a different county of campaign that cultivated a diverse group of unlikely partners and move past the tired partisan talking points. that's why i worked across the aisle and teamed up with my good friend, steve may, a republican. now, we faced some criticism for how we chose to run our campaign. some wanted us to run a partisan campaign, convinced that highlighting the divides in our community and focusing exclusively on the lgbtq community would put us over the top. but i knew we couldn't do this, just by talking amongst people who are already agreed with our position. the polling showed it. and frankly, we felt that in order to do right by our

friends, our neighbors, and our fellow members of the community in arizona, we had to do more than run a campaign that made order core supporters feel good but ultimately didn't build the broad base needed to win. that's why we expanded the conversation to include how the proposition would harm all unmarried couples across arizona, not just those in the lgbtq community. people in domestic partnerships, people in common law marriages -- because, here's the truth. when we research beyond partisan talking talking points to find common ground, we expand what's popping in arizona and in our country. we had open and honest conversations about the hopes and dreams that unite us instead of what divides us. in arizona we value our independence. we're proud of our families and our communities and we work hard to protect them. we have our differences, but we share a strong sense of service,

hard work, and self-determination. we believe that everyone has the right to define his or her anode's fin new england and that -- destiny and that no one should be treated differently under the law. we defeated that ballot proposition. the first state in the country to do so, and i learned lessons that have shaped my work for arizonans ever since. since 2006, we've seen long-term progress that makes today's important debate in the united states senate possible. this work is ongoing, but the work can't and shouldn't be attributed to any one politician, any political party, or any piece of legislation. this work happens because people choose to be their most you a anthony particular selves and live their lives freedom. being gay is normal. being yourself is normal. showing up to life every day

happy to be who you are is normal. and being authentic with your friends, your family, your colleagues, and your community -- that's also normal. that normalcy is what helps us listen to each other, understand each other, and grow in our community together. it's what changes hearts and minds in arizona and around the country, and it's what little by little, piece by piece delivers sustainable progress. whether at home in arizona or here in the united states senate, in order to deliver real results to the americans we serve, we need to work together. working together means listening with open hearts, bridging divides, shutting out the noise and focusing on our shared goals. i've seen time and time again how this approach helps us overcome tough challenges. a little over six months ago, it

was thanks to that same approach that i stood here on the senate floor and delivered remarks on the passage of our bipartisan safer communities act, an historic law we negotiated and passed with broad bipartisan support that makes our schools and communities safer and saves lives. and before that, the same approach helped us pass our landmark legislation -- infrastructure investment and jobs act into law, strengthening america through upgrades and repairs, and expanding economic opportunities across the country. beyond these historic accomplishments, our apropose of focusing on common goals and shared ideals has helped us pass a number of other lasting solutions, including long-awaited and necessary postal reform, support for ukraine in its fight against putin, and most recently the passage into law of our bipartisan chips and science act. legislation that boosts america's global leadership, spurring job creation and addressing our supply chain challenges.

as we can all see, this approach has proved successful and right now we need this approach more than ever. you know, this summer arizonans and americans across the country were confused and some were scared 2308ing the supreme court's -- following the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. women felt their health and well-being was dangered and our own ability to make decisions about our own futures was thrown in question. this fear trickled into our communities, including the lgbtq communities. but sadly in response, we saw elected officials on both sides of the aisle exploit this fear and use it to fuel clicks, book cable news appearances and drum up outrage to further their own partisan political agendas. outrage can help propel

political stars, but it didn't solve problems. it doesn't make life better for everyday people. but a few hardworking senators from across the political spectrum understood there was a need to provide certainty to the american people and we came toth table to get something done p. senator tammy baldwin partnered with my old friends, senator susan collins, rob partman, thom tillis and myself, all of us no strangers to bipartisan success? the senate. we focused on the same goal -- to help ensure married same-sex couples across the country are afforded the same protections as all other married american couples. long the way we overcame the obstacles, made certain sour language respected religious liberty and were careful to ensure that in shoring up some

rights we did not infringe upon others. we made our case to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we listened to those who disagreed with us. we didn't pick fights. we didn't call names. we just kept moving forward. and i'm proud to say that by refusing to demonize each other and by focusing on our shared goals we will deliver real lasting results for the lgbtq community. we will make our country stronger and safer for american families in a way that honors and respects others. i thank the many faith communities who helped us expand this policy conversation and ensure that ourempt would include common sense ledge liberty protections. in particular, i thank the church of jesus christ of latert day saints who provided suggestions and cricks. 67 they summarized our outcome when they wrote in their statement, quote, we believe

this approach is the way forward, he we work together to preserve the principles of religious freedom together with with the rights of lgbtq individuals much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding. end quote. not every american agrees on marriage or lots of other issues, and that's okay. honest disagreements don't make us nipple's decent or honorable, especially if we see that disagreement as an opportunity to learn and grow. if more of us dedicate ourselves to better understanding one other and our experiences, if we strive to see an issue from another person's point of view and if we all work to practice a bit more patience and grace, i know we can continue finding paths forward together. 79 i -- it may not seem like it in

today's partisan world, but there has always been more that unites us as americans than divides us. the bipartisan support we garnered in the senate today proves this issue isn't a matter of one party being right or the other party being wrong. this issue is bigger than angry tweets and bombastic fund-raising e-mails. this, this is about ensuring american families who share the ideals of all marriages, love, devotion, and sacrifice can continue to count on the basic rights and responsibilities that come with their marriages. it's about protecting the beliefs that unite us as americans. the right to define our own destinies, the understanding that no one should be different in the eyes of the law, the freedom to reach for every opportunity and fulfill our

greatest potential. the truth is if we allow our basic values of honor and dignity to become just another political football, we all lose, as i learned back in 2006 in arizona, we have to work together. we have to find willing partners in both parties, and we must bridge our divides before they rip us apart for good. our work is not done. as a body, we must resolve to do the right thing to continue this mission and keep working together to deliver lasting results. our country deserves it. the american people deserve it, and the stakes are too high to stop our progress now. thank you, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. it ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the vote previously scheduled for 3:15 p.m. be called immediately. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the -- the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules

of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 449 h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act, and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage, and for other purposes. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 62. the nays are 37. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the following intern and fellow from my office be granted floor privileges until november 18 of 2022.

j.p. cooper and law r are a hill. the presiding officer: -- and laura hill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. as a reflect of my 28 years serving in the united states senate, i'm reminded of the lessons i've 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 people thought maybe too long. i had the privilege of serving with the people that i've known very well, people like orrin hatch, mike enzi, friends i miss dearly. i single them out because

they're no longer with us. 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 members finding common ground and breaking bread together. orrin reflected in his farewell speech, he said could two people with popular opposite beliefs and from vastly different walks of life come together as often as teddy and i did? and the answer is yes. conservative republicans and liberal democrats come together today all the time and will in the future, but you may not hear about it because it's not newsy. the media doesn't really care if everybody loves everybody. then there's barbara boxer. not too many people who are making their last talk talk about members of the other

party. i will do this. i've shared this story many times with all, with you all about how former senator barbara boxer of california and i worked together for many years and 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 of the nation, and me, a proud republican from the most conservative state in the nation. but we were able to see past our ideologically differences to work together, and we did. we got stuff done. we passed landmark legislation from highway bills like the fast act, the frank lautenberg chemical safety bill. you did. -- you remember that. we did it and we did it time and time again. every wednesday the republicans

in this meeting in the senate is where the chairman will go -- i should not probably be telling 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, quote, now is the time to hear from the committee that gets things done. and i could say that, that was barbara boxer and i got things done. you know what? we actually enjoyed it. nobody believes 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'm a republican, he's a democrat. jack is from rhode island, a very blue state, but we have worked together for years to pass annual defense authorization bills, 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 for the member that you're sitting across the table from, a lesson that senator hatch set very well. in working with senator reed over the years, he has my trust and i have his respect and why we've been successful in what i consider to be the most important thing we do every year. for me, i was a builder and developer prior to running for public office. i 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. 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 are, in this body are actually

responding favorably. now 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 date happened to be november 17, 1994, which was my 60th birthday. until the day he died, i was still the young man. senator byrd explained to me -- and this is something a lot of new members who are just being sworn in as we speak and are here for the first time realize that this is, this is one of the major differences. if you make enemies in the senate, you're wiped out. and that's not true in the house. i spent a lot of years in the house before. i also remember friends across the aisle like former hawaii

senator danny akaka, who led at 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's the one that we all love -- susan collins, who is well respected because she makes this institution a better place and not just because maine lobster rolls are her signature fare. real friendship does exist in the united states senate, but nobody knows it. it's the big secret around here. then there's a bipartisan bible study that we have and some of you are part of the bible study

that meets every thursday in my hideaway in the capitol. i made a point to not miss a thursday bible study in 30 years. i got a record going there. no one's going to beat it. they could i suppose. after i was elected to the house in 1956, i was at a bibl study led by -- bible study led by tom barrett. one day tom barrett and a member of congress from kansas invited me to the members' dining room after the bible study. keep in mind this is 1986. inhofe, we think we've been with you now for over a year since you got in and we think you never really accepted jesus. well, i got mad. i said hoo is this young -- who is this young guy telling me about jesus. and they said.

