don't be afraid to take risks. there still time to get started. the deadline is january 20, . for competition rules and tips on how to started visit our website at studentcam.org. >> today the u. s. senate will continue working on on a mare equality bill that would require states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally valid even if they've taken place in another state that doesn't recognize those unions. it will repeal the defense of marriage act which was signed in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman under federal law. a final vote is expected sometime this afternoon. live coverage on the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you. thank you, madam president. thank you for recognizing me. before the thanksgiving break, i plan to use my time today to talk about the respect for marriage act, which the presiding officer has had such an important role playing. i want to congratulate her on the incredible work she's done to get this over the finish line because we are on the verge of passing the respect for marriage act in the united states senate, and it is an historic piece of legislation to ensure that if a same sex or interracial couple of marries in

one state, every state has to honor that marriage. the federal government has to honor that marriage as well. there may be no right closer to the heart than marrying the one that you love. colorado understands that. and i was going to come down here, madam president, and talk about how over decades my state led the way on equality. we recognized civil unions in 2013. we banned conversion therapy in my state. we passed our own version of the equality act in colorado. i was going to come down here and tell you about how colorado understands what equality has come to mean in america in 2022. but in the last week i've been reminded again just how far we have to go. last sunday coloradans woke up

to the news that club q, a loving, accepting, 20-year-old lgbtq club in colorado springs, had been the target of a mass shooting. five coloradans were killed and at least 22 were injured. in the days since coloradans have described club q as a center of community building, a place where everyone could be their true selves and live without fear. club q's owner, nick gerzaka, said he founded the club to be, quote, a safe place for people to come and feel and understand that they are normal, that the way they feel is normal, and that there are people just like them. as a father, that's what i hope for my three daughters, and as a former school superintendent, that's what i wish for the children that i work for.

we want our kids to feel normal and loved and like they belong. but on november 19, these feelings of safety and acceptance that club q had built over two decades were shattered. on the same day that we recognized the trans day of remembrance, we added more names to this solemn toll in this country. when a violent young man, radicalized by hateful and divisive rhetoric, killed five people and forever changed a community. forever changed my state. in minutes he robbed from us brothers and sisters, daughters and sons, friends and loved ones who were there just being themselves, not bothering anybody. he took from us derrick rump, a

38-year-old bartender and co-owner of club q, who bought groceries for others during the hardest two months of the pandemic. daniel davis aston, madam president. 28 years old, a bar supervisor known as the master of silliness because of his contagious happiness and joy. kelly loving. kelly loving, madam president, 40 years old, who had just moved to colorado and was trying

to enjoy a weekend trip to colorado springs. ashley paugh, 35 years old, a devoted mother and nonprofit worker who loved hunting and fishing, like so many other coloradans, and was there to support the community. and raymond green vance, 22 years old -- 22 years old, grew up in colorado springs,

had just started a new job, and was saving up for his own apartment. i'm thinking of them, madam president, and their families and all those who survived this terrible tragedy in colorado, people who imagined that there was one space that you could go to feel safe, and then this happens. that fills me with rage that it happened. it fills me with sadness. it fills the entire senate with rage and sadness. and if it weren't for the courage of people like richard fiero and thomas james, the list of names i read, already too long, would have been longer. thomas james, a petty officer, second class in the navy, used his military crisis training to

help subdue the attacker. he said he jumped into action because he simply wanted to save the family that he found at club q. and richard fiero, in iraq and afghanistan, combat veteran, was watching a friend's performance with his wife, daughter, and friends inside the club when the gunfire started, and his protective instincts from four combat deployments kicked in. he said he went into combat mode. no one enjoying a night with their friends and their family should have to go into combat mode in the united states of america. that is not the country that i grew up in. it is our country today. it's the country that the pages in this institution are inheriting from us, my daughter's generation and the

children i used to work for in the denver public schools, they bear a burden that i never bore growing up in the united states. they've grown up living with a reasonable fear that they could be shot in their classrooms or in their churches or in a grocery store or in a bar that's the one safe place in their community that they could go. in 2020, the pages that are here may not know this -- in 2020, the leading cause of death for kids in america was guns. guns. not car accidents, not drugs, but guns. in one study, of 29 industrialized countries, the united states accounted for 97% of firearm deaths among children four years old and younger.

that's almost 100% of the kids that are dying on planet earth from gunfire, who are four years old and younger. what a disgrace. what a disgrace. we shouldn't need to count on a stranger's bravery when we go to a birthday party. we shouldn't need to count on a stranger's bravery when we go to a grocery store. it was just last year when i spoke on this floor to remember the lives we lost in colorado at the king supers in boulder, and it's with unimaginable pain that i'm here once again on this floor with a list of names of people who lost their lives

senselessly. colorado is hurting. we are tired of this, madam president. for more than two decades we've had to grieve over one incident after another. so while we stand here on the verge of taking a historic trip, historic step toward equality, a vitally important step toward equality, we are reminded once again of just how much work is left to do to give our children the safe and accepting future that they deserve, that they want to have, that we're obligated to give them. we haven't finished that work in the united states senate. earlier this year the supreme

court stripped away the first fundamental rights since reconstruction by overturning a 50-year precedent in roe v. wade, and in that decision the majority took aim at the fundamental right of privacy, and with it the right of every single american to marry whom they love. and it is a profound reminder once again, a reminder to everybody in this body and to the country that our history has been from the very beginning a battle between the highest ideals that humans have ever written down on the page, the words and the constitution of the united states, and the worst impulses in human history. and when a justice of the supreme court writes that if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today, we're in that struggle today. when a 22-year-old can walk into

a club and kill five people and wound more than 20 people, we're in that struggle today. the reason we're here today doing important work that we're doing to protect -- in the respect, or in the marriage act that we're passing today is that americans understand that no good comes from hoarding freedoms and equality. they know that when we take the opposite view, we act against our best traditions, against our highest ideals. as a nation, we will never flourish if we choose to depend on a permanent underclass, deprived of some or all of the rights of freedoms others enjoy. free people do not remain free by denying freedom to others. and today the senate of the united states stands on the precipice of advancing freedom,

of advancing equality, of moving us closer to our highest ideals. but tomorrow we have more work to do to live up to the words of our constitution and to realize the promise of equality for all of our citizens. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> we are ready. >> as you know we just had a meeting. what i explained to all of them is that i can work with anyone who's willing to work to get our work to make america energy independent, to secure our borders, crs are not we want to be, but if we cannot get our work done now, the outgoing majority if they don't want to work with us we can get this work done in january as well. but we had an in-depth conversation about the security of the border and that will come across killing a younger generation. ways we can make energy at our natural gas fields do more to help more injured, our allies and others. in ways that if it is possible work together to get our spending in control because of how much has been wasted throughout. take questions from you.

>> what about the railroad? [inaudible question] >> i don't think anybody should be spending any time with nick fuentes. he has no place in this republican party. i think president trump came out four times and condemned him and didn't know who he was. >> he said -- [inaudible] >> i condemn his ideology. it has no place in society. >> what about the former president -- [inaudible] >> did the president know who he was? >> you know what, so he knew kanye west and he did know for intake is. yes, sir. [inaudible question] >> now the republicans will have a majority in dealing with the border or in dealing with energy. energy. >> i think the administration got an indication it's going to be different. >> how so? >> i invited the president to go to the border with me.

i explained to the president he asked about the borders i told m utah, mr. lee, for himself and proposes numbered 6482 to amendment numbered 6487. mr. lee: today as the popular winds flow against the man and woman of faith. we do a disservice to all americans if we elevate the rights of one group at the expense of another. on the one hand there's no existing threat to same-sex marriage. it is and will remain legal nationwide regardless of the outcome of this legislation before us, the respect for marriage act. on the other hand, we have

current real, sustained ongoing assaults on religious freedom. how we perceive today will do nothing to the status quo of same-sex marriage in this country. it's legal and will remain legal regardless of the outcome of this legislation. it will, however, if enacted have profound cons questionses for people -- consequences for people of faith. in the wake of the dobbs decision, proponents of this legislation conjured up a series of hypothetical scenarios, resulting in an imagined threat to the ability of same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the privileges of marriage. the rhetorical slippery slope goes something like this, first, they claim that some unknown, unnamed state, on the verge of passing an unknown, yet to be proposed or imagined law prohibiting same-sex marriage. next, they imagine that federal

district courts will uphold this hypothetical state law, despite the crystal-clear direction within the dobbs and obergefell opinions from the supreme court. should that adventure of unlikely hypotheticals transpire, they envision a case making its way all the way up to the supreme court of the united states. all of this despite the lack of political will anywhere in the united states to prohibit same-sex marriage. should that happen, proponents of this bill contend that there is a nonzero chance that one justice could decide to analyze the right to marry, not for the prism of substantive due process, as it has been since obergefell was decided in 2015, but rather through the lens of the 14th amendment's privileges or miewnts clause -- or immiewnlts clause. proopponents site a single line within justice thomas' concurring opinion and suggest

that one justice could effectively destroy legal recognition of same-sex marriage. not just prospectively, but undoing currently legal same-sex marriage. this, madam president, is a complete fantasy. i'm not aware of a single state in the united states threatening to pass any law infringing the ability of any same-sex couples to marry or enjoy the privileges associated with marriage. nor am i aware of a single state threatening to invalidate within their borders marriages entered into in other states. nor is it at all clear that justice thomas himself was suggesting that obergefell be overturned. he was suggesting that it be analyzed, like all substantive due process jurisprudence to figure out whether there might be another provision of the constitution under which it might be more appropriate.

