James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the next point of our business today is going to be the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that is coming up in a couple of votes from now. This is simply an amendment to be able to clarify one section of that.

Mr. LANKFORD. This amendment simply clarifies one area. Faith-based groups have reached out and said they understand this and are supportive of this, but they would like to get clarity in one section. I am going to just read this section to you. As it currently reads in 7(b), it says: This title is subject to the applicability of religious employment set out in Section 702(a), which is the Civil Rights Act. What we are asking for is very straightforward. Everyone has received a copy of this. It just changes that language to read it to say: This division shall not be construed to require a religious entity described in Section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make an accommodation that would violate the entity's religion. It is very straightforward. It deals only with religious entities. It reinforces the Civil Rights Act. I think it was an oversight in the way this was written. There are some faith-based groups saying: We are uncomfortable with this. It is very narrowly tailored in the way it is written. I, frankly, would accept this as a voice vote, as well, if we would like to voice this right now.

Mr. LANKFORD. Do I have time?

Mr. LANKFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is another time for me to be back on this floor again to talk about an issue I have talked about before, but it is a little bit different this time. I have brought to this floor several times and have asked for unanimous consent for a very, very simple bill called the Conscience Protection Act. The Conscience Protection Act is a bill that would protect religious liberty and freedom and conscience benefits for healthcare workers across the country. It is really not that controversial. In fact, let me show you how noncontroversial this really is. When the church amendments, years ago--decades ago, even--were put in by Congress to be able to protect the conscience rights of individuals and entities that object to performing or assisting an abortion or a sterilization in violation of their religious belief and conscience, that passed this body 92 to 1. So 92 to 1, this body voted and said: Of course, we want to protect the rights of individuals and not have to be compelled to perform an abortion if it is against their moral faith. That seems normal. In a normal conversation everywhere else, that would be straightforward and simple--until now. Here is what is happening now: A nurse who had told her employer that she did not want to perform an abortion, that she had a moral objection to that, worked in this hospital. One day, the hospital was running short on staff, and so they called her in, didn't tell her what the procedure was, and when she walks into the surgery area, the doctor looks at her and says: Don't hate me--meaning, we know full well what your belief is--but we are short-staffed, and we need another nurse; you are going to do this. The hospital informed her: You will lose your job if you don't do this right now, when everyone knew what her moral conviction was. Now, the way that the law is set up, it is set up to say, for that person who had an entity deliberately violate her moral conscience, then the government steps in and presses against the employer and says: You can't do that. That is the way it is supposed to work. In fact, that is the way it was working until Xavier Becerra came in to HHS, looked at the case, and dropped it and said: You get no recourse-- because the administration is pro-abortion. It doesn't matter what your belief is; it is what the administration's belief is. So the response to that is pretty straightforward: Allow an individual who has been harmed to have what is called a private right of action; that they don't have to wait for government to intervene on their behalf to have a private right of action so that an individual, if government doesn't intervene on their behalf, they can intervene. I have brought that to this floor several times, and I have been told: That is controversial. That is divisive. Then this week, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act on the White House lawn with a special feature in it called a private right of action. So if individuals who felt--and the language says--that they were harmed because of the disagreement of others on their same-sex marriage, they didn't have to wait on government to be able to intervene on their behalf; they could do it. I was told this was belt-and-suspenders. I was told, of course, the government is going to step in on their behalf; but in case they don't, they need a private right of action so that they can stand up for their own beliefs. It is fascinating to me that what I have asked for for people of conscience who don't want to perform abortions but are compelled to do so by their employer, that was a radical concept, that we couldn't have a private right of action for them, but it was required in the Respect for Marriage Act. In fact, I brought an amendment to take that out to say: This is going to lead to a lot of lawsuits. And my colleagues said: Oh, no. Oh, no. And voted against that. So now I am going to ask a very simple question: Is this body going to give a private right of action to some people they philosophically believe in, but other people they philosophically don't believe in don't get that same right? Are we going to discriminate today against people of faith and say: You do not get this right; other people do? That is my simple question for today. This is not a radical request. This is a real-life issue that is occurring right now, where this administration will not intervene on behalf