when did you ask them? every day. and asked, when did you and kay get married? at that point we were newlyweds. and they say, do you propose to kay every day? and i said no. they replied why? because i said we're already married. well, bingo. that meant something. and i thought -- and i said -- 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 december 8, 1988. i reaccepted jesus as my life and savior. that was life changing. and then there is africa. i made 182 african visits with

john enzi, john boozman, mike kelly, and arguably my closest friend, mark powers, a real brother, but it all started with doug co. people think of him as a great diplomat. he had political influence and all of that. years back an article about doug said this. he said the extent of koh's influence in america 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. plush praised -- bush praised cofor his eye -- koh for his quiet diplomacy.

he has taken hey is -- jesus's name to the king and he asked me to go to west africa. and i had no interest in going to west africa. and this lasted for eight years. for eight years i said no to this guy. he was persistent. i can't tell you why it happened, but then finally i said yes and i still to do day can't figure out how that happened. but what changed lives, including mine, all came from doug coy. you know, i like to menges some of these -- menges some people who are really heroes that most people don't know. they don't remember. but they go back and look them up and see what contributions they made. here in the united states senate every wednesday monger we meet and -- monger, we meet and

experience jesus. it is scripturally based, we get together, pray together, eat together and talk about the precepts of jesus together. i will be grateful to doug for being able to speak of jesus all around the world. out of all of my visits to africa as a senator, i did a military job when i was there, but i developed a great love and deep appreciation for the people of africa that i will hold dear 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 in the african continent. i was proud to lead the effort to establish africon.

africon didn't exist for a long period of time. other parts of the world, but not africa. we set that up as a separate combat and 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 it 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's 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've retired from the senate. western sahara. there's western sahara. over the years i've been very outspoken about the situation in

western sahara. a few years ago, i visited the refugee camps. i visited the children who lived there. they were joyous and happy and ordinary and children who didn't know yet they were part of the frozen, forgotten conflict for their hopes and dreams were dying a slow death. our ideals of democracy extends to the is is a hara -- is a hara ends -- sahar ends. i ask that everyone support sahara and reject more wroco's attack on western sahara. and then there's ethiopia. it is close to my heart for many reasons. instead of focusing on the importance of creating lasting

friendships with the ethiopian people, some in the united states government looked for ways to punish them. 19 of my african visits have included ethiopia where i've watched first hand the economic transformation that occurred. their middle class is growing. they have become a regional superpower and they're a good friend of the united states of america. their military is professional, capable, and they're 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 troop contributors to the united nations when they are called upon. hopefully we can find ways to grow this friendship -- this ethiopian friendship. then there is zagitty marie.

many of you know i have an adopted granddaughter named gla zagitta marie. we call her z. knowing the joys of adoption in my own family, i ensure that all families who choose to adopt can. in 2017 when ethiopia decided to close inner country adoptions, i worked with my friend, the prime minister on the families that were penny adoptions and 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.

the constitution, you've heard me say this line before. there are two things we should be doing 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've gotten a lot done together on that front over the years. we passed bipartisan landmark infrastructure legislation from safetea-lu to mack 21 to the fast act which helped to rebuild the country's infrastructure so future generations have safe roads and bridges to cross. before 2005, my state was a donor state to the highway trust fund. what that means is we were paying more into the trust fund

than we were receiving from it. safetea-lu created a fair formula so oklahoma -- i want to say this. i want the people in oklahoma since i'm begging out of this place realize some of the things i have done, so i know it is controversial to say this, but i have been a strong defender of congressionally directed spending, also known as earmark. earmark should be defined as something authorized and appropriate. it 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's what we're trying to get away from when we look 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. the year -- this year will be the 62nd time that the ndaa has been signed into law. 67 times. and i'm 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 and 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 our greatest expense in the i met is taking care of our troops and building schools for the -- for some of

the young people and how important that is. why does it cost more for us to do it than any other country, the communist countries? it does because we do actually take care of our people. while 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 these years, serving on the senate armed services committee, i have come to know a certainty that america cannot lose its focus on fully investing in its defense capabilities. i've got to say this about oklahoma. oklahoma has come out pretty well. you all don't need to feel sorry for oklahoma, i'll take care of

that. they very happy right now. oklahoma has five major military installations from training pilots to building bombs, each is unique in its positioner support our military. since 1988, we have gone through five brac rounds, that is base realignment and closure transitions. in each round the department of defense closed bases and military installations according to military performance. it is something we ought to be doing. in each round, oklahoma, the department of defense grew its presence in oklahoma. so oklahoma has done very well in that period of time. okay. i'm going to tell a story here that might surprise a lot of people. because the star of the story is -- none of these kids were a member except for reading about it is ronald reagan. when i was about 6 years old, my

dad was a claims adjustor for a -- in a building where ronald reagan was an announcer of who radio, a sports announcer in des moines, iowa. my dad and ronald reagan. in fact, i was about 6 years old at that time, i thought he was related to me. my dad and ronald reagan used to play the pin ball machine together. he qo come to the house -- he would come 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, oklahoma, but we never missed a dutch reagan movie. which is what my dad called him. we drove from tulsa to did dura, oklahoma to watch a dutch reagan

movie. it's not a big deal, but it was to me though. fast forward to when the 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 of the tv shows together and tell the people what they needed to know was happening in the administration. i'll always remember as mayor of tulsa, i pushed the construction of a low-water dam on the river. it ended up being one of the largest projects in america that was totally privately funded. it had a lot of opposition. it's pretty amazing. go back and read about this and you can see that anything ronald reagan wanted he got. then there's -- flight around the world. people -- everybody knows who

will rogers was. wally post -- he -- in fact, they were together when they died. back in 1991 i was still in the house. a few friends and i created wally post 1931 flight around the world and a twin-engine cessna aircraft. it's 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 the soviet union. wally post had my plane beat on the travel time. he did his in eight days. it took me 16 days. but looking back, i'm not sure how tom quinn and you survived stops in the soviet union. i remember praying lord, if you have more for me to do, get me out of this mess. fighting for a far-left environmentalist, it's no shock

to anyone that "the washington post" has dubbed me public enemy number one for the radical environmentalist 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 far-left policies that -- designed -- sought to upend the lives of oklahomans like the paris climate agreement, the waters of the u.s. rule, the clean power plant, 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 the same issues today. i expect these disagreements will continue into the future. and lastly i want to take a

second to say thank you to all of my current and former staff. they're hanging around out here now. didn't get much work out of them today. they were pretty busy. my staff knows that once they leave my office, they are always -- we become very close. we don't have people who leave. they become friends. i love -- lovingly call my former staff the has beens. it's a mark of honor. and to all of you, thank you. you're all about to be has beens. most importantly, to my family, i love you. when we got married 63 years ago, i could never imagine i'd be standing here today with 20 kids and grandkids saying goodbye. thank you to all of you guys for all you've done all these years. and thank you for putting up

with me and to kay, my best friend and rock, i could never put into words what you mean to me. so finally i want to say to the people of oklahoma i really thank what you've done for me all these years. thank you very much. i love you guys. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i just want to congratulate our friend from oklahoma on an extraordinary career of service to his state and to our country. i'll be having a lot more to say about the senior senator from oklahoma a little later.

mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i'd like to say a few words about my colleague and friend and my battle buddy, senator jim inhofe. it's been a great honor to serve beside jim. i'm grateful, we're all grateful for his legacy of service he leaves in this chamber. for three decades senator inhofe has served on the armed services committee. from his assignment as a mechanic of the house of representatives to his roles in the senate, more than 20 years i have had the privilege to serve with him on the senate armed services committee.