they're attributing to him statements he didn't make. they're attributing to him analysis he didn't even undertake in that one statement regarding the doctrine of stare decisis. then there are attributing to states intentions they do not have and have not expressed. my colleagues have yet to offer, even a single example of a same-sex marriage threatened by any current or pending state legislation. not one. not a single one. and they intentionally misinterpret justice thomas' concurring opinion in dobbs and claim that the sky is falling. but it's just not happening. unfortunately, we are aware of case after case where individuals, charities, small businesses, religious schools, and religious institutions are being hauled into course to defend themselves for living out their faith.

these people are not committing hate crimes against their neighbors. no, they're not abusing peers for their personal choices, either. no, they're being hauled into courts across this country for serving the poor, the needy, and the refugee in compliance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. in texas the united states conference of catholic bishops is currently being sued for operating in accordance with catholic beliefs regarding marriage, while providing foster homes for unaccompanied minor children. now, opponents proponents of this bill claim that these charities will be free to continue to operate. however, in that case, the question is whether because the conference of catholic bishops receives federal funding to help with its work, it might be operating under color of law. if accepting grants and licenses

from the government makes you an actor under color of law, then many of our religious charities and schools will be threatened by this legislation, which relies on that unnarrowed, undefined phrase. either the u.s. conference of catholic bishops can cease operating according to its religious tenets or abandon its god-given mission to care for the refugee. in at least three other cases, religious child care service agencies, deemed to be acting under color of law, are being shut out of foster care and adoption. these religious ministries can either abandon and cease to act according to their convictions, their religious convictions about marriage, or they can abandon the orphan. this nation and our orphans rely

on these charities. we cannot, and must not, force that decision on them. that isn't who we are. from the very moment of our founding, we've been a nation that has welcomed people of all beliefs and of no belief at all. in recent years the obama administration, through the u.s. department of education, compiled a so-called shame list outlining more than 200 faith-based colleges and universities seeking religious exemptions from title 9 guidance on transgender and sex discrimination. it is highly likely these organizations could also risk losing their 501(c)(3) status. madam president, considering that we're in the process of hiring 87,000 new agents within

the internal revenue service, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some of these new irs agents will be deployed specifically to review the tax-exempt status of some of these traditionally exempt religious schools. these colleges and universities can either cease operating according to their religious convictions or run the risk of losing their ability to provide quality education at reduced prices. we may well find that they will not be able to do both, and that would be a tragedy. dr. andrew fox created a chaplaincy program at the austin fire department, where he served as lead chaplain in a volunteer capacity for eight years, earning the trust and respect of local firefighters. in a personal blog, nothing connected to his work, just a personal blog, dr. fox shared

his religious views, his religious views specifically regarding marriage. city officials demanded he recant his statements and apologize for the harm that his blog post allegedly caused. he explained that he intended only to foster discussion and not cause offense, and he apologized if anyone was offended. his apology apparently wasn't enough for city officials, who demanded total compliance with their prefers views on marriage, views that didn't embrace his own religious beliefs. they forced dr. fox to hand in his uniform. he could keep his job or his beliefs, but not both. we should not be surprised by the current state of affairs. after all, it was abundantly clear during the obergefell oral argument before the supreme court that this threat to

religious nonprofits would be forthcoming. the prescient exchange between just alito and the then solicitor general forecast the hostility and corresponding threat to religious organizations. justice alito asked whether should states be required to recognize same-sex marriage religious universities could lose their tax-exempt status. the response from solicitor general virelli was chilling. he said, quote, it's certainly going to be an issue. i don't deny that. i don't deny that, justice alito. it's going to be an issue, closed quote. it is an issue today, and under this legislation it will only get worse tomorrow unless we take affirmative steps to prevent that from happening. we have the opportunity to do so here, a be we shouldn't -- and

we shouldn't miss it. unlike the hypothetical but entirely nonexistent marriages being threatened or discriminated against, these religious organizations are currently, right now, in court fighting for their god-given and constitutionally protected rights to live and operate according to their beliefs and conscience. they're being targeted and harassed by those who would force them to abandon their convictions and embrace the convictions preferred by the government. sadly, the hostages at risk in this standoff are those who ben fingerprinted from the charitable work of these institutions, the poor, the hungry, the refugee, the student, and the orphan. instead of resolving the concern posed by justice alito, this legislation will put the weighty thumb of government on the scale against religious organizations and individuals. now, they say don't worry, you

can still believe as you wish, but if in living out your faith you offend the views sanctioned by the government you will suffer the consequences. what do we get for this heavy sacrifice of religious freedom? are we alleviating the suffering of same-sex families, about to be destroyed by government interference? no. as i've said, we haven't heard of even one potential threat to same-sex marriage. not one. the only outcome we can expect from this legislation is for religious individuals, businesses, and institutions to spend more time and more money defending their god-given rights in court. in our pluralistic society, we must be willing to compromise and adapt so that we might live peacefully -- peaceably with one another. in that spirit of compromise,

let us ensure that we're protecting families, both traditional and same-sex families, and that we're protecting the right to belief as we wish, and live out those beliefs without government interference. i believe we can do both. in fact, i know we can do both. now, the collins-baldwin amendment takes a step in the right direction, and i'm grateful for that. will be eyes, imams and pastors should never be forced to perform a marriage contemporarily to their -- contrary to their beliefs. but religious liberty is so much more than marriage, and it entails so much more than what might go on within the four walls of a mosque, a synagogue, or a church. it certainly entails and must include the ability of people to practice their faith, not only at church but at home and in the public square.

in the hope that we can come to a place where we respect each other, i have offered an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly minimize the threats to these religious organizations and individuals. i'm at the table. i'm willing to compromise. in the spirit of compromise, i've publicly stated, and he reiterate here again today, that i will support the legislation if my amendment is adopted. my amendment simply prohibits the federal government from discriminating against schools, businesses, and objections based on their religious beliefs about same-sex marriage. that's all it does. it's very simple. and i'm grateful that we're going to have the chance to vote on it later today. i'm also grateful to the work of my friend and colleague, senator dan sullivan from alaska, who, working together with several of my other republican colleagues,

helped secure and schedule this vote. i'm grateful to him for that every effort. my amendment prevents the internal revenue service, among other things, from revoking the tax-exempt status of these charities and organizations simply because they act according to their beliefs about the divine purpose of marriage. it prevents the department of education from targeting schools with honor codes based on the fact that they've got provisions in their honor codes based on religious beliefs. it protects individuals from being denied business licenses or grants or other statuses based on their views about marriage. it protects americans who wish to add -- who wish to act according to their religious beliefs from being forced to abandon their god-given mandates to love, give, and serve the poor, the orphan, and the

refugee. if we allow the government to threaten their ability to do so, then the religious liberty of every american is in peril. that's why i would ask those who have doubts about this to reconsider their doubts about my amendment. if they object to my amendment and are inclined to vote against it based on the fact that they regard it as unnecessary, then why not pass it? this is a legitimate concern that some may argue, i've been told by many of the bill sponsors, that my amendment is unnecessary because, according to them, the collins substitute amendment contains protections that already accommodate this concern. the cot lins substitute amendment does in fact contain some protections. i'm grateful those were included and that is a meaningful step in

the right direction. i must point out, however, it doesn't do what my amendment does. and, therefore, doesn't do what many of its proponents are claiming. nowhere in that legislation is a statement prohibiting the federal government from taking adverse action against an individual or an entity based on a sincere religious belief interest same-sex marriage, whether that religious belief is one that embraces or does not embrace same-sex marriage. it does not do that. it instead says that nothing in this act shall be construed to alter or deny any status or benefit of any group. those are two very different things. that language does not do what my amendment does. you see, the threat is not and never was based on what the act

itself would do. the act doesn't purport to itself deny or alter any status or benefit or right. so by taking that away, they're paying lip service to the need for my amendment, but they're not actually addressing it. the threat has been present at least since obergefell itself was decided for the reasons that prompted justice alito to ask then the solicitor general to acknowledge that it was going to be an issue. those same reasons exist today. they don't go away because of this legislation. if anything they're enhanced. the risk is enhanced as a result of this legislation. that's why this is the perfect opportunity, it is the right opportunity, it may well be the only opportunity to make sure that as we're understand taking a legislative effort to codify

rights for one group of americans, we don't do so in a particularly un-american way, that is, enhance the rights of some at the expense of others. that's not how we role. that's -- how we roll. that's not how we do things in this country. we can protect both of these interests at the same time just as we can walk and chew gum. and so for those who would say the lee amendment isn't necessary because the collins amendment already takes care of it, that's just not true. and even if it were true, why not accept the lee amendment anyway. which begs the question, why wouldn't anyone want to deny the federal government the authority to retaliate against individuals, nonprofits and other entities based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs. think about that for a minute.