of individuals who have a religious, longstanding moral objection to being compelled to perform an abortion. Let's give them their private right of action so that employers don't feel like this administration can look the other way and they can do whatever they want to their employees or fire them, regardless of what their religious beliefs are. This used to not be a radical concept. It was 92 to 1. This is not intended to be a radical concept today. It is a simple statement: Is this body going to discriminate against people of faith today? That is my question. So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 401, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD. Apparently, a woman has a right to control her own body unless her boss compels her to perform an abortion, and then she no longer has control over her own body--her boss does. And he can tell her: Perform this abortion against your faith, or I will fire you--and that is OK. So choice seems to only go one way. If you choose to perform abortions, you are accepted in our culture. If you believe a child with 10 fingers and 10 toes and a beating heart and unique DNA and a functioning nervous system is actually a child, then you are an outlier, and your opinion doesn't count. The only thing that counts is you are compelled to take the life of more children and stand there and watch it. I think that is wrong. No, this bill doesn't get into--as Senator Murphy said, it doesn't get into speaking out about the violence against abortion clinics or, quite frankly, get into the violence on pregnancy resource centers that have been firebombed by pro-abortion folks, who have been spray- painted, who have threatened and attacked people who want to give sonograms to individuals who are pregnant. It doesn't deal with any of those because, quite frankly, that is a different committee. That is over in the Judiciary Committee. This is a very narrow bill dealing with one simple topic. It doesn't deal with everything on abortion. It doesn't decrease abortions in America. It doesn't do anything like that. It is simple and straightforward. It says: Is this government going to compel people to violate their faith? Apparently, the answer today is yes from this body; we don't care what you believe. I think that is sad, and I think that shows how far we have moved as a nation when it used to be 92 to 1 that we would say: If you have a different opinion, that is OK in America. But now you can't have a different opinion. That is not right. I would hope this body would speak out and say at some point that we respect all opinions in America and would speak out for the right of conscience for people of faith. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to bring a date to this body to think about. It is a day we have all known was coming for a very long time, but there seems to be no urgency about this day. The day is December 21. If anybody is wondering: What is December 21; what is the big deal about this date? I would say: That is the problem. December 21 is the date that Title 42 authority ends on our southern border. What is title 42 authority? Everybody in this body knows this, but title 42 is a temporary pandemic-related authority at our southern border to be able to deal with individuals that are coming across the border that they could be turned around. That authority was put in by the previous administration and has remained in this administration but has been chipped away, and as of December 21, that authority goes away. So what happens on that day? Well, the best estimate we got initially from DHS is it would move from about 6,000 people a day illegally crossing the border to 18,000 a day illegally crossing the border at that time. But, realistically, now they won't give us an estimate at all. So let me just put this in context where we are at our southwest border right now, because for a year and a half I have asked Secretary Mayorkas: What happens when title 42 authority goes away, because it is temporary? What is your plan? And for 2 years almost, I have gotten: We are working on it. We are very aware it is temporary, and it will go away at some point. We have a plan. And then, months ago, they came out with their six-point plan. Let me read their six-point plan to you. The six-point plan of what to do at the termination of title 42 is: Acquire and deploy resources to address increased volumes of migrants. In other words, be prepared to handle the number coming at them. No. 2: Deliver more efficient and fair immigration processing. No. 3: Use expedited removal to process and remove those who don't have a valid asylum claim. No. 4: Work with other Western Hemisphere governments to address the root causes of migration. No. 5: Bolster NGO capacity--that is to be able to handle the flow. No. 6: Target and disrupt cartels. All those are fine. My question is, Are they working? When Alejandro Mayorkas was in front of the committee just a few weeks ago, I asked him: title 42 is going away December 21st; what is your plan? And he repeated this back. The problem is, they already implemented these six items and the flow continues to accelerate. Again, let me put this in perspective, because it is hard to be able to wrap your head around the numbers. During the Obama administration, there was a massive surge in the number of people illegally crossing the border. That was the time many people in this body fully remember, when there were additional detention facilities that were opened up. There was a big push to be able to increase the capacity during that time period. That massive surge on the border during the Obama administration was in 2014, and it was 569,000 people a year. That was a crisis-level. Jeh Johnson came out and said: This is a crisis-level surge. It was 569,000 people that year who illegally crossed the border. To put that in context, we