in turn each of us serving as chairman and rask -- ranking member. we have produced nearly two dozen national authorization acts, traveled to combat zones and military posts around the world, and worked to support our men and women in uniform. and no one could have had a better partner in those endeavors. we both served in the army earlier in our lives, and i know jim carried out his deep sense of responsibility to our troops in the senate each day. he never forgot that what we do here ultimately is executed by young men and women in the uniform of the united states. he never broke faith with those young men and women who wear that uniform. and the american military is stronger and the united states is safer because of jim inhofe. i'm especially proud that the armed services committee voted to name this year's defense bill

the james n. inhofe national defense authorization act. it is a fitting tribute and honor. jim is an extraordinary leader whose legislative skills and capacity of hard work are unmatched and he is a firm and fierce advocate for the people of oklahoma. he has made sure that they benefit from his hard work and his great efforts, and he's done it with unswerving honesty and integrity. senator inhofe, thank you for your leadership and dedication to the committee and the senate and particularly the men and women of the armed forces. you've been a wonderful partner and colleague and i believe i speak for the committee and the entire senate when i say we will miss you dearly. your steady unselfless leadership will continue to guide our nation in the years ahead. i wish you and kay and the family much happiness as you

plan for a well deserved retirement. mr. president, may we all strive for the wisdom, courage, and humility that senator jim inhofe imparted upon this great nation and this distinguished senate. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, as the junior senator from oklahoma, i can't tell you what an honor it's been to serve with my senior senator. mr. lankford: jim inhofe for decades served our state. he's been reelected 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 it in his passion for infrastructure and for the united states military that when i run into somebody that is griping about the construction traffic that they're currently sitting in, i'll 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's 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're all grateful and they're all spoiled by senator inhofe's service to them. but i can't tell you how excited my wife cindy and i are for he

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 time, that he can actually spend his time with kay. so, mr. president, if i can say from the state of oklahoma, we're grateful for jim inhofe. we're grateful for the legacy that he's left for our state. we're grateful for his firm conservative stand that he has taken year after year after year. and 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. with that i yield the floor.

you have before you leadership team for the next two years. collectively we had a discussion about what happened in the and what happens in the next election and i think

everybody agrees we want to give it our best shot, finish the job in georgia and concentrate on the for the next month so i'm grateful for the opportunity to continue to serve and have this team behind me. i like to have them take whatever they prefer. >> thank you, leader. hard to say thanks for the opportunity to serve in our conference and congratulate our leadership team and new members, delighted to have on the team and looking forward to the path ahead. i mentioned yesterday but it's really true in a narrowly divided country a narrowly divided congress and the senate is almost dead even in house of representatives house

reinforcement and majority will give us check and balance against what i think are more radical reckless policies of this administration but this team appear will work on the priorities for the american people, economic security, energy and national security, those are the issues on the hearts and minds of most americans and we will move forward with pro jobs agenda in this conference and working hard too but the brakes on and stop the spending and government agenda put forward by the biden administration and allies here in congress. i'm looking forward to the work ahead and ready to go to work with this team and with this conference to fight for priorities important to the

american people. >> i think my colleagues for the support running as chairman of the conference. while the leader said it was a lengthy meeting, it was also a helpful and productive meeting and united. we are clearly united in our efforts to get herschel walker elected from georgia. we are united to hold this administration accountable and continue to fight the bad things they are doing to this country. i want to thank joni ernst, she's done a great job over the last four years and congratulate you on taking over the policy committee. i welcome shelley has new vice chairman of the conference and steve daines and from wyoming who knows how to win tough elections and the right person to chair the committee. >> thank you all so much.

i'm excited to move forward with this team congratulations to the team, i'm thankful to have been able to serve the past four years as a republican vice chair. excited about the opportunity to serve as republican policy chair. i'm grateful stepped up joined by another woman on our committee. thank you for stepping forward to serve as our and our sp chair. i will be working with all members in our conference presenting different ideas and entailing collaboration. we heard a lot about that over the past several days. who want to make sure our voices are heard and voices represented fairly across the conference. i'm excited about the

opportunity to work with each one of our members as they move into the next election cycle and i know the american people will hear our message and resonate with them. >> good afternoon, i'm the new vice chair of the republican conference abuse senate. i'm honored to serve with our leadership here. i'd like to say what an honor it will be to serve under the leadership of mitch mcconnell. my neighboring kentucky, i have admiration for his vision and look forward to going forward with that. the meeting we had was interesting, respectful sitting in that chamber. 50 degrees i will tell you that. we listened attentively to the ideas and desires of our members

because we are elected, our constituency today was in that room, 48 in the room today with us so i want to say thank you for inspiring me and filling me with the confident. since i'm the newbie, i should be the one with the fewest amount of words so i will tell all of you thank you for what you do current us every day. we will have a unified message, a voice of which i'll participate and create that message may look forward to seeing all of you again and again and again. thank you all very much. [laughter] >> an honor to be selected by my colleagues to share 2024. i'm honored to be on the stage with my colleagues part of the class of 2014 shelley more capitol. republican took a nine seat and flipped majority control so i

will tell you it is important my highest goal is to ensure we secure a strong lasting majority for the republican 2004 -- 2024. we are fired up and excited. we are going to hit the ground running and we will do everything we can to fight for every seat. >> this is the first challenge you faced in 15 years. what lesson did you learn from this and will you change your approach at all? i don't own the job. anybody who wants to run can feel free to do so so i'm not offended by an opponent or a few

votes in opposition. as everyone has said we had good opportunity to discuss various differences. people had a chance to listen to both candidates and i am proud of 37 to ten. >> and you respond to former president trump announcing he plans to run for president and you believe it will help or hinder your chances in the georgia runoff? >> the way i will go into this primary season is to stay out of it. i don't have a dog in that fight, i think you will be highly contested nomination fight with other candidates entering and it will be good for you all to cover. >> your runoff in georgia, you want president trump to come to georgia? mark we'll do everything we can to get herschel walker elected. we can't determine who will come

in we will see how it develops. >> first challenge in 15 years, does it make it more or less likely might consider setting aside -- >> i'm not going into that. [laughter] >> did hear that they wanted more inclusiveness, some feel they are left out, the committees are working the way they should. are you going to make changes? >> as you all know different from the democrats, we meet three times a week. tuesday, wednesday and thursday, a full discussion. senator cornyn pointed out, any five of us can call a conference to discuss any particular issue so we appointed members tools they have it they have an idea and want to promote, convene for

discussion and i think it will be used more often. i welcome it and one of the nice things is you don't have so many people. we are together a lot and there are opportunities all over for new ideas and it never been proposed and won't be going forward. >> is that to say you're not considering specific changes of these numbers proposing? >> we just talked about how we will go forward. >> it sounds like you are not negotiating any further. >> nothing to negotiate, we got to get together often. >> can you talk about what lessons were learned and what you might do different in terms of a political strategy in 2024 or what you might do differently? >> our problem november 8,

right? here is the problem. we underperform among voters who did not like president biden's performance among independents and moderate republicans. they look to us and concluded too much chaos, negativity and turned off a lot of these voters which is why i never predicted a red wave to begin with if you recall. the poll date we had the states we were trying to win which is the ones we currently have, north carolina, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, missouri. ...

we had the same problem in nevada we have that pickup opportunity and it reflected itself in georgia as well. fortunately all of a sudden i like the runoff than i used to. i got a second chance in georgia to get it right and that was a the problem. the base turned out and we had the republican base turnout. we have a problem with people in the middle who still even though not as many as they used to determine the outcome. >> how do you assess the performance under rick scott and will there be -- >> that's up to steve.

i don't intend to assess at performance at all. i think steve i don't know if you want to address anything about your plan for the future. >> there has been plenty of monday morning quarterbacks and pundits. we are looking forward and we will get the lessons learned certainly from this last cycle and we will take those lessons learned and apply them going forward. >> have there have been in your view, to follow-up on your your other question what your assessment of the health of the republican party? is the republican party driving? >> i was here in 08, talk about getting clobbered. there were 40 of us, 40. it took us six years to crawl out of the hole after that election. i'm disappointed in the outcome this year. 50 is a of a lot better than 40. and so it's still a 50-50

country. they have given us a 50-50 government again. i think what the public is ultimately looking at is whether or not this narrowly divided congress can accomplish anything that does him any good in terms of their lives so my message to the administration and you saw some of it this year, let's find some things between the 40-yard lines that we can agree on and do them, and we did some of that is your infrastructure, chips, the school safety, mental health. we need to make some progress for the american people. it's going to have to be in the go -- political center. if the house becomes republican there's no more one-party running over is like they did in the reconciliation, no more $1.9 trillion's spending spree plus another 750 in august that sent inflation through the roof.

that's over. my message to the president is let's talk about doing some things that make progress in the country. >> mr. leader you mentioned you have a second chance in georgia georgia. what do you georgia. what do you think is georgia. what do you think is a quick is less than your party will take away from just this past election ahead of this run off and i know you don't want to get into the politics and the presidential announcement with trump at the timing of the announcement talk to a lot of republicans on capitol hill and they had issued the timing with georgia right now. you agree with that? >> i don't mean to be disrespectful but i don't have any comment about the timing of that. with regard to georgia, we end up or formed among centrist voters and independents and moderates in georgia. we need to try to do better in the runoff and as i said all of a sudden i'm a fan of a runoff. we have another chance to get it right and that's job one for us.