why wouldn't they want to deny that very power from a government that may wield it in a way that is categorically abusive. for my republican friends who are sympathetic to the need for my amendment and are going to support it, i'd ask that if they support it and if the amendment fails, that you not support the underlying bill. because if you support my amendment, hopefully, presumably that means because you agree that it does something, that it does something necessary. it certainly doesn't counteract, contradict or undermine the stated purpose of this bill in any way. so if you believe that it's necessary and you're going to vote for it, if it fails you should oppose passage of this

bill unless or until the lee amendment is adopted. we could get this done. i understand that it's not going to happen as long as there are at least ten republicans willing to join with every democrat in order to support this legislation. but if even three of the 12 republicans considering support for this legislation in the end, if even three of them supporting my amendment would decide not to support the bill unless or until the lee amendment was added, i'm confidence, indeed i'm certain that it could and would ultimately be adopted. as i said, madam president, we must be willing to compromise, to protect the interests of all. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment which would assure that all americans would have certain rights and that their religious beliefs and their moral convictions will be explicitly protected and provide some comfort that congress is

not purposely passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion. thank you, madam president. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: in 2015 -- let me -- if you don't mind, let me back up real quick. i need to call some things up. i call up amendment number 6493 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for mr. rubio, proposes an amendment numbered 6493 to amendment numbered 6487. mr. lankford: i'd also like to call up number 6496 and ask that it also be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. lankford, proposes an amendment numbered 6496 to amendment numbered 6487. mr. lankford: in 2015 after the obergefell decision came down from the supreme court, declaring same-sex as the law of the land, president obama made a statement to the country. he came and spoke to the country when there was a lot of heat and a lot of emotion going around the country around that particular decision. he was supportive of the obergefell decision but he made this statement. at that time president obama said i know that americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue.

opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply-held religious beliefs. all of us who welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact, recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom. it's a wise statement from president obama during that time period to be able to say there are going to be a lot of views. and we as americans need to have a wide set of conversations about same-sex marriage and about how we revere marriage in general. there are different religious views, different perspectives. now we're approaching a bill that will be voted on in just about two hours. this bill has a section in it dealing with marriage and it says it has certain religious protections in it. as i read the bill initially to be able to check the religious protections that are in it, i

was surprised at some things that were in it and i was surprised of some of the things that were left out. so our team went to work writing an amendment to address the specific issues in this bill. we narrowly tailored this bill for our amendment and we addressed it. why? because we were the only ones that thought there was a problem? actually, no. we weren't the only ones that saw this bill as a problem dealing with religious liberty. in fact religious liberty groups all over the country and religious institutions started contacting our office and putting out their own statements in opposition to this bill saying the bill as currently written even with the, quote, unquote, religious protections in it, do not actually protect the religious liberty of all americans. just a short list of this. groups that are in strong opposition to this bill.

the alliance defending freedom. the american association of christian schools, catholic vote, the center for urban renewal and education, the centennial institute, the christian employees alliance, concerned women for america, eagle forum, ethics and public policy center, the ethics and religious liberty commission, faith and freedom coalition, the family research council, the family policy alliance, focus on the family, heritage foundation, liberty council, lifeline children services, the national religious broadcasters, religious freedom institute, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, samaritan's purse. the list goes on and on and on of organizations and entities that read through this bill and said there are major concerns with the religious liberty portions of this bill. now, i'm well aware that there are also groups that had put out

a statement and said they're comfortable with it, that it would protect them, but other organizations are putting out statements and saying yeah, that's nice for you, but it actually wouldn't protect us and our members. there are three major concerns that are in the bill itself on the issue of religious liberty. and if these three things are not changed in this bill, it will put the issue of religious liberty at great risk for millions of americans who as president obama said, hold sincerely-held beliefs that are different. the first is this. there's a section in the very beginning of the bill where it says any entity that's acting under the color of state law. and that it puts all the restrictions there on them. that's a broadening actually of obergefell actually did. this says any entity actually or individual acting under the color of state law. what does that mean? most people don't live under that kind of counsel. this would be an entity that a

state actually hires to fulfill something for them on behalf of the state. so let me give you a for instance on this. operate prison may be one of those examples but it could also be adoption agencies, foster care agencies. it could be an entity that actually does housing for immigrant and migrant families. it could be a homeless shelter that's contracted by the state to be able to provide services. it could be any number of entities. many of these entities are actually done by religious organizations that the state actually contracts with them to be able to do those services. in this new statute if this passes in two hours, there would be a new restriction on those religious entities that formerly held contracts that would then very well would be pushed out for providing those services. let me remind you our nation functions under not just government operations but cooperations with families and

with faith-based entities and nonprofit entities around the country. our safety net i talk about often, the first safety net are the families of the second safety net are nonprofit agencies and the third safety net is government. and many governments partner with nonprofit, including faith-based entities to be able to carry out social services. for those entities they would now have a target on them because they're functioning under the color of state law and they would have new restrictions. so their choice would be either not to provide those services or to abandon their faith. now, what are the challenges to them in particular in this? the first challenge is they would face litigation from the attorney general's office. the second challenge would be they now face a new what's called a private right of action. that's the second area of my amendment -- that my amendment specifically deals with. first it corrects this looping

into faith-based entities saying you're under new restrictions. the second would be this private right of action. the private right of action would now be anyone who is functioning, quote, unquote, under the clar of -- color of state law would now be a target from an individual that senses that they have been harmed by the entity. now, it's not defined what harm means in this new statute. it just says if someone feels they've been harmed by trks they would -- by it, they would now have the opportunity to be able to sue someone else because of that. it's not hard for me to be able to say something that's fairly obvious. that is, if congress creates a new right to sue people, there will be a lot more lawsuits. and there will be new tests and evaluations on that. for anyone who believes that this new right to be able to sue people won't be used and won't be used quickly by lawyers and outside groups all around the country, you're kidding yourself. what will happen in the days ahead will be -- there will be

who knows, countless numbers of lawsuits testing every new definition of what under the color of state law, what a partnership with government might look like. whether that is a vendor that's at an official state event or whether that is an entity that's providing something like a private prison or adoption services, they'll all face lawsuits and challenges in the days ahead by entrepreneurial attorneys testing out the limits of this new law. we don't know what those limits will be determined by the courts. we have no idea because it's not defined what it means when it says they've been harmed and what that definition might mean to different courts around the country. but we do know this is going to be a major issue. my first question is, why is this even included in this bill at all? there's already a protection that the state has the opportunity to be able to make sure they are anne forcing --

they are anne forcing the law within their -- they're enforcing the law within their state. in new private right of action, though, goes above and beyond that and gives the opportunity for entrepreneurial lawyers to be able to practice their craft at the detaintoriment ofent -- at the detriment of entities all over otocountry. what it really does is silences any individual who may disagree and discourages any faith-based entity from cooperating with government, to be able to say, if you want to partner with the state in any area, you probably aren't welcome they are because you don't share the same beliefs. the third big issue we try to correct in this that's a major problem this bill is in the bill, if you actually read through the text, 7-a. the 7-a section is designed to be able to protect the rights of individuals or entities not to be able to lose their nonprofit status or grants or contracts or

whatever it may be, but it has very specific language that's built into this. the specific language is, if that benefit or right does not arise from a marriage. now, it's very carefully written, and when i pass it around to different attorneys say what does this mean, it's been fascinating to hear the different interpretations of this statute. this particular statute is written so vague at that it's very difficult to understand what it does mean, but it is very clear what it doesn't mean. when it says all these different rights that have been granted based on does not arise from a marriage, it doesn't include your belief about marriage. it just says does not arise from a marriage. now, why do i say that? our amendment actually includes the belief about marriage included into it to make it very, very clear that if you have a different belief about marriage, you won't lose your nonprofit status. but that's not included in this

statute. what's included in the statute is just does not arise from a marriage. that will be a problem in the courts, and, unfortunately, that will have to be litigated until that's actually determined what it would mean. what we could do instead is pass my amendment. the amendment makes very clear. what i hear from even some of the bill's sponsors, no, this is what it's intended to mean. i look at it and say that's not what it actually says. let's have that section say what you actually intended for it to say to make it clear. let's take away the private right of action so that people around the country aren't perpetually worried about a lawsuit coming at them constantly and let's a way this under the color of law section so there's not a fear faith-based nonprofits not partnering with their government for fear that the government would step in and say, oh, if

you're going to partner with us, then you have to surrender these beliefs. some have said, none of those are what we intended. courts don't rule on intentions. they rule on the text we put out. that's three major problems in this text that if they're not corrected, and if they're not corrected today, my fear is president obama's statement of just seven years ago that we would not recognize different viewpoints and revere our deep commitment to religious freedom would today be ignored. i encourage the the adoption of my amendment, and i encourage everyone in this body to ask a very simple question of themselves -- is today about respecting the rooties of all? or is it -- respecting the rights of all or is it about

silencing some and respecting others? i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i come to the

floor today in support of the respect for marriage act. i ask my full remarks be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i supreme court declared that same-sex marriages are a right. despite the strong support, the united states code does not reflect that consensus in america. current legislation allows states and the federal government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. while it is true that the supreme court has held this law is not enforceable, it still represents congress' last word on the subject. the american people rightly expect their representatives to bring our laws in line with their beliefs. it's time for the senate to sell the issue. the respect for marriage act which passed the house with overwhelming bipartisan support, including the support by the way of 46 republicans on the house

side, simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who were validly married under the laws of one state to know that their marriage will be recognized by the federal government and by other states if they move. this is all in accordance with well-established supreme court precedent. settling this is well within the constitutional authority of us in congress. the full faith and credit clause is spart of our constitution. since the bipartisan passage of this bill by the house of representatives earlier this year in response to concerns over religious liberty, this already narrow bill has been significantly is amended in the senate to include robust religious liberty protections. by working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis with liberty scholars, faith organizations, senate colleagues, including some i see on the floor today, other stakeholders, we have developed a substitute amendment that constains protections for people of faith. it has five key changes to the

underlying bill. these are prejudice liberty provisions that we havarded to it. it has an express knowledge that decent and diverse people hold views. this is an important statement that that is implications that protect religious liberty. second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience provisions under the first amendment and federal laws including the powerful protections provided by the religious freedom restoration act. third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits, including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, education funding, licenses, accreditation, certification and many others because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about parental. this protects everything from the tax status of nonprofits to the contracts between faith-based adoption providers and the government. forum, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations

including churches, mosques, religious schools and others cannot be required to provide facilities, goods or services for marriage celebrations against their will. fifth, it has an explicit prohibition on the recognition of polygamist marriages. in a joint letter to the senate, eight different faith-based organizations including the mormon church, the seventh day adventist church, the council or christian colleges and universities, the center for public justice, the and campaign, and the first amendment partnership, all of them concluded that our religious liberty protections protect the core religious freedom concerns raised by the bill including tax-exempt status , and eligibility for licenses, certification and accreditation. and that, if passed, would

continue to build on the congressional wisdom remained by the ability of 1993. that's these religious groups. that's what they say by it. they helped write the language. a group of leading religious liberty scholars and advocates for religious liberty have analyzed the bill. these include professor doug laycock who won two foundational religious liberty indications before the u.s. supreme court. on balance, a group of these distinguished professors determined that this bill is, quote, an advance for religious liberty, end quote. because, as they say you the protections are important. notwithstanding these important protections, in the opinion of leading experts in the field, the critics of this bill continue tow level accusations about what this bill does that are simply not accurate. first, some critics claim that this bill provides frowned grounds for the irs or other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status. this couldn't be further from

the truth. section 7-a of our amendment forbids the outcome that that our criticced are warning of, to target tax-exempt status any other right or benefit of nonreligious objections. those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female organizations are disregarding the statutory text, end quote. in addition toss the statutory prohibition, this includes a clear statement from congress, including the belief that marriage is between one man and woman come from decent and honorable premises and are due respect. this statement distinguishes the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the belief that interracial marriage is wrong. this distinction is important and rather than portraying those who belief in traditional marriage as bigots represents a

national policy while also protecting the rights of same-sex marriage couples. that's the key. second, some contracts argument in this bill will lead to actions against vetteds trying to live according to their beliefs. this is also false. the bill contains no litigation tools that would be used against private religious eventsties. even ones that receive a majority of their funding from the state. to quote from professor laycock's analysis, quote, closes little or no new risk to religious liberty beyond those that already exist, end quote. third, some crickets continue to make the bewildering argument at that this could lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. no state allows bigamy or polygamy. our amendment explicitly says nothing in this act shall be construed to require or federal

recognition of marriages between two individuals, end quote. finally, some crickets argue that this bill is sufficient because it does not contain rights for private businesses about or entities applied beyond the concept of this i will b this is not at fair criticism. this bill poses no new risks to religious organizations while containing protections for people of faith. organize the -- of course the bill does not cover every dispute that may arise. but it does address the disputes that could arise because of this bill. in conclusion, i urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new religious liberty provisions. take a look at them. i think hope you'll be able to support the respect for marriage act. the substitute is a well-crafted piece of legislation that protects people of faith as well as same-sex marriage couples. a statement from the council for christian colleges and universities accurately states that our amendment, and i quote, sends a strong bipartisan

message to congress, the administration, and the public that lgbtq rights can coexist with religious freedom protections and the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical, end quote. i think that's the major point here. they can coexist. that's what our legislation provens. that's why it everybody does the -- that's why it deserves the support of our colleagues. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support we saw in the house of representatives h. house of representatives. the american people want us toss settle is this issue and many couples who are married are counting on us to he can are and protect their marriage and give them the peace of mind that they deserve. i yield back my time.

ms. lummis: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. ms. lummis: i'd like to seek recognition. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. ms. lummis: my days since the respect for marriage act has been amend have fairly brutal, self-soul-searching.

entirely avoidable, i might add, had i simply chosen to vote no. the bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. i accept god's word, including god's word as to the definition of marriage. i support my church's adherence to that biblical pronouncement. i support wyoming statute which codifies that definition. i find solace in people and organizations that share my beliefs. i and many like me have been vilified and despised by some who disagree with our beliefs. they do not withhold bitter infective. they use their own hateful speech to make sure that i and others who believe as i do know that we are hated and despised by them. americans on the other side of

this issue can relate to ill treatment as well. so why have i strayed with such anguish from a path that conforms to my beliefs, my instruction, my faith to vote for the respect for marriage act? the answer to that question lies in our history, in how we got here as a nation and as a people and in where we are as a nation and as a people today. in the 1600's, colonizers roger williams of rhode island and william penn of pennsylvania cited scripture and the protestant reformers to defer to god as the judge of conscience. williams referred to religious liberty as liberty of the soul.

the charter of the colony of rhode island required religious tolerance that all may freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concernments. george whitefield's groundbreaking message, without which these united states never would have come into being, emphasized an individual's personal relationship with god where previously the individual deferred to the church. these became foundational for our current american approach to the relationship between church and state. in 2015, the united states supreme court in its obergefell decision established a constitutional right to same-sex unions, using the term

marriage. tens of thousands of same-sex american couples have married in reliance on that supreme court decision. the term marriage now has two meanings -- the biblical and the secular. the respect for marriage act by design references neither definition. it uses the term individuals. the act recognizes that both definitions exist and codifies that a marriage legally entered in one state will be legally accepted by the others. further, the act provides protection from persecution by a government authority towards a church and its organizations of religious instruction that adhere only to the biblical

definition. these are turbulent times for our nation. americans address each other in more crude and cruel terms than ever in my lifetime. it is jarring and unbecoming of us as human beings. it is highly intolerant, and frequently the most so when expressed by those who advocate for tolerance. many of us ask ourselves, our nation is so divided, when will this end and how will it end? just as when our nation was founded, when the new world tore itself from the old, people of diverse faiths, beliefs, and backgrounds had to come to terms with each other, had to tolerate the seemingly intolerable about each other's

views, and had to respect each other's rights even before the constitution enumerated those rights. they have to tolerate each other in order to survive as a nation. somehow most certainly with divine guidance they did. for the sake of our nation today and its survival, we do well by taking this step, not embracing or validating each other's devoutly held views but by the simple act of tolerating them. and that, madam president, explains my vote. i yield back.

ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, before i begin my remarks, let me commend the senator from wyoming for her very moving and perceptive comments. i was very glad to be here on the senate floor to witness her speech, which i think imparts valuable lessons for all of us to follow. madam president, i rise today in support of the respect for marriage act, which would ensure that all married couples, including same-sex and interracial couples, are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, regardless of the state in which they live.

madam president, let us remember that we're talking about our family members, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. i am proud to have stood, and i will continue to stand with them in the efforts to secure their rights while also steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. with regard to marriage equality, the respect for marriage act accomplishes two primary goals. first, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one state is recognized by other states, regardless of the couple's sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. second, it would require the

federal government to recognize valid marriages between two individuals. our bill is also noteworthy, however, for the way that it advances the cause of religious liberty. indeed, the substitute amendment that senator baldwin and i introduced with senators portman, sinema, and tillis unambiguously adds significant religious liberty and conscience protections to the legislation. these protections were developed in consultation with and have been endorsed by a wide array of faith-based groups. these include the church of jesus christ of latter-day

saints, the seventh day adventists church, the national association of evangelicals, the union of orthodox jewish congregations, the council for christian colleges and universities, the and campaign, the institutional religious freedom alliance, the center for public justice, and the first amendment partnership. madam president, every single one of these entities believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. every single one of them. they support the religious liberty provisions in the substitute because these provisions provide important safeguards against government retaliation as well as

meaningful recognition of their beliefs embodied in public policy. prominent constitutional scholars agree. in a letter led by professor douglas laycock of the university of virginia school of law, four constitutional scholars who have long advocated for religious liberty concluded that the substitute amendment is, quote, an advance for religious liberty, end quote. they call it a good and important step for the liberty of believers to follow their traditional views of marriage. now, madam president, let me address some of the unfounded criticisms of our amendment. it has been suggested by some that the amended respect for

marriage act would somehow demean individuals who have traditional views on marriage. to the contrary. this legislation would explicitly recognize in federal law for the first time that such views and the people who hold them are due proper respect. it reads, diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. therefore, congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect. this finding directly rebuts the claim that the bill can be

construed to establish a public policy against people of faith. it does precisely the opposite, madam president. opponents point to the example of an institution that lost its tax-exempt status on the basis of ricially discriminatory policies that were contrary to public policy. that analogy ignores the important finding in our bill, as professor laycock and his colleagues explained, quote, explicit congressional affirmation that the traditional male-female definition of marriage is reasonable and honorable, would counter the analogy to racism and weaken the grounds for relying on the bob jones -- that's a supreme court case -- to justify rejecting