have had that many people illegally cross the border in the last 2 months. What the Obama administration called ``a crisis'' over 12 months, we have had in the last 2. We have well over 2 million people a year that are illegally crossing the border now, and in the last 2 months since the nearing of Title 42 is coming, that number is rapidly increasing. During the Obama administration, they called it a crisis if there were 1,500 people illegally crossing the border a day; we are now approaching 9,000 people illegally crossing the border a day. And when I ask, ``What is the plan?'' I get: Well, we have this six- point plan. Here is the problem: When I dig a little bit deeper--and we have been digging deeper to be able to find out how this is working--currently, there are no cooperative agreements with other countries to be able to return back individuals who are coming to our country where we don't have a relationship. I know it is on their plan to get it at some point. We don't have it, and December 21 is next week. All the work to be done to increase NGO capacity and processing capacity? That is happening. How to move people into the country faster? That is actually true. In fact, newspaper reports even as recently as today have reported that ICE agents are being told to release lower-level prisoners that they are currently holding to be able to allow more surge capacity for processing individuals after the 21st of December. That is today's news. So they are gearing up to expedite processing people into the country. They are just not slowing down the number of people coming into the country or providing a deterrent. Other than this one comment that was made to my staff this week when we asked point blank on the expedited removal process and they said: Yes, we are actually increasing the number of people that we use for expediting removal. That sounds great until you check the facts on it. Here are the facts: This administration, in this year, the number of people that they have declared ``expedited removal'' they have actually removed, from those folks, 7 percent of the people--7 percent--that were declared expedited removal. Again, let me go back to the Obama administration and set this in context. In 2015, in the Obama administration's expedited removal, they were removing 69 percent of the people in 1 year. That is not an anomaly year, that is typical of people that were declared expedited removal who they were actually removing. This administration is using the term ``expedited removal'' so people will think, ``Oh, they are doing something,'' except only 7 percent have actually been removed. Now, listen: We have a wide diversity of opinion in this body about what needs to happen in immigration. I don't run into a lot of people that like what is happening on our southern border right now. It is chaos. I personally asked the Secretary of Homeland Security: How many people who are crossing our border right now--of the 2 million-plus last year, how many of those individuals have we done a background check on from their home country? His answer to me in the hearing was: Let me get back to you on that. By the way, I already know the answer to that, and so does he. It is zero. We do background checks on individuals when they cross our border to see if they have criminal records in the United States or if they are on a terror watch list, but we have no idea, as to the 2 million individuals who have crossed our border, if they were fleeing poverty or fleeing justice. We have no idea. We know they paid the cartels to be able to get through Mexico, and then we literally ushered them into the country. On the 21st of this December, the problem accelerates even more. To this body, I say: We have four times as many people illegally crossing our border now than during the Obama administration when they called it a crisis. Right now, we have four times as many people coming. On December 21, the problem gets worse because we cannot as a body speak to this issue and say: Stop. I don't know what it is going to take in our Nation because this is not a partisan issue across the country. It is just not. I run into people of all parties and all backgrounds who say: I am all in on legal immigration. I just think we should know who is coming through the door--is that so unfair?--or have some way of processing people to be able to know. Again, I have had folks say to me: What happens to these folks? Well, let me tell you the current process because the Biden administration continues to say: We are going to fight against all of the push-and-pull factors for these individuals who are coming. Can I tell you what the pull factor is? This is not hard. The pull factor is, right now, as for the vast majority of the folks who cross the border illegally, the Biden administration is processing them as fast as they can. The fastest way to process them is to give them what is called parole, and that is for the vast majority. Now, this is a different process from what previous Presidents have done--of all parties. They are processing individuals for speed to be able to give them parole. Parole gets them across the border quickly. They hand them a document and give them a work permit that day. That day, they get a work permit. Then they are told to check in at ICE, but the next appointment at ICE, right now, is 5 years in the future. Once they check in with ICE 5 years from now, then they are put in the next line to get to a Federal court to make their asylum claims. That is currently 10 years out. Can I explain to you what is happening? This is not hard. We are handing out American work permits at the border to people we have done no vetting for, ushering them into the country, and saying: We will check your asylum claim 15 years from now. Then, for some reason, it is a mystery as to why we are getting 2 million people illegally