50 is better than 49 and we will give it everything we have got. i'll take one more. >> you had a vigorous discussion about the debt limit over the last two days. >> now, we didn't talk about the debt limit. >> are you going to take concessions from the biden administration? >> that's one of the big things we will be discussing and once again it's a matter that will have to be dealt with on a bipartisan basis. their conditions upon which it's dealt with and something we always discuss every time it comes up. thank you all. [inaudible conversations]

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, my office recently received a message from a woman named amanda. she lives in chicago in the

chicagoland area. she tells me that she and her wife kelly will be celebrating their fifth anniversary as a married couple. they have been together for 28 years but after the supreme court's decision on obergfell, they decided to tie the knot. that affirmed their love and constitutional right. the court declared that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty under the constitution for every american, regardless of sexual orientation. so in 2017, amanda and her wife kelly exercised that right, and today they're the proud parents of two beautiful young children, a daughter austin and a son rhen. really that should be the end of the story. with obergfell, amanda and her wife were guaranteed the same rights as me and my wife, and it should be the beginning of a new

story, a loving couple who can now focus on their family and taking care of the day-to-day responsibilities, paying the bills, feeding the kids and navigating life as working families. but sadly amanda and many others are now living in fear. like millions of americans, she is facing the very real prospect that this supreme court could soon rule that her right to marry the person she loves is not protected by the constitution. she saw what this radical far-right supreme court did with the dobbs decision just a few months ago. the decision that erased the iewnl right -- constitutional right for the women of america to make their own reproductive choices and now amanda and her wife are wondering if they will come after the right to marry. the court wrote that they should

reconsider all of this court's substantive due process, including griswald, lawrence and obergfell. she said for the first time in our history, americans are facing the continued loss of civil rights by this supreme court. our two young children are growing up in a world where they may in some cases have less rights, fewer rights than their parents and grandparents. amanda tells me she and her wife are taking every legal step they can do to ensure that our recognition as parents cannot be challenged. this is emotionally and financially attacking, she -- taxing she said and yet we feel we have to do it. there are more than 700,000 married same-sex couples in america whose love and legal status were recognized under the law and protected by a supreme

court decision in obergfell. couples, along with their friends and families, demanding what -- that the senate do what it should have done years ago, codify their rights. this is not an abstract exercise. early next month the supreme court will hear oral arguments in a case called 303 versus elliness, it is a case involving a website designer in colorado who wants to build wedding websites, but claiming she will not build websites for same-sex couples. she demanded the right to boast about her plans to discriminate lens lgbtq americans. this would violate a state's

civil rights law which intends to discriminate someone on the basis of sexual orientation. if the supreme court's last term in the dobbs decision are any indication, this radical far-right majority on the court could very well use this case to start the erosion of protections of lgbtq americans. it's exactly the kind of judicial activism we've come to expect from this court's conservative majority. remember when they boasted about the fact that donald trump was going to put on three justices who would rule his way in future cases? it was pretty clear from that day forward that the supreme court had a political bent. the federalist society had to give its stamp of approval. now, the federalist society is a multimillion dollar political arm of the republican party, and before any judicial knee had a chance -- nominee had a chance in my senate judiciary committee under the republican days, they

had to get the approval of the federalist society. the federalist society from the start was setting out to eliminate a woman's right to choose. they had their victory in the dobbs decision. but the american people spoke on november 8 and overwhelming will i they said across america you can't get away with eliminating rights already established under the constitution for any americans. i hope that that sentiment grows and eventually we reverse the dobbs decision. what we have seen is exactly the kind of judicial activism we can come to expect from the court's conservative majority. they twist the law and set aside long-standing precedent to establish the policies they prefer. but it's not the supreme court's role to make the laws. how many times have we heard that speech from republicans? we don't want judicial activists, they say. that job of making the laws belongs in congress. and today we can defend families like amanda's by voting for the respect for marriage act which

passed just a few moments ago here on the floor of the senate with a strong bipartisan vote. it will protect marriage equality under the federal law, not just for lgbtq couples but also interracial couples whose rights could also be in peril by the court's far-right majority. the issue of marriage equality is too important to get bogged down in partisanship which is why this bill is a bipartisan compromise. i hope that getting 60 votes for the respect for marriage act is going to be an indication of more owe cooperation -- more cooperation so that amanda and cali don't have to lose sleep. in last week's election the american people sent a clear message to washington and to the senate. get it together. work together. no more toxic culture wars. no more divisive rhetoric. no more big lie. enough. if you want to stand for family

values, let's start by enacting protections for every family in america. we can do it certainly with the respect for marriage act and even more. to amanda and cali, i'd like to say happy fifth anniversary. i hope by the time your sixth anniversary comes around, you won't even have to think ties about whether your rights are secure. madam president, i ask consent that the next statement i make be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, as we head into the holiday season, parents and doctors nationwide are concerned about a dramatic surge in an illness called rsv, respiratory virus. it can be especially serious for children and older americans. as a parent there's no more terrifying or helpless feeling than knowing that your baby's sick. i know. i lived it. kid experienced that recently

when her 6 monday old daughter became ill with rsv and was struggling to breathe. the bergs live in a small town downstate never springfield. kaitlin scoured the area looking for a hospital that would cure her sick daughter. after many frantic calls she finally decided springfield was the closest town with a hospital. she took her baby there and waited eight hours in the emergency room before a bed finally opened up for her daughter. kaitlin berg, incidentally, is a pediatrician. if a pediatrician has to struggle to find hospital care for her own sick infant, imagine the panic and fear other parents feel when their babies are struggling to breathe because of rsv. and it isn't just a problem in small-town -- small town or rural america. economy is the third largest city in our country, some of the best hospitals in the world, including some of the best children's hospital.

the rate of emergency visits of young children with rsv is now ten times higher than in 2019, ten times higher than a normal season three years ago. this chart demonstrates that. look at this spike. as you can see, the number of children admitted from rsv is skyrocketing. in chicago alone, there are hundreds of new cases each week and nearly a dozen kids each day being hospitalized. earlier this month the children's hospital at the university of chicago was full with no beds for 53 straight days. and lurey children's hospital in chicago also running at full capacity. 95% of pediatric icu beds across illinois are full during this time. this crush on pediatric hospitals isn't limited to illinois. over the border in franklin,

indiana, little ophelia you can see in the bed struggled to breathe after contracting rsv at preschool. she went to the local hospital. they transferred her to the large children's hospital in indianapolis where she was int baited for five day -- intubated for five days. thankfully she's home and recovering. children's hospitals across the country are being pushed to the limit. caring for infants, toddlers and young kids sickened by rsv. in extreme cases, kids and babies may require ventilators to breathe. the timing of this surge in rsv is especially concerning. coming during the worst flu season in a decade and while new covid variants are circulating. those three variants propose what many health professionals argue could be a triple demic of viral illness so let's look for solutions. the children's hospital

association, the american academy of pediatrics has asked this president to issue an emergency declaration to free up more resources. i support them. at the top of the list, america desperately needs more nurses, more doctors, more staff. hospitals plagued with worker shortage even before covid now have a pandemic that's made the crisis even worse. if our children's hospital had more staff, they could immediately open more beds to treat the kids. congress made some headway in the american rescue plan which passed on the floor of the senate without the support of a single republican senator. it included my provision to invest $1 billion in the national health service corps for scholarships and loan repayments for new nurpses and doctors -- nurses and doctors who serve in urban areas in need. but we need to do more to end the health care worker shortage. senators menendez, boozman and schumer have a bipartisan plan which i support.