traditional believers' religious freedom claims. despite this strong policy statement, some have continued to argue that the respect for marriage act, with its substitute amendment, could still somehow be used to deprive religious organizations of their tax-exempt status. we heard that on the floor today. this is simply false. to avoid any ambiguity, the amendment states in section 7-a, that this bill cannot be used to deny or alter such status as well as the tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification,

accreditation, claim, or defense. in light of these provisions, the constitutional scholars concluded that those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female marriage are disregarding the statutory text, the very text of our bill would prohibit that. madam president, opponents of this legislation are also mistaken in asserting that it would provide new grounds on which to sue churches, nonprofit religious organizations, and people of faith based on their religious beliefs. this too is inaccurate. the bill simply requires government actors to recognize

valid marriages and provide marriage-based rights to which married couples are entitled and it provides a way to pursue claims against those government actors only in instances where that recognition is denied. government actors are already required to recognize same-sex marriages under the supreme court's decision in obergefell. and the enforcement provisions in our amendment do not apply to individuals or religious organization who are not government actors. as the first amendment partnership, an organization dedicated to protecting religious freedom for americans of all faiths wrote in its

analysis, if you cannot be sued now under obergefell, then you still can't be sued under the respect for marriage act. of course providing a way to pursue rights in court when those rights are unlawfully denied is not unusual. indeed, other amendments filed to this legislation contain private causes of action. the amendment offered by our colleague from utah, senator lee, ironically would empower individuals to bring lawsuits even on the basis of threatened violations. madam president, notably, not only would the amended respect for marriage act not diminish or

abrogate any religious liberty or conscience protection, it also would provide affirmative protections in litigation defenses for people and organizations of faith that do not exist under current law. for instance, the amendment contains an affirmative protection that prohibits any religious nonprofit organization, including churches, synagogue, temples, mosques, religious schools, and faith-based social agencies from being forced to provide goods, services, or accommodations in connection with the solemnization or celebration of a marriage against their beliefs. moreover, the legislation flatly prohibits any litigation for

such a denial. madam president, the leader of one religious group recently wrote that our legislation, as amended, sends a strong bipartisan message to congress, the administration, and the public that lgbtq rights can coexist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical. i agree, and that is what our bill does. it advances the rights of couples, same-sex and interracial couples who are married to one another, and it

advances religious liberty. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and historic step forward for religious liberty and for ensuring the dignity and respect for all americans. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes before the roll call vote begins. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. i'm glad i'm here on the floor today to hear the previous speakers. i thank senator collins of maine. that was a thoughtful presentation about the substance of this bill and addressed many of the worries and criticisms that were raised on the floor earlier. i think there is one thing that stuck with me, if there is a protection with obergefell, it is the same protection under

this bill, it is not an expansion of rights. i want to thank the senator from wyoming. that was an outstanding statement. it really was. i join senator collins in commending you for saying it. i'm sure your position is not an easy one at home. it reflects your appeal to us in this chamber and to the nation to really seize this opportunity for tolerance. if there was ever a time we need more of that in this nation, i can't imagine when it was. we need it now more than ever. it wasn't but just a few days ago that there was a mass shooting involving those who were at a gay nightclub and innocent people were killed. now, more than ever, we need to stand up and say there needs to be tolerance in america, and your statement really touched my heart. i thank you so much for coming to the floor and delivering it. i take a look at this and say many times i have been critical

of supreme court justices, particularly supreme court justice thomas, we disagree more than agree. but i have to be grateful for him bringing us to this moment. it was his statement in the dobbs decision about other supreme court decisions that led us to this introduction of the respect for marriage act. i thank the senators who led in that effort. i want to make sure that the record reflects senator baldwin, senator collins, senator portman, who spoke on the floor earlier, senator sinema and senator tillis, the original corpses -- cosponsors of the respect for marriage act. i went back to read obergefell and what the justice wrote in that majority opinion is that there is acknowledgment for that protection based on due process an equal protections under the

law for same-sex marriage. fundamental, he said we don't have to wait on the legislature to spell this out, it already exists. and that, to me, says how powerful this issue is. my wife and i are blessed to have so many friends in same-sex marriages that are wonderful people in so many respects. it has really opened our eyes to the reality of life for so many good americans who simply want to have the opportunity under the law to marry the people they love. the vast majority of americans believe in that. i do. and i think what we're trying to do today is to protect that right as best we can. maybe what we're doing is not as expansive as obergefell, but it is a genuine good-faith effort. senator lee in his amendment claims that it is necessary for his amendment to protect religious liberty, but he ignores the robust protection ps for religious liberty already in the respect for marriage act.

the bipartisan substitute has been quoted over and over but it bears repeating. quote, nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious -- under the constitution of the united states or federal law. of course the free exercise of religion must be protected, no one disputes that and that's why the bipartisan substitute amendment makes clear this bill does not override existing religious freedom protections. i commend those religious organizations who stepped forward, read this bill carefully and supported it publicly. it is across the religious spectrum and spectrum of america. i think they understand the lengths that we went to, those who supported it as well as those who wrote it in protecting the free exercise of religion. but we must remember this critical first amendment right is a shield, not a sword. it cannot and must be be wielded

to use against individuals solely based on who they love. we've seen too many who tried to turn this crusade the wrong way. i hope today's vote on the united states senate floor makes it clear that we are here to protect civil rights and not enable civil rights violations. we need to protect lgbtq families and ensure that same-sex marriages are offered the same stability and dignity that all marriages are entitled to. for these reasons, i oppose senator lee's amendment and encourage my colleagues do the same and yield the floor. the presiding officer: there are two minutes equally provided for amendment 64282 offered by -- 6482 offered by the senator from utah, mr. lee. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 49. the 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 6496 offered by the senator from oklahoma, mr. lankford. mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. the senate will be in order. all members take conversations outside of the chamber. seasonal oklahoma. lainchg -- the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, thank you. this amendment is very, very narrowly tailored. it's in response to the bill. i've talked to several of the bill sponsors and they told me their intent is to be able to protect religious liberty, which i appreciate that to be

able to have a balanced perspective in this particular bill because people on both sides have disagreements in this area. the problem is there are three certain areas in the test that do not meet that standard of being balanced protection. this amendment goes into those three areas, corrects the text to make sure it actually says it's going to protect religious liberty. it's three areas. one is a very wide perspective operating under the color of state law. that's a very broad net. we tried to correct that one. the seconds deals with private acts on this which increases the number of lawsuits. if congress passes a law that opens a new lane for lawsuits there will be lots of lawsuits in that area. the third is 7-a talks about protecting rights if it does rise in a marriage, not from a belief in a marriage. we're trying to correct that text to make sure it's not just the action of marriage but also the belief of marriage. that's what this amendment does.

the presiding officer: the gentleman's time expired. ms. baldwin: senator lankford's amendment would create an exemption far beyond current law for partnerships between government and faith-based organizations, the latter of which continue to enjoy robust religious liberty and conscience protections that remain intact under the respect for marriage act. this amendment would upend a carefully negotiated, bipartisan compromise that protects the interest of religious organizations and individuals while affording the dignity of marriage recognition to same-sex and interracial couples. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 45. the nays are 52. and the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number

6493 offered by the senator from oklahoma mr. lankford for the senator from florida, mr. rubio. the senator from oklahoma. all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be so. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 52, and the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment number 6488 and 6489 are withdrawn, amendment 6487 is agreed to. the cloture motion with respect to h.r. 8404 is withdrawn and the bill is considered read a third time. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 8404, as amended.

the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, may i have order, please? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will come to order. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, shortly we will have the opportunity to make history by passing important legislation that will advance two goals. one, the goal of marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples, and second, the goal of strengthening religious liability and conscience protections. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this legislation, and i also want to thank the broad array of faith-based groups who worked with us on the religious liberty

provisions of our bill. i want to thank senator baldwin, who has been the lead on this bill, senator sinema, who's worked so hard, senator portman, who's poured his heart and soul into it, and senator tillis in particular. but i also want to thank all of the republicans who supported this. i know it has not been easy, but they've done the right thing. thank you, mr. president. i urge a vote in favor of the bill. ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the debate be extended to an additional minute so i might recognize the leader after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. baldwin: thank you. i want to express, as did my colleague, senator collins, that there are many thanks to go

around. thank you, mr. leader. i want to thank the original bill sponsors in the house and senate, congressman nadler and senator feinstein and the team of senators portman, collins, sinema and tillis, that has brought us to a final vote on the respect for marriage act. and i want to thank the advocates who have been fighting for marriage equality for decades. and i want to recognize the millions of same-sex and interracial couples who have truly made this moment possible by living their true selves and changing the hearts and minds of people around this country. many of these same-sex and interracial couples are fatherful. they are -- fearful. they are worried their rights, responsibilities and freedoms they enjoy through civil marriage could be stripped away. right now people -- right now

the senate has the opportunity to put those fears to rest and give millions of people in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty, dignity, and respect that they need and deserve. by passing this bill, we are showing that the american government and people see them and respect them. i encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the respect for marriage act and move our country forward, and i yield to our leader. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: can we have order please, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, for millions of americans, today is a very good day, an important day, a day that's been a long time in coming. the senate is passing the respect for marriage act. today the long, but inexorable march toward greater equality