crossing the border. It is no mystery. We happen to live in the greatest country in the world, and everybody in the world wants to come here. This is not a mystery. This is why no President has done an asylum policy like this. This is why no President in the past has managed the border like this-- because we would have a massive rush at the border. On December 21, a bad situation gets worse, and this body just yawns and says it is no big deal. It is. When this blows up in our country's face, all of us are going to have to answer for it. Now, to be frank, the vast majority of the people who are coming across our border illegally are just trying to connect with family who are already here--also illegally present, but they are just trying to connect with family here. They have got job opportunities and want to be able to come for the job opportunities. I completely respect that. They are individuals from around the world who can make 10 times as much money if they cross our border and come into the country. I understand the pull factor of that, but we do have a legal process whereby we manage that, in theory. But who cares about the legal process anymore when you can just pay a cartel and come into the country illegally? The cartels on our southern border are some of the most ruthless cartels in the world. May I remind this body of what we all know full well: The State Department does a listing for every country in the world about Americans' ``travel and do not travel.'' A level 1 is Canada. A level 4 is Syria and Yemen: ``Don't go there. We can't get you out.'' We all know that ranking full well. May I remind you that the states just south of our border in Mexico have a level 4 rating from the State Department, warning Americans not to travel in that area just south of our border. Why do they have that rating from the State Department? Because a ruthless set of cartels runs several of those states. The State Department is advising all Americans: ``Do not travel there because it is not safe for you, and we cannot get you out.'' Those are the cartels that are being paid by all of the trafficking coming in. Last year, when I was there, I asked the Border Patrol: Have you been able to track how much the cartel just immediately to your south--this was in McAllen, TX. Can you track how much that particular cartel makes from trafficking people into the country? Their response was: Yes, we do interviews with folks. We know how much they are making. So what is the number? They said: The cartel just in this area--not along the whole 2,000- mile border but just in this area south of McAllen, TX--makes $152 million a week from trafficking people into our country. Our open immigration system is enriching some of the most ruthless cartels in the world, and we are currently doing nothing to stop it. Just wait until December 21 comes. Then let's see what happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely.

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, let me clarify what this motion is. This motion today is to ask for a unanimous consent of all 100 Senators to be able to move a nominee through the process, a nominee that, when she came through the Foreign Relations Committee, every single Republican opposed--every one of them. It seems the frustration here doesn't seem to be with Republicans; it seems to be with the Democratic leader, quite frankly. This nominee was brought to the committee last year and then was voted out of the committee in July of this year but has never been brought to the floor for a vote--never. Instead, it has been to try to do a unanimous consent when my colleagues full well know that every single Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee opposes this nominee. And now the request is: Now that you opposed her in committee, now consent on the floor to be able to support her. That is not going to happen, obviously. Now, we have not blocked a vote. If the Democratic leader wants to be able to bring this nominee to a vote, he has had plenty of opportunity to be able to do that and still has plenty of opportunity to be able to do that. No one is inhibiting a vote on the floor. What we oppose is what is being pushed onto us to say: Now unanimously consent to someone you know you don't agree to in the first place. It has often been interesting in this conversation to say this nominee has nothing to do with reproductive rights, has nothing to do with that. I have heard that from my colleagues. It is fascinating to me that Planned Parenthood put out a statement in strong support of this nominee and specifically stated in their release: because she will speak out on reproductive rights for women globally. So either Planned Parenthood is not telling the truth or something else. So it is interesting, when we get into this dialogue, to say: OK, let's just have the vote on it and allow everyone to be able to speak out. We have a disagreement on this nominee, but it is the right of the Democratic leader to be able to bring who he chooses to the floor for a vote at any time. But I would say, as one Republican of many, please don't ask me to unanimously consent to someone that we have a philosophical difference with. So, with that, I object.

Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I would say to my colleague that, obviously, I am not in the position to be able to make a decision for all of my colleagues at this moment whether that is acceptable. That is something we should discuss with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and with the Republican leader and allow our conference to be able to have that dialogue if that is an acceptable thing. So at this point, I would object just saying I am not in a position because I am not going to speak for the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who voted unanimously in opposition to this nomination.