it increases funding for medical residency slots to train the next generation of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. i support putting that plan in the end of the year package we'll consider in the next few weeks. it's also critical that we fund our public health system adequately and provide for data collection so we can track rsv. the help committee has been working on this priority and i certainly support tear efforts. madam president, we're all in this together. the hospitals are doing their best. doctors and nurses are working extra long shifts to keep kids safe. we all need to do our part, too. for all of us, that means staying home when we're sick, still washing our hands, getting covid booster and flu shots. for those of us in congress, it also means providing the resources to get safely through this current surge of rsv and building the strong public health infrastructure which american families require. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i have spoken repeatedly about the many ways my democratic colleagues' crusade for power has been disastrous for the american people. we have record breaking inflation, a chaotic southern border, the collapsing energy industry. this is the world that the democrats created in just two short years. what's worse, this democrat-led government has ignored the ripple effects of their reckless agenda in favor of maintaining a political narrative about progress. but to tennesseans and to so many americans, it feels like the country is not moving forward. it is moving backward. i've come to the floor again today to talk about the ripple

effects of the covid-19 vaccine mandate that threatens to gut the ranks of the u.s. military. this body has had multiple chances to avert disaster in each -- and each time the democrats have decided to take the wrong path. i introduced two amendments to the national defense authorization act that would have kept politics out of the military's use of vaccines. madam president, they're simple. each amendment, about one page long. the first of these would have prohibited involuntary separation of any servicemember for refusing the covid-19 vaccine until each service achieves its authorized end strength. you see, madam president, it makes absolutely no sense that

we would be removing people from military service simply because they do not get a shot, a shot, by the way, that does not prevent you from getting covid. now, the second amendment would make sure that members of the national guard or reserve maintain access to both pay and benefits while their request for an accommodation, a medical accommodation, a religious beliefs accommodation is pen pending. but of course my democratic colleagues have blocked these two amendments. they're common sense. they protect our men and women in the military. but it is my plan to offer them another opportunity to do the

right thing. i've combined these amendments into a bill. that bill is called the preserving the readiness of our armed forces act. it is filed. it's ready for more cosponsors. i'm also going to give them another opportunity when the ndaa finally comes to the floor. they're going to have the opportunity to consider these two amendments. and i'm asking my colleagues to support me in this. i stand by my call to leader schumer to bring the ndaa to the floor to a vote and hope that my democratic colleagues will change course and support these two amendments to protect our men and women in uniform. but right now the ripple effect is seen as another reckless

power play by this administration and their department of defense. i went into detail earlier this week, madam president, about how this would hamper the readiness of the u.s. military. and i want to focus on the death blow today that this has dealt to our recruitment. and keep in mind this is information that is available to each and every member of this chamber. my democratic colleagues have this information. here is what we have to consider is the number of new servicemembers that are joining the military is right now, right now at an all-time low. academy applications for our military academies are also at an all-time low.

see, even high school students know something is wrong with this picture. so they're not sitting there thinking i want to go to west point or i want to go to annapolis. i want to go to the air force. they're not thinking that. what they are saying is why is the military focused on all this other stuff other than on their core mission. keeping this country safe. now, again statistics prove the point. the army has fallen 15,000 soldiers short their goal for 2022, and they don't expect this situation to improve.

2023, they think they're going to be 21,000 troops short. i i want you to think about this. think about what we're facing, whether it is attacks from the axis of evil -- russia, china, north korea, iran -- whether it is china's aggressiveness. think about this. think about the difference that 10,000 troops, 15,000 troops, 21,000 troops make and then ask yourself, why is it that men and women, citizens of this country, are not wanting to raise their hand and take the oath to protect and defend? and if you are honest with yourself, you know that a big

part of the problem is the way the military has been treated over the last couple of years. we didn't have this problem previously. this is a problem that has been made for our military, for this nation's security. it has been made by this administration. the national guard is missing their recruitment goals. why is that? could it be that having to take a shot -- and, bear in mind, a it is not a vaccine, like a polio vaccine or other vaccines. it's a shot for a certain strain of covid. but, what you've got is a department of defense that is willing to say, you're fired to

people who have volunteered to serve this country. and they're going to do it over a shot. now, they don't expect anybody running over the southern border illegally, i might add, to have the shot, but they expect members of the u.s. military, students at our academies, those that are on active duty, those that are reservists, those that are in the national guard to get this, even though president biden has said, the pandemic is over. it's over. so you have to ask why is it that they're continuing to beat down on the military? why are they willing to pummel them over a shot? why are they not willing to put

the ndaa on the floor? we've done it for 11 years. are we going to miss on year 62? why is it not a priority? could it possibly be that the ndaa is not a priority for my democratic colleagues, that the men and women in uniform or, protecting them and their families, is not a priority? could it be it is not at the top of their to-do list? the choice to enter military service is a serious choice. it is a choice that people do not make lightly. but this hesitancy to serve should raise alarm bells in this

chamber. lookingat these numbers that are falling so far short of our recruitment goals, our retention goals should ring some alarm bells. it is symptomatic of a much larger problem. the past few years haven't been ease sis for anyone, but we all have the benefit of hindsight. we all have the benefit of lessons learned. but it appears that some people are just not willing to learn from those lessons. and anyone willing to be honest about how the democrats have handled this can see two things pretty clearly -- first, turning debate over the covid vaccine into political warfare, that's a choice that the democrats in this chamber, the democrats in washington, d.c., and this administration,

that's a choice that they have made. let's take this vaccine mandate, let's turn it into political warfare. and, alaskaly, getting -- and, secondly, getting political about this particular vaccine or shot, as it is, in the context of military readiness, that was a choice. i might add, a very bad, a very inappropriate choice. the military is supposed to be a -- supposed to be apolitical. servicemembers count on that when they sign up to serve, when they raise their hand, when they take that oath. but now punditry drives policy at the pentagon, and this has eroded trust between the military, the servicemembers, and their families. the democrats are in charge of the senate. if they had allowed it, we could

have had an honest debate about my two amendments. as i said, they're each about one page long. they are there specifically to protect our men and women in uniform, to say, we have to have them serve. we've lost 5, 700 to this covid mandate. we are short -- i've given you the numbers, 15,000 this year, 21,000 for next year. that's what we're short. recruitment is low. we're not hitting our marks there. signing up for our military academies, the numbers are the lowest ever. we're not hitting the mark there. why is it? be honest with yourself and ask yourself, what has caused this change in attitude? you know, if you are honest with

yourself, if the president were honest with himself, he could rescind that mandate. that would be a very good thing. but to ignore reality and pretend that these low recruitment numbers, these firings, these retention numbers are all okay? it is unconscionable. it's time for my colleagues, my democratic colleagues, to stop ignoring the reality. stop ignoring the ripple effects of their political agenda before it puts our nation and our military in danger. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: i want to share some words of which is come to that my colleagues -- some words of wisdom that my colleagues. these words of wisdom come from

13 former top civilian and military leaders. i'm going to start with the list of eight former defense secretaries, dr. ashton carter, recently deceased, william cohen, also a former senator, dr. mark espn sper, dr. robert gates, charles hagel, also a former senator, general james mattis, besides being secretary of defense, leon panetta, also a former congressman, dr. william perry, and also added to this list, five former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff -- general mark dempsey, general joviss. dunford jr., admiral michael mullin, general richard

meyers, and general peter pace. they offer some very sage advice for improving civil military relations, and everybody knows where this principle came from, civil control of our military. it happened december 1783 when general george washington surrendered his papers to the continental congress and gave up being commander in chief at this particular time -- at that particular time. you know, these words of wisdom appear in an open letter that was published the 6th of september in the national security blog, and that blog is entitled -- quote, unquote -- war on the rocks. i intended to speak about this

letter at the same time that our -- at the time that our first credit, but due to our extended recess,i'm just now getting to it about two months late. these former leaders warn us about what they call extreme strain in civil military relations coming from all directions. and these are the directions that this strain is coming from affecting civil military relations -- the pandemic with social disruption, wars that ended with unachieved goals, military withdrawal from afghanistan, rising great-power rivals, extremely adverse political environment caused by the divisiveness of polarization in

our american society, evidenced here in the congress of the united states, and lastly, contested elections and the shaky transfer of power. after listing these points, these defense leaders then predict rising tensions. now, this is a red flag that we all ought to observe. civil military relations are out of balance. though alarming, the open letter is both educational and reassuring. it offers guidance and remedies. 16 what they call core principles and best practices are spotlighted for restoring,

quote, healthy american civil military relations, end of quote. most of these remedies hinge on the all-important principle of civilian control of the military. by the way, i spoke on that very subject from a different angle on july 14 of this year. the letter that i'm referring to refers -- or views civilian control as i do. quote, the bedrock foundation of american democracy, end of quote. it is ultimately, quote, wielded by the will of the american people as expressed through elections, end of quote. that core constitutional principle keeps our powerful