advances forward. by passing this bill, the senate's sending a message to every american -- sending a message that every american needs to hear. no matter who you are or who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law. as the chamber knows, this is personal to me, and the first people i will call when this bill passes will be my daughter and her wife. i want to thank my colleagues, join the others, in making this legislation others, and especially the teams of senators baldwin and sinema, collins, tillis and portman. to all of you, i say bravo. job well done. and to all who made the choice to support this bill, thank you. none of this was inevitable. at the urging of my colleagues, we took the calculated risk of holding off on a vote back in september because they believed with more time we could build enough bipartisan support to

push this bill over the finish line. today we have vindication. the wait was well worth it. i thank my colleagues for their work, and above all, i wantoning thank the american people, the vast majority of whom understand deep in their hearts that the inexorable march toward equality is what america is all about. i yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the question comes on the bill as amended. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 61, the nays are 36. the bill as amended has passed. mr. schumer: mr. president. what a great day. what a great day. and now, moving forward, as we always try to do in the senate, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration

of calendar 1133, and that cloture motions with respect to calendar numbers 1133, 1147, 1148, and 1129 ripen at 11:30 a.m. on wednesday, november 30. further, that at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, the senate vote on moitions to invote cloture on 1133 and 1147. if cloture is invoked on the nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m. on wednesday. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, camille e. velez-rive of puerto rico to be united states district judge for the district of puerto rico. ms. sinema: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague,

senator lummis, from wyoming. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. lummis: i rise today to underscore the crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the respect for marriage act, which was just passed by the senate, and to ensure the legislative intent behind these provisions is crystal clear. as you know, the united states supreme court's decision in obergefell v. hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. when obergefell was argued, then solicitor general virilli was asked whether recognizing a excuse me right to same-sex marriage would -- a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would lead to other not

five profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered in light of the supreme court's decision in bob jones university v. united states. solicitor general virilli responded that, quote, it's certainly going to be an issue, end quote. in recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the united states supreme court did not reconsider the bob jones university precedent, leaving this issue unresolved. the respect for marriage act, with the substitute amendment that i co-spobsored with senators -- cosponsored with senators sinema, balled win, portman and tillis answers this question, and a number of others, providing strong protections for religious liberty, speam when combined with the -- especially when combined with the religious freedom restoration act. i want to thank my friend, the senator from arizona, for her hard work on this bill, and

willingness to address key questions around religious liberty in a thoughtful and bipartisan way. it is my understanding that section 2 of the respect for marriage act, in light of the supreme court's bob jones v. united states decision in 1983, would prevent the internal revenue service from successfully arguing that the united states now has a, quote, national policy favoring same-sex marriage, and would prevent the irs from using this national policy argument to deny tax-exempt status to religious objections. i want to ask my friend, the senator from arizona, is this your understanding as well? ms. sinema: mr. president. i thank my friend, the senator from wyoming. yes, this is my understanding. section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on the role of gender in marriage exists today, based on

both decent and honorable religious and philosophical beliefs, the bill states that all views are due proper respect by the federal government. furthermore, section 2 of this bill states that the federal government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our national policy regarding marriage. section 2 of this bill was explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the bob jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable to this bill. bob jones university v. u.s. decided in 1983 before congress enacted the religious freedom restoration act upheld the irs' decision to rescind bob jones university's tax exemption on the basis of a quote, firm and unyielding national policy against racial discrimination. section 2 affirms that these beliefs are held by reasonable and sincere people, based on decent and honorable religious

or philosophical premises. this finding pre-empts an analogy between the court's analysis in the bob jones university case, about race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy respecting diverse views about the role of gender and marriage. i'd like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill, section 4, which grants full faith and credit under article 4, section 1 of the united states constitution to marriages performed in each of our states, strengthening federalism and making our excusable structure work. this states that no person, quote, acting under color of state law, end quote, may deny full faith and credit to any, quote, public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state pertaining to a marriage between two individuals on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin of those individuals, end quote. the phrase, acting under the color of state law, is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to the actions of state

and local government officers and employees with respect to rights guaranteed by the united states constitution and federal law. senator, is it your understanding that this phrase is intended to incorporate the united states supreme court's interpretation of the meaning of acting under color of state law? ms. lummis: yes, it is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the bill is intended to incorporate the united states supreme court's interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the case rendell baker v. cohn and ncaa v. tarkanian cases. i'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no church or religious nonprofit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a marriage ceremony under this bill. is it your understanding that

section 6-b bars, quote, any civil claim or cause of action, unquote, without exception, relating to a church or religious organization's refusal to solemnize or celebrate a marriage under this section, and the text does not state that it can be overruled by a court in finding a, quote, compelling governmental interest? ms. sinema: yes, it is my understanding that section 6-b bars any civil claim or cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage, and that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action. the text of section 7 also makes no reference to compelling governmental interests. section 7 provides that nothing in this bill should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt status, tax treatment,

contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses, and other agreements not arising for a marriage. in conjunction with section 2 of this bill, which eliminates the successful analogy to the bob jones case, is it your understanding, senator, that section 7 would prevent the internal revenue service from using the respect for marriage act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage? ms. lummis: yes, that is my understanding as well, regarding the scope of section 7. this bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious liberty protections since the religious freedom restoration act in 1993. this legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the

halls of congress. i'd like to thank my friend from arizona for her tireless work on these issues, and her willingness to work together as always. mr. president, thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold her request? ms. lummis: yes. i withhold. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. president, i rise today to ask the senate to send h.r. 2930, the safeguarding tribal objects of patrimony act, to the president's desk for his signature. the need for this legislation is pretty straightforward. in 2016 is the governor of the pueblo of acyma learned that a sacred shield had been stolen

and was about to be sold to the highest bidder in paris. when governor riley informed me about this robbery of the pueblo's cultural patory money, i called on the state department to take all possible actions to halt the auction. thankfully, intense public outcry and diplomatic pressure were enough to halt the illegal sale of a tribe's cultural patrimony. in november of 2019, more than three years avenue the shield was put on the auction block, it was voluntarily returned to the pueblo. however, this only happened because of intense public outcry and notoriety. in most cases like this the item has been sold or simply disappears into a private collection. under current federal law, it's a crime to sell certain protect ed native american cultural objects, things like the akima shield here in the united states. but there is still no federal

law prohibit being the export of stolen cultural items and requiring the cooperation of foreign governments in recovering them. in many cases tribes in new mexico and across our nation have been forced to effectively pay a ransom to recover their sacred items or had to stand by and watch the sale of their priceless religious and cultural items in international markets. the lack of an explicit ban on trafficking these items to foreign countries was actually cited by the french government when they initially declined to stop the auction of the acoma shield. grave rob something illegal in every single state in the u.s. and yet we allow tribal religious objects, many of which were stolen literally from gravesites, to be exported and sold in foreign auction houses. we cannot let this loophole a louse foreign trade -- that

allows foreign trade in native american religious heritage to go on for even one more day. i would urge my colleagues to pass this bill today and end this awful practice. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h.r. 2930, which was received from the house and is at the desk and that the bill be considered a read a third time and pass and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i'd like to begin my brief comments here this evening by acknowledging the senator from new mexico and agreeing so much with him on this very, very important issue as we seek to

protect objects of patory money -- patrimony. whether in new mexico or my state of alaska or in the home state of the chairman of the indian affairs committee, it is -- it has been a travesty, it has been a crime that we have seen many of these objects that have been taken as art collections that have been taken with no appreciation of the heritage,. richness, of the traditions and the respect to the native people to whom they belong. and so the stop act, this safeguard tribal objects of patrimony act of 2021, is significant. i am proud to be the lead republican cosponsor along with senator heinrich on this. it is an issue that many in my state have been urging action on. and so i do not rise this

evening to object to passage of the stop act but to raise at the same time i'm acknowledging the significance of this, i also want to raise another bill that is also very important to my state, h.r. 441, we call it the don young alaska native health care transfer act. this is something that i've been working on for several congresses now with my friend, the late-congressman young. we took three land transferred bills. we consolidated them into one. we thought it was a pretty simple effort. all we're asking to do is to convey ihs lands to two of our alaska native health consortia as well as one of the tribes in the interior part of the state. we passed stand-alone legislation on these bills earlier in this congress. but instead of passing that legislation, the house did what the house often does -- they

amended it with technical amendments, they sent it back here as one consolidated bill. that's h.r. 441. but, again, it's about public health, delivery of health care to alaska native health care people in rural and underserved villages, a many of which are off the road system of but these simple land transfers would enable construction projects to move forward, to reconstruct and to construct in some case new health care facilities, to provide care to alaska native people, to also ramp up the delivery of clean, safe drinking water and sanitation facilities in rural villages that are so key to improving public health. i think we all would agree that basic services such as water, sanitation pretty important. so everything we can do to help facilitate that. i have pushed the urgent but the tongue on these land conveyance

issues because time is running out of construction seasons are very, very limited in alaska, and so i have been trying to help facilitate that. i have good good commitments from my colleagues that are here on the floor this evening to help us move through this process on our side or certainly on the house side as well so that we can see final resolution on the don young alaska native health care transfers act. i luke forward to working -- i look forward to working with them on that. so, having said this, i will not object to unanimous consent to advance the stop act this evening. mr.hine. mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from had i i had. mr. schatz: far with it for me to delay the passage of this law, which i know has been worked on by native people and staffers for many, many years, i

wanted to make my private commitment to the senator from alaska, the vice chair of the committee, we are absolutely committed one way or another to passing the don young lands package. i think want to make it clear on the floor. thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. heinrich: mr. president, through the chair, i just want to take a moment to articulate the same commitment publicly, and we look forward to working with my colleague from alaska, who's been so helpful in putting the stop act to a successful resolution. i look forward to working with letter to get the don young package moved as well. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

energy independent, to secure our borders. the what if we cannot get our work done now, the outgoing majority do not want to work with this, we can get this done in january as well. get an in-depth conversation about the security of the border and that is all coming across to the younger generation. ways that we can make energy enter natural gas than others. ways if it is impossible for spending and control. the questions for you. >> what about railroads? rex i don't think anybody should be spending any time he has no place in this republican party. think president trump came out four times and did not know who he was. [inaudible] works i condemn his ideology.