Mr. LANKFORD. If I may respond to my colleague as well.

Mr. LANKFORD. Have I engaged in a colloquy, in a conversation? Actually, I have not. The members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as you serve faithfully in that role--that is not a committee I serve on, but I do know that all the Republican members of the committee have had the opportunity to be able to sit down with her personally and to be able to go through all of those notes. I know how she came through the committee without any Republican support at all, and I know the different statements that have been put up--one by Planned Parenthood, a very strong statement in support of her specifically on the issue of women's reproductive rights. That seems to say, at least somebody is saying this role is going to take on that issue. But that is not a committee that I currently serve on, but I do know those well who do.

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I would affirm, again, as a husband and as a dad of two daughters and as someone who is very passionate about global women's issues as well, I am fully aware that women do a lot more than have babies--regardless of Health and Human Services currently using the term ``birthing people'' and ``menstruating persons,'' which, again, I find offensive in the process as well--that this is a group of people, half the population of the Earth, that has made tremendous contributions, including my own wife and my own family. I would just simply ask the question: This is not a nominee that we are going to give unanimous support to, but I am unsure why the Democratic leader has not scheduled this vote now for months on the floor when there have been months that we have been in session but it has yet to be scheduled for a vote.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to tell a bit of a story. There are some great schools and great teachers in Oklahoma. They do an incredible job, and they serve our families every day, doing remarkable work, working alongside so many kids who struggle in their educational environment, who struggle to be able to learn but who excel. I am grateful to those teachers across our State. Those teachers who are in our public schools--both our public traditional schools and our public charter schools--deserve to be applauded and encouraged for the work they do every day, and I am proud to know many of them as friends and as neighbors. But what is interesting to me right now is there is a push that is happening from the Biden administration to divide teachers, teachers who are in public school education, that there are some who are like the good public school teachers, and apparently there are some that-- you are the bad public school teachers. And it is not based on the ratings for their students or the quality of their teaching; it is based on which public school they choose to be able to serve in. You see, the Biden administration has put out a new policy to try to crush public charter schools. How are they doing it? They are saying that if there are open desks in other public schools, then the public charter school can't prove a need for them to exist at all, and they want to just be able to wipe them out. Stop. Let me just set this in context for you. In Oklahoma, there is a school called Harding Charter Preparatory High School. Maybe you wouldn't know it, but U.S. News & World Report--they know it. U.S. News & World Report--with 18,000 schools in America, they rank the 18,000 schools in America. U.S. News & World Report ranked Harding Charter Preparatory School in Oklahoma City 115th out of 18,000 schools. In fact, in Oklahoma, Harding Charter Preparatory High School was ranked No. 1. The No. 1 school in the State is this public charter school. Now, it happens to be in an area where there are open desks in other schools around it, so it won't meet the need requirement that the Biden administration is putting out to say: You can't prove a need for your existence. So the No. 1 school in our State could be wiped out because those public school teachers are teaching at the wrong public school. What else can I tell you about Harding? At Harding, 100 percent of the students go to AP classes--100 percent of them. What else can I tell you about Harding? Seventy-two percent of the students at Harding Preparatory School are minorities--72 percent--and it is the No. 1 school in our State. What is different about a public charter school and a traditional public school? Well, the rules for the kids are exactly the same--the same testing requirements, the same State requirements, the same Federal requirements for the kids. The rules are exactly the same for the kids, but they are different for the grownups. The grownups have a different set of rules. They have a different set of accountability in charter schools. What is the result they are getting? The No. 1 school in our State is a charter school. The 115th school in the country is this charter school. Yet, now the Biden administration is saying: You are going to have to prove a need for it. Can I tell you, the parents and families in Oklahoma have already proven a need for it. I got an email in from one of those students, who said: I was not getting access to these AP classes in the school--in the public school they were in before. They