standing military from threatening democracy. health wheny civil -- healthy civilian military relations -- those four words are in quotes -- healthy civilian military relations are instrumental to civilian control. they must rest on rock-solid foundation of mutual trust. mutual trust and respect between civilian and military leaders are essential for healthy civil military relations. they are fostered, in part, by honest deliberations over policy choices. according to this open letter, mutual trust is cultivated when civilian leaders, quote,

rigorously expose -- explore alternatives that are best for the country, regardless of the implications for partisan politics, end of quote. a dynamic and itterative process helps civil military teams build up a reservoir of trust, end of quote. that extra measure of trust will diffuse prediction from the military must, quote, faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional military preference, end of quote. when tensions rise over disagreements with the commander in chief's policy choices, the former pentagon leaders offer this guidance in their very own

words, and this is a fairly long quote. elected and appointed civilians have the right to be wrong, meaning they have the right to insist on policies or directions that prove in hindsight to have been a mistake. this right obtains even if other voices warn in advance that the proposed actions is a mistake. military officials are required to carry out legal orders the wisdom of which they doubt. civilian officials should provide the military ample opportunity to express their doubts in appropriate venues. members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views, limits that would be unconstitutional

if imposed on other citizens. civilian and military officials should also take care to properly characterize military advice in public. civilian leaders must take responsibility for the consequences of the actions that they direct, end of quote. now, the advice of these former chiefs of staff and former secretaries of defense is honest, it's direct, and squares very much with the constitution of the united states. the commander in chief's orders must be obeyed. the military must refrain from criticizing the president in public, and the president is accountable for policy choices.

on partisan political activity, the former chiefs and secretaries of defense offer a straightforward piece of advice -- quote, there are significant limits on the public role of military personnel and partisan politics, as outlined in the long-standing defense department policies and regulations. military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping military separate from partisan activities. the final best practice that they offer us covers the responsibility of military leaders during the transfer of power after presidential elections.

they -- meaning the military -- have a dual obligation. first, they must assist the incumbent commander in chief, quote, in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty, end of quote. and second, since the voters choose the new commander in chief, they must be -- they must prepare to assist whomever the voters pick. they carry out their responsibilities regardless of who sits in the white house. to summarize, this open letter provides sound advice that could help to moderate civil, military strife. it telegraphs a message to the top brass. it's time to hit the reset button and rebalance civil-military relations.

now i don't know the motive behind this letter because there wasn't any indication of it. but some of it may be pointed directly at chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general milley. my advice to him, take their sage advice to heart. a dose of humility burnishes one's integrity. as the nation's most senior military officer, general milley has a responsibility to set an example of excellence and cease all partisan political activity. partisan political activity is harmful to civil-military relations and has the potential for creating dangerous divisions within the ranks of the armed forces. military personnel must stay out of politics, period, end of story. i yield.

the presiding officer: the mr. whitehouse: madam president, i rise today for my 286th time to wake up speech, in this case to report back from the united nations 27th conference of the parties, or cop, the annual meeting where the nations of the world work to combat climate change. the paris agreement, for instance, sprang from the cop. senators cardin, markey, and i went to this year's cop in egypt speaker pelosi led a separate house delegation, and president biden traveled there with a large executive branch delegation to make some

important announcements. our senate delegation met with government officials from many other countries with american officials, with u.n. leaders, and with dozens of business leaders, labor leaders, environmental groups, environmental justice advocates and oceans advocates. we consistently heard that the work we accomplished right here in this chamber through the inflation reduction act and by ratifying the kigali amendment brought our country back into global leadership on climate. but we know that our work to tackle climate change is not over, not by a long shot. emissions from fossil fuel are still growing. 2022, fossil fuel emissions will blow right past previous record highs. things are not getting better yet. they are getting worse. we need additional ambitious

climate policies both at home and abroad to reduce those emissions. and because climate disasters so often fall upon the most vulnerable, particularly in developing nations, we need the wealthier nations and the ultra wealthy corporations responsible for the lion's share of climate upheaval to step up, to finance the clean energy transition for those countries. so, what are the things the u.s. and other nations should do? at the cop, i spoke a lot about the upcoming european union carbon border adjustment mechanism, or cbam. the e.u. already applies a carbon price to energy-intensive manufactured goods. that's one of the main policies that is driving decarbonization

in europe. and they will start later this decade imposing a carbon tariff on goods from countries that don't impose a comparable carbon price on those imported goods. my message to the cop, the e.u. cbam is good policy. it creates an incentive for lower carbon manufacturing no matter where the goods are produced. the u.s. should not -- i repeatt complain about the e.u. cbam. our manufacturers are among the least carbon intensive in the world, and they will pay far lower carbon tariffs than, for instance, chinese manufacturers. that makes american companies more globally competitive and will move jobs and manufacturing our way to our shores.

so instead of complaining, we should match the e.u. cbam or beat it with our own carbon border adjustment plan. and, by the way, we should urge the british and the canadians and the japanese and the australians, anyone else interested in lowering emissions to do the same. we should all pull together. the beauty of a well-designed carbon border adjustment is that it prevents cheating by polluters to cross borders and pollute elsewhere for free. a carbon border adjustment regime will drive decarbonization everywhere, in china, india, and around the world. if their manufacturers want to compete, they will have to reduce their emissions. so, yes, let's meet or beat the e.u. cbam, not fear it or

resist it. by the way, when we heard quibbles about our i.r.a. incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles and low-carbon manufacturing being unfair to our fortunately trading partners, my response was the same. meet us or beat us. pass incentives as good as ours or better. let our i.r.a. be an example that can be represent -- replicated around the world. as i mentioned, president biden came to the cop with ambitious proposals. he unveiled a new epa proposals to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas production and transport by almost 90%. this is, as president biden might say, a bfd. as methane emissions are responsible for about 25% of observed warming.

the epa proposal is a huge step in the right direction. it would create a new process for third party monitoring of methane emissions. there are already a number of private and public entities that monitor methane emissions around the world using satellites, aircraft, drones, utilize this data to quickly identify and eliminate large sources of methane emissions. we should stand up and enforce enforce -- an enforcement task force to make sure leaders make the best methods to stop their leaks. combined with my methane fee which was adopted into the i.r.a. as the methane emission adoption program, we now have the platform for the epa, the department of justice, the department of interior, and

interested state, local, and tribal authorities to, as they would say in the military, find, fix, and finish methane leak sources. given that methane emissions are a global problem, particularly in fossil fuel-producing countries like russia, i also urge the u.s. and foreign officials with whom we met to stand up an international task force to identify overseas methane emissions and sanction parties, companies, and countries that don't eliminate them. buried within epa's methane proposal is another important announcement, an updated social cost of carbon pegged at $120 per ton, more than double the

obama era estimate. this too is a bfd, but only if the office of management and budget follows up and spreads its use beyond just the epa and this regulation into rule-making, procurement, grant making, investment decisions, leasing, trade policy, just to name a few. it would be transformative, and given the scale and scope of the federal government, it would have the power to move markets. one note of warning -- our success in the united states as well as in countries around the world will in significant ways be determined by the behavior of big corporations. corporate america has built the

biggest political influence operation the world has ever seen. it surrounds this building, surrounds us here in congress. lobbyists, dark money, trade associations, political contributions, phony think tanks, it is an awesome apparatus and it is one that corporate america has yet to switch on for climate legislation. they either sit out there doing nothing or they actually oppose it. despite often admirable corporate work to decarbonize their own operations and even their supply chains, much of the corporate political apparatus is actually actively hostile to real climate legislation. and on top of that, of course,

is the fossil fuels energy ceaseless obstruction machine. so i was pleased to see the united nations secretary general announce new criteria for assessing corporate climate prejudices, criteria that will include their lobbying and advocacy behavior. companies must align their expernl policy and engagement efforts, including in membership, to include reducing emissions by 50% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. this means lobbying for climate action and not against it. companies should publicly disclose their trade associations. they should encourage their associations to advocate for positive climate action and have an escalation strategy if they

do not, including the option of leaving the association if the necessary changes are not made. end quote. i could not agree more. at copy repeatedly made -- at cop i repeatedly made the argument that companies should actually be required to file audited footprint statements. that climate political footprint statement should be the ticket that dmipts companies to cop and to other -- that admits companies do cop and other environmental gatherings. instead of corporate transparency about their political activities, more than 600 fossil fuel lobbists swarmed this cop. coca-cola, the world's largest plastic polluter, was a leading