[inaudible] >> did the president know who he was. [inaudible] or problems going to have a health house majority. >> i think your administration got it indication is going to be different. i advise the president to go the border with mayfair explain the present asked about the board i told him just in el paso one overhang of a freeway 70000 people have come across. if we would send people back to the country they came from that

stop coming for the border agents themselves that sitting and working the processes we could have somebody else in the job they could be out front. i explained to the president what i. see the videos literally shooting tracers international guards. she didn't pay the cartel she had her feet cut off input on fire. also explained us not just in the city every city today is now a border city. our own junior high junior high at the age of 13 but when her 50 that no pills at school. it's killing our youngest generation. coming from china making these cartels wealthy.

you've got to lean on a president xi appeared even got to stop the cartel's and mike's precedent to the president was it's a different situation now it has become so bad we need to have our own military embedded with the bordered. the control of the border is lost. that is why ask homeland security to resign. income generate third and not allow them to continue. [inaudible] >> it's unfortunate we are here. the president told us all this was solved long before the election. the last moment in the last hour to rush the bill to the floor. nobody once the economy to fail.

nobody wants us to happen. the administration told us one thing they told us about inflation. this is a negotiation selected by this commission. celebrated by this administration now right before holiday season the pharmacy to ship their goods and others to have to rush something. i think it will pass but it is unfortunate this is how were running our economy today. we need an economy that is strong. we are passing a bill to force the rail workers to work with gas prices he simply cannot depend by continues to rise here going into winter and wondering if you can afford your winter heating. that is not an economy that is

strong. making a change in congress. this are going to focus on for the american people part of going to an economy that is strong. we are going to have an economy that has energy prices that are lower. to have money to fill up the tank. we are going to secure our border. we are going to have a government that is accountable. no longer is it ministration went to look you in the eye and lie to you. [inaudible] clicks on twitter under elon musk. >> government is going to go after someone who wants to free speech? what do they have to look at twitter about? want to go to the american public about whether they can have an opinion on? i think the first amendment

stands up. i think they should stop picking on elon musk. elon musk has succeeded in many places i would bet on him more than the government going after him. that's one thing we talk about accountability will note let government with their political views. [inaudible] the meeting between trump and kanye west. >> the president will have meetings of who he wants. his views nowhere in the republican party or the country itself. i think kanye west i don't think he should associate with him as well. i'm very clear in my position. let mate walk-through on ukraine that is a legitimate question. i remember coming here in 2015 a legislative session speak therer up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schatz: madam president, i understand the chair has an announcement. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a communication regarding the resignation regarding senator inhofe. without objection, the letter will be printed in the record and spread upon the journal. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent thats s. 5068 be discharged from the committee on energy and natural resources and referred to the committee on indian affairs. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it recess until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, november 30, and that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the velez-rive nomination. if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the

motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately noift of the senate -- notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: there will be two roll call votes beginning at 11:30 a.m. and two roll call votes at 2:15 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of senator portman. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i come to the floor today for the 26th consecutive week that the senate's been in session to highlight the very latest from russia's illegal, unprovoked, and deadly assault on ukraine. this continues to be a critical time for ukraine and ukraine's freedom fighters. it's a classic fight for freedom. at this critical juncture, right as the winter months approach, russia's morale is flagging and ukrainians are making steady gains on the battlefield. it is absolutely vital that the united states and allies continues to stand by the people of ukraine. we can't pull back now. ukraine is a democracy, they're a great ally of ours. they just want to live in peace with their neighbors. including russia. over the objections of 140 countries in the united nations, russia launched a brutal invasion of ukraine on february 24.

that was nine months ago, and they haven't let up. while we sill brated -- celebrated thanksgiving this past week in america, ukrainians ebb diewrd a deadly -- endured a deadry weak of russian attacks and bombardments on civilian population centers far from the front lines. they didn't get a thanksgiving bake from the war. russia's military is tip conting to bomb inside ukraine, even today. civilian targets. what's interesting is that at the same time ukraine is winning on the battlefield. over half of ukraine's russian-occupied territory has now been liberated. remember at one point ukraine included occupied territory up here near kiev, the capital, and all this area. most of that area has now been liberated. and these are the areas where the russians continue to occupy. crimea, which they took in 2014.

parts of the dnesk they took in 2014 and these additional areas. even today, the ukrainians are making progress in these areas. on the battlefield, the ukrainians, with our help and help from about 50 countries around the world, are making progress. and yet, russia continues to launch these missiles into ukraine. even in a place like bachmut, where the russians were making progress using mercenary forces, the wagner group it's called, their months-long assault by these russian forces has turned into a grinding battle of attrition. russia's made little to no gains. in this region, which is right here, even there, where the vaunted wagner group is fighting, they're not making significant progress at all. by the way, in april of 2018, i

visited bachmut. i was able to go as part of a congressional fact-finding trip, and the ukrainian military allowed me to go to the border area, the line of contact being between the occupied part in 2014 and the rest of ukraine. that's where i learned that the ukrainians were going to fight, because i talked to a lot of soldiers there about what was going on, and when there was discussion several years later about whether ukrainians would fight if the russians invaded, as it appeared clear they were going to do, i had no doubt the russians were going to fight, because i met the soldiers and talked to them. they were hardened. they knew what russia are done to their country, family, and freedom. and they have fought. here's a photo of me back in 2018 in this area of bakhmut. you have ukrainian soldiers walking around freely.

here's a photograph of bakhmut today, to show you the difference. when i was there, there were sniper activity, you could hear artillery in the distance. today, months and months of russia's brutal assault has led to bakhmut looking like this. here is the ukrainian soldier today. it's a hell scape, straight from the western front of world war i, isn't it? relentless artillery bombardments forced soldiers into the tremps like in world war ii -- into the trenches like in world war ii. they're doing it as the temperatures plummet. and winter approaches. they're undeterred, and they continue to fight hard. the response to ukraine making progress on the battlefield is by russia to launch these

missiles into the interior. i really think it's out of frustration. it's a cowardly approach. they can't win on the battlefield, so they're sitting in russia and bombing these civilian targets. here's one you can see, it's an energy grid in ukraine. this is in western ukraine. it's just relentless bombing. they're killing people when they do this, by the way. not just taking out energy infrastructure, they're killing civilians, including energy workers. again, it's a cowardly approach. they're killing civilians and noncombatants, needlessly slaughtering men, women, children. they're attacking residential areas, and they have been all along. apartment buildings, hospitals, community buildings, and of course, causing cities to go dark as they go into winter, dark and cold. web we were in ukraine just a few weeks ago senator koons and

myself, senator coons and i went to get additional information in uke, we got to see this firsthand. this is in kiev, the capital of ukraine, this is where the control center was for this energy utility. this had happened just a few days before we got there. so the russians are targeting, very specifically, energy to knock out electricity, knock out heating, knock out water. that night, by the way, we had dinner with ukrainian parliamentarians, it was a dinner meeting to talk about what we can do as congress and they can do as parliamentarians to help the ukrainian people right now. we had to have the meal by flashlight and candles, because there was no electricity. the systemic bombing of civilian infrastructure, throwing these cities into the dark and cold without running water, has been met by heroic repair by

ukrainians. i imagine this is already repaired. again, the russians keep bombing. they need our help to be able to help repair and provide more equipment, as this equipment is being destroyed by the russians. today, i was pleased to see that secretary of state anton bring blinken a-- blinken announced an additional $53 million by the ups to rebuild this grid that keeps getting destroyed by the russians. this will include distribution transformers, circuit breakers, disconnectors, vehicles and other key equipment. it brings u.s. support for the ukraine energy structure since february up to about $145 million. it's not just us, and it shouldn't be. our allies need to step forward to help ukraine in this difficult moment. and they are. finland will send energy equipment to ukraine this week. the e.u., european union, will

give ukraine 200 transformers and 40 heavy generators to support the energy sectors. the e.u. has given more than anyone else. this is needed, because the attacks continue. the recent attacks in kiev that we saw earlier when i was there three weeks ago, 300,000 ukrainian citizens in kiev had lost power when we were there. i'm told that there are currently about 130,000 kiev residents losing power, without electricity. the ukrainian military has been making progress. they've had a huge success in kherson was the first provincial and only that the russians occupied, and the first major city they took. the ukrainian military carefully and over time orchestrated a great victory there. about three weeks ago, it was liberated. as this photo shows, ukrainian

citizens have welcomed these soldiers as heroes. you've probably seen some of this on the tv news, but they've embraced these soldiers and put the ukrainian flags back up on all the buildings. they've told these soldiers, and others, including the investigators from the international criminal court, of the war crimes, the unthinkable war crimes committed by the russian occupies while they were there. so the russians were forced out of kherson because of very effective work by the ukrainians using the weapons that we and the europeans provided them, including longer-range missiles, taking out their supplies, taking out their ability to resupply themselves. what's happened now is that russia, once they have left kherson, have started a bombing campaign, just nonstop bombing, in the very city that they occupied only a few weeks ago. they're saying if we can't have it, we're going to bomb it into

oblivion. ukrainians are having now, after having lived through the occupation, to try to live through this bombing. i saw the deputy prime minister of ukraine recently urged civilians to leave kherson and go to other parts of ukraine during this winter due to russian attacks. that's what has to be done. the soldiers will stay and fight, but the russians are just constantly attacking kherson. this area, this oblast, the provincial area, ten people have recently been killed, 54 injured. they shelled, the russians did, this area around here 49 times on thanksgiving day. 49 missiles and bombs on thanksgiving day. hitting residential buildings, a shipyard, school grounds, gas pipelines, everything.