had no shot of really getting into the college they wanted to be able to get into until they got into Harding Charter Preparatory School, a public charter school, and now they have a shot. I have to tell you, I don't understand the battle with choice that is happening with parents in this country. I don't understand why suddenly so many government officials want to be able to say to parents: You go to that school, the school we choose; you can't move; you have to stay right there--why that is suddenly the trend in America. This growing push across our country for public charter schools, for parents to be more involved in their child's education, for parents to have new options in education, for parents to be able to have a choice and some freedom, why is that so bad, that so many kids get a shot? Can I tell you, I have two daughters. They are not the same. They have different preferences. They have different ideas. They are both beautiful and amazing girls. But, for some reason, the folks in the Biden administration, in the Education Department, are saying: All kids are the same, and we are going to require them to do it the way we want all kids to do it--rather than allowing parents like me and parents like others to be able to say: This child's best education environment is in that location, in that public school, or another child has a better educational environment in a different charter public school. Don't lose track of this: They are both public schools. They both have requirements for the students which are exactly the same, but the rules for the grownups are different. Some in the teachers union do not like that, and so this plan is to shut down this type of school, like Harding. I say let's stand with those parents and with those students, with that charter school and a multitude of others in my State where parents are engaged in their child's education and administrators in those schools have to work twice as hard because they don't get the same level of funding as other public schools. Let's support them, not try to diminish them. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, today I would like to enter into a colloquy with the senior Senator from Connecticut to discuss the Big Cat Public Safety Act. Section 3 of the bill amends title 16 of the U.S. Code, section 3372(e) by striking the entire subsection and inserting new prohibitions on private ownership of big cats, registration requirements for existing private owners, and new regulation parameters for facilities that display these animals to the public. Striking all of subsection (e) to insert the bill's proposed language eliminates a standing protection of State authority to enact and enforce their own laws in this area. Section Sec. 3372(e)(4) currently states that ``nothing in this subsection preempts or supersedes the authority of a state to regulate wildlife species within that state.'' By striking this protection against Federal preemption, Federal authorities and regulators would have the ability to supplant any State action or policy unless there are other sections of U.S. Code that protect the rights of States. Senator Blumenthal, do you understand this to be the case?

Mr. LANKFORD. In light of this protection of State authority being eliminated from statute by the Big Cat Public Safety Act, I would like to clarify that there are existing protections that apply to the entire chapter in which this bill amends. Title 16 of U.S. Code section 3378(a) states that ``nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the several states or Indian tribes from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.'' While this preemption provision is not nearly as clear as the one that will be removed by the Big Cat Public Safety, it is our intention and understanding that it will preserve the longstanding policy that the provisions being amended by this bill will not preempt or supersede the authority of a State to regulate wildlife species within that State. Senator Blumenthal, do you agree that State authority should and will be protected on this issue as it has historically been? Mr. BLUMENTHAL Yes, I do.

Mr. LANKFORD. Madame President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for helping clarify the intent and effects of the Big Cat Public Safety Act on this matter and would like to reiterate that we are not negating State authority with these changes within the bill. The Big Cat Public Safety Act will close the loopholes of private ownership that now exist and fill the gaps that exist within State laws where such prohibitions do not currently exist. For States that have existing authorities addressing this area or any State that may enact and enforce such authorities in the future, Federal Agencies and authorities will not preempt or supersede them unless expressly authorized by that State. Now, with this clarification and a commitment from the senior Senator from Connecticut to help include language in an upcoming authorization bill to affirm the clarifications made today, I will lift my hold on this bill

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Rubio, I call up amendment No. 6493 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LANKFORD. I would like to also call up amendment No. 6496 and ask that it also be reported by number.