sponsor. that worst climate obstructor, the u.s. chamber of commerce, hosted a big dinner, put on a speech by a fossil fuel services company president. it's hard for people around the world to take cops seriously when the fossil fuel industry and other large polluters have such a prominent presence at the cop and they haven't had to even disclose their political influence efforts to undermine that very cop. instead of welcoming the big polluters to cops, we should hold them accountable for the damages their pollution is causing. a windfall profits clawback on global excess fuel profits just like the conservativories did in -- torries did in the kumplet. it is a commonsense principle

that polluters should pay for the harm that they cause. at the end i left this cop with a sense of pride that the senate and the united states government are finally getting going on climate. but also a sense of the awesome difficulty of the task ahead to bend that global emissions curve, to hit nature's emission reduction targets. our work is not close to done. in fact, it has only just begun. after decades of delay, deliberately caused by the fossil fuel industry's multibillion-dollar campaign of denial and obstruction, we are now in a marathon that we will have to run as a sprint, but this past year proved that we

are finally up and running. and the announcements at cop will pick up our laggerred pace. our joints may be stiff from disuse, our breathing may be ragged from years on the couch, but we have at least begun to run and boy, does it feel good. we will only speed up and do better. powered by the energy and enthusiasm of legions of young voters, we are, i dare to say at last, coming awake. i'll close with this last slide which shows how important it is to see this as a global problem. these are emissions from china, from the u.s., from india and from the e.u. when you add them up, you see

the global figure. if we address each of these or just our own, it does not help enough to avoid the consequences of that continuing upward emissions trajectory. so that's where an internal social cost of carbon that cuts across every aspect of carbon, buttressed by the world's major economies, that is what will drive the line down and put us on a pathway to safety. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: today we took an important step by passing the procedural hurdle to make sure that marriage equality is put into law. this legislation would ensure that both the federal and state

governments will continue to recognize all marriages and continue to not discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity or race. these are strong protections that are long overdue. i understand some of my colleagues do not see a need for passing this legislation, but i would ask them to stand in the shoes of someone in a marriage that is in danger of being dissolved overnight by a court decision. the same ration nape for overturning -- rationale can be used in the landmark supreme court decision we saw that could erode further privacy rights and be used in same-sex marriages. while marriage equality is constitutionally protected today, the supreme court's reasoning in dobbs v. jackson's women's health organization indicated the court is open to reconsidering cases that

determine certain fundamental rights are protected under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. i believe it is our job in the senate to represent the voice of our constituents and those voices are loud and clear, an overwhelming majority of americans support major equality. according to gallup poll, 71% of americans approve of same-sex marriage. in september over 220 businesses, representing more than 8.5 million employees called on the u.s. senate to pass this legislation. that was not just from a few republicans. 40% of republicans and over 20% of the house gop members recognized, and this -- that this should be enshrined into law and supported the legislation. it pass the house by a large majority, 267 to 157. americans support this bill. businesses support this bill.

and now some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken this step to also support this legislation. the state of washington was one of the first ten states to legalize same-sex marriage and did so by the vote of the people. i recently received a letter from a constituent from everyet washington said that she and her wife moved to washington in 2016 because they needed to be, quote, somewhere where our rights are -- somewhere where our rights would be protected. she said as soon as i arrived in washington, i felt like i had come home. marriage equality has been protected under washington state law for a decade. it has been protected by the supreme court for seven years, and yet there are here in the senate -- there are some that don't believe we need to take further protections. at least 11.5 million people in this country are in an interracial or same-sex

marriage, that's no less than 20% of all marriages in the united states. with a number like that, we all know someone in one of those marriages, whether they are friends, neighbors or colleagues, we know that we need to give them the same certainty. and we know that codifying marriage equality into law, they will not be in jeopardy of losing those rights. same-sex and interracial couples deserve the assurance that their marriage will be recognized many they need to know that they will continue to enjoy the freedom and privileges that are afforded to other couples and we need to make sure that this is for generations to come. the american people want this legislation passed and i urge my colleagues to come together and support this very important respect for marriage act. thank you. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i want to recognize jerry nadler and the entire caucus for introducing the house bill and starting up this effort. this legislation passed the house of representatives with a strong bipartisan vote of 267- 167 with all democrats and 47 republicans supporting the bill. i also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my >> lake who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. i want to thank the lead sponsor

of the bill, senator feinstein and also thank and recognize the hard work and effort of senator collins, senator portman ting edf progress. ting edf minnesota began protecting lgbtq people against workplace discrimination in 1993. at that time it was the first and only state in the nation to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity. and two decades later in 2013, we became the 12th state to legalize marriage equality. across the country, as we know, many states have made advances. today, 23 states have laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. and in 2015, the supreme court recognized that the u.s.

constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. but as far as we have come, we still have miles to go until lgbtcrrn americans can live their lives with freedom, authenticity, and equality. we also must protect the progress we make. as we know, from what happened recently with the dobbs decision, as we know, rights that people take for granted, nearly 50 years of roe v. wade can vanish with one mark of a pen, with one signature on a piece of paper. and in fact, when it comes to gay marriage, when it comes to the protections granted by the obergefell case, this was actually raised in one of is the justices' written opinions. we know that this is on the chopping block, and that is why,

when a supreme court justice signaled that the hard-won, legal protection for marriage equality could be on that chopping block, putting the legal rights of countless married couples and families in jeopardy, we felt, a number of republicans and democrats on a bipartisan basis, if that we had to step in. that's why we're here. the way i see it, all three branches of government have a responsibility to protect people's rights. and if one branch doesn't it its job, this is why our system of government was set up this way brilliantly, if one branch doesn't do its job, it's up to another to step in. yes, it's a system of checks and balances. checks if someone's power is out of control, as i believe here happened, out of the mainstream, out of consistency with the american people. that's a check.

that's why we have it this way. and that is why you're seeing today, thanks to the leadership of our friends, senator feinstein, senator baldwin, senator collins, senator sinema, senator portman, senator tillis, and so many others, that we have reached a bipartisan agreement to move this bill forward. as you know, in july the house of representatives passed the respect for marriage act to protect marriage equality. they did that on a bipartisan basis as well, 47 republicans voted for that bill in the house of representatives. for our senate bill, i will note that the bipartisan text also has broad support, from faith-based organizations to more than 250 businesses, including minnesota's own target and best buy. we have before us a bill that requires states and the federal government to respect marriages legally emptied into in other

states -- legally entered into in other states, regardless of the sex or race of the people who are married. this is the kind of bill that should get 100 votes. it's about equality. it's about dignity. and it's about love. it's about saying we won't go back to the days when a patch bork of -- a patchwork of state laws determined whether the union of two people who loved each other would be recognized by their government. that we won't go back to the days when a gay soldier killed on the battlefield was denied the respect of official notification of next of kin. we won't go back to the days of hospital patients left to spend their final moments alone, without the person they love most by their side. this bipartisan vote today, and the one in the coming days is about saying no, we will not go backwards. we will not go backwards in this

chamber. we will not follow the way the supreme court has been going when it comes to folding back rights and denying rights. that's not what america is about. we should all be able to agree that states shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on who they love. this bill gives each and every one of my colleagues the opportunity to make that statement. we know that there is more to be done to make sure all meshes are entitled -- all americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, but this is an important step forward, ensuring no american experiences discrimination because of who they love. this is a great moment. it's a wonderful moment because my colleagues were able to reach an agreement across the aisle. it's a wonderful moment because we're fulfilling our constitutional duty of checks and balances. is a moment of joy. we have to remember that

sometimes in our job, we have these moments that actually people say thank you for what you just did. they stop you in an airport, as the presiding officer knows, and say thank you. a lot of people are going to be saying that this week, because they know this is the right thing to do, regardless of people's political views, regardless of their religious beliefs, why we are so proud so many religious organizations are supporting this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i want to begin by thanking and recognizing the house judiciary chairman jerry navair and the entire house a quality caucus for introducing the house bill and starting up this effort. this legislation passed the house of representatives with a strong bipartisan vote of 267- 157 with all democrats and 47 republicans supporting the bill. i also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my >> lake who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. i want to thank the lead sponsor of the bill senator feinstein and also thank and recognize the hard work and effort of senator

collins, senator portman, senator sinema and so not -- senator tillis for their steadfast commitment. week wouldn't be where we are right now without their efforts. i also want to thank the staff of all of these offices for their long hours and hard work that went into this legislation including my own counsel and my chief of staff. lastly i want to thank all the advocates who have fought for marriage equality for decades. we are on the cusp of an historic vote in the senate. because of everybody's efforts. i decided in thinking about what i wanted to share today that i wanted to put a face on this debate and actually more accurately three faces.