the russian shelling hit a school being used as a distribution point for humanitarian aid in the zap reezia area. they had a school that was handing out humanitarian assistance and it was attacked by a russian missile. zaporizhzhia. it killed a social worker. it killed two other people. you probably saw in eastern ukraine recently, the russians attacked a maternity hospital, and they again killed innocent civilians. they actually killed a newborn baby, a baby boy, critically injured a doctor. the overnight explosion left a smalltown hospital there in total disrepair, just a crumble of bricks and scattered metal, medical supplies, by the way, strewn all over the streets. the newborn who was killed was

only 2 days old. 2 days old. but he had a name. sergei. his death will not be forgotten in ukraine. these are flagrant human rights abuses and war crimes. as a zelenskyy presidential advisor said, there's no military logic here. they just want to take revenge on the locals. this is a huge war crime, end quote. i agree. vladimir putin is trying to bring ukraine to its knees. you know what it's doing? it's only strengthening the resolve, the amazing resolve of the ukrainian people. and russia's beginning to feel the negative impacts of this war more and more. the sanctions are beginning to bite more. we should strengthen them even more in my view. it's having an impact. the russian banking sector has been hit. the russian central bank reported a record $14- $14 -- a

record $14.7 billion was withdrawn by the russians last month. people are taking their money and running. this was mostly untrained recruits. a november report by the central bank warned that russia's gdp would face a sharper contraction of 7.1% in the fourth this year compared to last year in the previous two quarters. so the economy is going the wrong way in russia. last week, the economy officially entered into a recession. so this war is having an impact on russia, final lip. pentagon central bank chairman said it will get worse still. we need to look at things soberly. things may get worse, we understand that, she said. i sure hope so. that countries around the world see what's happening here and tighten these sanctions. for many russian companies, the reality of war sank in with the

latest desperate mobilization. this is according to the german institute for security in international affairs. i think that's true. while there are a lot of russians who still believe the propaganda and the disinformation from the kremlin about ukraine and therefore continue to fight innocent ukrainians, their neighbors a, other russians now understand that this battle is not against the enemy. this battle is a failed ploy by vladimir putin to achieve his misguided ambitions to re-create the russian empire, the russian federation. that's what it's about. it's not about ukraine. i want to take a moment to talk about the aid package that's being developed right now on the floor to send to ukraine to continue our help at this the crucial moment and to make an important point, which is that oversight of our assistance to ukraine is very important. it's important to me, it's foreign my constituents, it's important to my colleagues. we need to be sure there are significant accountability

measures in place. got to know where the aid is going. got no know exactly where it's going, who's using it and how. no one is rocketing that we give ukraine -- no one is advocating that we give ukraine a blank check and, by the way, they have not gotten a blank check. president zelenskyy greece with that. he want -- agrees with that. he knows it's essential for continued aid. not just from us but from the other countries providing assistance. there is an accounting firm from the united states involved that follows all the aid from the government. also, the world bank sends is a report about all the aid that goes to the state aid, the government aid part, and they constantly audit that and report on that. so there are mechanisms in place already. could they be strengthened? probably so. with regard to military equipment, we put in place policies to have end-use monitoring of the military weapons going to ukraine.

i visited with the 101st airborne in poland a few weeks ago and talked a lot about the how the end-use monitoring is going. we finallily have a military attache in country and so people can follow where these weapons are going. honestly, so far, so good. i got to tell thank you, i'm surprised by this, but there has been absolutely no documented instance yet of diversion of u.s.-supplied weapons, to russia, to belarus, to third parties. now, that may happen in the future, but this end-use montana fearing is carefully ensuring that -- monitoring is carefully ensuring that you get the serial number, you find out where it's gimmick and you check on it. this is important. this is something that the ukrainian government wants to do and our military certainly wants to do it. the ukrainian government has been transparent in terms of the funding because it's in their interest.

it's in all of our interest r they hear questions about oversight coming from congress, and they understand the accountability. so we need to continue the assistance at this crucial time, as we've said tonight. but we need to be sure it continues to be accountable. you know, vladimir putin, when he decided to initiate this invasion, which so many people around the world thought he would never do because it made no sense, but when he did this he thought it would be a walk in the park. he thought the russian army would roll in and the ukrainians would roll over. it turned out to be a walk through hell for his army and his government. why? because the ukrainian people showed grit and determination and the military fought more effectively than anybody expected. it's because ukraine's morale and leadership has not faltered, even against overwhelming odds and much larger military, and many more missiles. they have not faltered.

i've seen this mindset in ukraine on my visits there. ist been there eight or ten times since 2014. it goes from president dell zell all the wait down to the -- from president zelenskyy all the wait down to the soldiers in the trenches, to the civilians doing their part. "the wall street journal" recently reported that during the russian occupation of kherson, the head doctor at the hospital refused to bow down to the russian invaders, setting the tone for a citywide resistance. he said, you can shoot me if you want, but i'm not going to do what you want. i have a responsibility at this hospital, and i am going to carry it out for the citizens of kherson. the journal reports that their resistance lasted eight months. they faked a covid outbreak to keep risings from steeling their equipment. -- from stealing their

equipment. they spied for ukrainian forces. the fighting spirit should come as no surprise. they're a proud, patriotic, and tough people. for perhaps one of the best illustrations of this courage i'm reminded of the grandmother who gave sunflower seeds to invading soldiers way back in february when they first came in. see said, give these to somebody to plant at your burial place because you're going to die for invading our country. and you might want to have something beautiful be growing at your gravesite. that was a grave ukrainian grandmother. i remember the photograph of a woman about five feet tall telling this to a russian soldier a foot or so taller. who can blame the patriotic defiance that they've shown? today half of ukraine's infrastructure is gone. kyiv is operating on scheduled

blackouts that last four hours. ukraine's economy continues to suffer. war crimes continue to be revealed day after day. the actions by the kremlin to knowingly destroy and attack civilian areas and kill innocent ukrainians recent means to dampen ukrainian resolve. but instead it encourages fortitude among it the ranks of the ukrainian fighters. that's how they feel. when i come down to the floor each week to discuss the status of this war, i point outside that this is where the battle is occurring -- of freedom over tyranny, of democracy over authoritarianism. this is where it's being waged here in our generation now. this is why we need to stand up and be counted. if we don't join allies in condemning it and helping ukraine defend itself, what happens? the world becomes a much more dangerous and volatile place. iran is watching, china is

watching, others are watching. this is not the time for the united states and the allies around the world, more than 50 of them who have provided military assistance, to pull back. at a meeting in romania today, the neigh know secretary-general reaffirmed that nato's door to membership remains open to ukraine. been open since 2008. i found this to be very welcome news, something i've called on for years. i don't think russia would be in ukraine if it had happened. ukraine is making gains on the battlefield, as i said. russian forces and equipment are being destroyed and depleted. russian war crimes continue to be depleted and the russian people are beginning to feel the effects of this failed war. i think frankly that vladimir putin believes his supply of missiles will outlast the patience of the free world. i think that's what he believes. that's why he continues this

senseless war. i think he believes he'll continue to be able to have enough missiles to outlast the patience of the western world, of us, of freedom-loving people. i don't think that's accurate. but we need to prove him wrong. we need to keep the pressure up. to end with a resolution to this senseless, brutal wars, i believe with the help of the united states and our allies, democracy can and will prevail over tyranny and authoritarianism and that, of course, would send the right message echoed across the world, a message that tyranny and authoritarianism must not triumph. thank you, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until stands in recess until

>> the u.s. senate passed the marriage equality bill that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally valid. even if they have taken place in another state that does not recognize as unions appeared would also repeal the defense of marriage act signed in 1996 which defined marriages as between one man and one woman under federal law. that lot now goes back to the u.s. house. later this week members will be working on judicial nominations. watch live coverage of the senate here on cspan2. >> president biden wasn't michigan talking but his administration's efforts to build an economy that he says will benefit everyone. his remarks came off semi conductor plants. the president assured the american people no one will be left behind with his economic agenda. ♪ [cheering]