let me introduce you to my dear friends, margaret denise and their daughter maria. and just tell you a little bit about them and how this underlying issue impacts them. the marriage and long partnership that my dear friends denise and margaret cher began in oklahoma in 1981. they were there as organizers working to pass the amendment in that state. they were organizing support for the era that might add a few simple words to the united states constitution. specifically equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state.

they met one another during a struggle for social justice and surprise no one who knew either denise or margaret. really the pursuit of equality and equity and justice has defined each of them as individuals as well as life partners. their professional and personal lives and the movement for women's rights, lgbtq rights, educational equity, affordable housing, economic justice, they are all inextricably linked. their first date occurred in december of 1981 over coffee in oklahoma city. the era campaign came to an unsuccessful close in 1982. they chose to move together to madison, wisconsin and i visibly

recall meeting them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984. denise hailed from milwaukee, wisconsin and margaret from webster city, iowa and they were incredibly committed to one another but they also determined as they got a little older that something was missing. actually i want to say someone was missing and denise and margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous but they never gave up. in 2003, after working with an adoption agency for many years, denise received a video of their daughter. this lovely eyed girl.

and the family as you now see here actually several years old. she is a sophomore at madison wisconsin campus a little bit dated. i wanted to put a face or a series of faces on this because it's such an all-american family and an all-american story that as everyone knows about the debate we are about to enter rs y president bill clinton signeds y into law a bill sponsored by then representative chuck schumer, aided in the defense and protection of one of the most fundamental freedoms that we have in our nation. that freedom, religious freedom. the bill was call 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 that have religious liberty differences, and we have wide variations of religious expressions in the united states. it's part of what makes us such a unique nation 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 brief the same -- believe the same as your next-door neighbor believes, but to have the right to freely have a faith of your choosing, change your faith at any point in you choose to, or to have no faith at all and be respected as an american. and quite frankly to be protected as an american. the religious freedom restoration act has not been altered in the 29 years since

it's 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. religious freedom restoration act didn'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 restricted means of furthering that compelling government interest. 29 years ago today. then today my colleagues move 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. what has been a controversial 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 move 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's 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, catholic vote, the center for urban renewal and education, the centennial institute, the christian employers alliance, concerned women for america, eagle forum, ethics and religious liberty commission, the faith and freedom he coalition, the family research council, the family policy alliance, the heritage foundation, the liberty council, lifeline children services, national religious broad casters, the u.s. 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's 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, maybe to place children in loving families, it puts them in jeopardy. and while some of my colleagues may say well, that's far-fetched, may i remind you the supreme court has already handed down a decision in the fulton and would remind them this continues to happen. catholic charities has been shut out of the child welfare system in illinois, in d.c., in california, in massachusetts

already. and then this bill is coming. let me tell you some of the problems with the bill because i've 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's 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 in this floor that 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 end tiz in this -- entity in this unless

the discrimination is for religious liberty. they're peculiarly left out. if there's discrimination against someone's religious liberty issues or their personal beliefs or 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've heard individuals say, well, it has a section in it that is literally titled no impact on religious liberty and conscience. that's the big, nice title of that section, section 6 of the bill. so let me read this 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. 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, or a pastor is not compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that they're olingsly oppose -- religiously opposed to. that's the whole religious section to it, the whole section. first it says it doesn't overturn the constitution. second it says pastors, rabbis, emoms don't have to oppose weddings they're religiously opposed to. that doesn't help. in fact, there's 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 principle purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion meaning an individual would first have to prove that your principle 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 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 may be the owners of that business have a personal religious belief and how they carry out their business but they would not have religious protections because they're 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. 29 years ago this congress said we were not going to impose beliefs on to people. today this congress said if you're a faith-based individual and you have a difference of conscience about marriage, too bad. you have to prove you're 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've had several of the sponsors that have told me section 7 covers everything else. makes sure it protects nonprofits. makes sure it protects all your tax exempt status, your grants. it's all in there. until you read the text. 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's in something else that's 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 the benefit or the status. it goes on to explain some of these things and ends with this. provided such benefits, status or right does not arise from a marriage. that's the qualifier. provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from a marriage. now i've handed this around and asked legal counsels explain to me what that means. the first response i get is,

well, that's a clear protection for individuals that are married, that if there's any right given to any other married couple, they get the same right. i was like that makes total sense. what about for entities because the word entity is in this list. and that's 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's going to be interpreted for entities. so it's left for the courts to decide in the days ahead how that's going to be interpreted. so what's been done with this? all these things have been brought up. we've had this text now for about 36 hours. it literally just got dropped on us. so we're about 36 hours -- so for about 36 hours we've been going through it. it's not long. it's about three pages. asking questions how does it

work, what happens with it. some individuals have said this is a real problem for religious liberty. we should fix this. others have said that's a good idea. let's make sure it's 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're 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, not having to prove your principle purpose. everything seems to nod their head and say oh, yeah, those are problems. multiple members have brought amendments and said let's fix it and yet they're being told over and over again no amendments. we're not going to fix it. you know what that tells me? these are not mistakes in the

drafting. this was purposeful. that's 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's a problem. after the obergefell decision was made, president obama spoke to the nation. you supported the obergefell decision from the supreme court. but then he said this. i know that americans of goodwill continue to hold the 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. 29 years ago today president clinton signed into law the religious freedom restoration act. and 29 years later congress is

saying mind. i find that a problem. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, before the senate finishes this evening, there's one more important piece of legislation we're passing today, which i want to tout -- the medical

marijuana and canabidal research act. i got to give credit to senators feinstein, grassley, and schatz. they've championed this legislation. and worked hard to see is that it's gotten the support of all the senators. and it would eliminate the red tape that hinders cannabis research, opening the dart for new, innovative research. if you're one of the millions of americans who deals with conditions like parkinson's or epilepsy or post-traumatic stress, cannabis might hold new options for managing these diseases buzz we need to do the research first. and the federal government has been woefully behind the times on this front. this bill will help fix that and equally important, i hope after passing this bill, the senate can make progress on other cannabis legislation, too. i'm still holding productive talks with democratic and republican colleagues in the

house and the senate on moving additional bipartisan cannabis legislation in the lame duck and we're going to try very, very hard to get it done. it's not easy, but we're making good progress. so i thank my colleagues for the excellent this morning bill and hope it -- excellent work on this bill and hope it portends more work to come. secondly you on roll call 355, i voted yea. it was my intention to vote nay. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear accept vatly in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 8454 which was received from the house sand at the desk. the presiding officer: officer report. mr. the clerk: h.r. 8454, an act to expand research on marijuana and for other purposes. mr. schumer: it is all right. it is a hard work to pronounce. i had trouble, too. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask that the bill be considered are aide third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is spaed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further

consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 820. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 820, honoring the 1 seeth anniversary of the reserve officers association now known as the reserve organization of america. the presiding officer: without objection, the subcommittee discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration, the senate now proceed to s. res. 827. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 827, supporting the goals and ideals of national domestic violence awareness month. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is disagreed to. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 836 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 836, permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and house wares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in senate buildings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask that the senate proceed to the resolution, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, november 17, handle ting the prayer and pledge -- and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate pro h. resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar

number 8454. -- that all time during thest count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that at that stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until today the senate advanced urgent quality to protect same-sex informational marriage the boa 62 -- 37. withdrawal of republicans voted yes with all democrats. the boat would require states to recognize a union is legally valid even if they take place in another state that does not recognize them. it also repeal the defense of marriage act cited 1996, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman under federal law. also senate republicans reelected senator mitch mcconnell as minority leader. off the floor, lawmakers overcome funding the government

passed december 16. watch live coverage of the senate here on cspan2. ♪ earlier a house panel looked at the legal and procedural issues related to feeding a cherokee nation delegate in the u.s. house. the principal chief of the cherokee nation, testified before the house rules committee. you can watch that tonight starting at nine eastern on cspan2. also see it on our free mobile video app c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media calm. >> the world changed in an instant. media comp was ready, internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality. because at media, we are built to keep you ahead. >> immediate comp support c-span as a public service along with these other television

providers. giving you a front receipt to democracy. >> meanwhile, the outgoing 20 and 70 conference, uses finals week to tackle and finish business such as different spinning fighting for the federal government which is sent to expire any summer 17th live on the cspan network and cspan outcome our free mobile video app, anytime on demand that cspan.org. republicans voted senator mitch mcconnell to be the parties leader again and he said senate republicans since 2007 coming into the republican leaders of the leaders of ect