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in 2015, after the Obergefell decision came down from the Supreme Court, putting same-sex marriage as the law of the land, President Obama made a statement to the country. He came and spoke to the country when there was a lot of heat and a lot of emotion going on around the country around that particular decision. He was supportive of the Obergefell decision, but he made this statement. At that time, President Obama said: I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held [religious] beliefs. All of us who welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom. That is a wise statement from President Obama during that time period to be able to say: There are going to be a lot of views. We as Americans need to have a wide set of conversations about same-sex marriage and about how we revere marriage in general. There are different religious views, different perspectives. Now we are approaching a bill that will be voted on in just about 2 hours. This bill has a section in it dealing with marriage, and it says it has certain religious protections in it. As I read the bill initially to be able to check the religious protections that are in it, I was surprised at some things that were in it, and I was surprised at some of the things that were left out. So our team went to work writing an amendment to address the specific issues in this bill. We narrowly tailored this bill for our amendment, and we addressed it. Why? Because we were the only ones who thought there was a problem? Actually, no, we weren't the only ones who saw this bill as a problem dealing with religious liberty. In fact, religious liberty groups all over the country and religious institutions started contacting our office and putting out their own statements in opposition to this bill, saying the bill as currently written, even with the ``religious protections'' in it, does not actually protect the religious liberty of all Americans. This is just a short list of groups who are in strong opposition to this bill: the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Christians Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian Employers Alliance, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Family Policy Alliance, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Liberty Counsel, Lifeline Children's Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, the Religious Freedom Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Samaritan's Purse. The list goes on and on and on of organizations and entities that read through this bill and said there are major concerns with the religious liberty portions of this bill. Now, I am well aware that there are also groups who have put out a statement and said that they are comfortable with it, that it would protect them, but other organizations are putting out statements and saying: Yeah, that is nice for you, but it actually wouldn't protect us and our members. There are three major concerns that are in the bill itself under the issue of religious liberty, and if these three things are not changed in this bill, it will put the issue of religious liberty at great risk for millions of Americans who, as President Obama said, hold sincerely held beliefs that are different. The first is this: There is a section in the very beginning of the bill where it says any entity that is acting under the color of State law, and then it puts all the restrictions there on them. That is a broadening, actually, of what Obergefell actually did. This says any entity, actually, or individual who is acting under color of state law. What does that mean? Most people don't live in that legal kind of counsel. Well, this would be an entity that a State actually hires to fulfill something for them on behalf of the State. Let me give you a for-instance on this. A private prison may be one of those examples, but it could also be adoption agencies, foster care agencies. It could be an entity that actually does housing for immigrant and migrant families. It could be a homeless shelter that is contracted by the State to be able to provide services. It could be any number of entities. Many of these entities are actually done by religious organizations that the State actually contracts with them to be able to do those services. In this new statute, if this passes in 2 hours, there would be a new restriction on those religious entities that formally held contracts that then would very well be pushed out from providing those services. Let me remind you, our Nation functions under not just government operations but cooperation with families and with faith-based entities and nonprofit entities around the country. Our safety net, I talk about often--our first safety net is the families, the second safety net is nonprofit entities, and the third safety net is government. Many governments partner with nonprofit--including faith-based--entities to be able to carry out social services. For those entities, they would now have a target on them because they are functioning under the color of State law, and they would have new restrictions. So their choice would be either not to provide those services or to abandon their faith. Now, what are the challenges to them in particular in this? Well, the first challenge is that they would face litigation from the Attorney General's Office. The second challenge would be they now face a new what is called a private right of action. That is what the second area my amendment specifically deals with. First, it corrects this looping into lots of new faith-based entities and saying: You are now a State actor; you are under new restrictions. The second one would be this private right of action. The private right of action would now be--anyone who is functioning ``under the color of State law'' would now be a target from an individual who senses that they have been harmed by the entity. Now, it is not defined--what ``harmed'' means--in this new statute; it just says that if someone feels they have been harmed by it, they would now have the opportunity to be able to sue someone else because of that. It is not hard for me to be able to say something that is fairly obvious; that is, if Congress creates a new right to sue people, there will be a lot more lawsuits, and there will be new tests and evaluations on that. For anyone who believes that this new right to be able to sue people won't be used and won't be used quickly by lawyers and outside groups all around the country, you are kidding yourself. What will happen in the days ahead, there will be--who knows?-- countless numbers of lawsuits testing every new definition of what, under the color of State law, what a partnership with government might look like. Whether that is a vendor who is at an official State event or whether that is an entity that is providing something like a private prison or adoption services, they will all face lawsuits and challenges in the days ahead by entrepreneurial attorneys testing out the limits of this new law. We don't know what those limits will be determined by the courts. We have no idea because it is not defined what it means when they say they have been harmed and what that definition might mean to different courts around the country. But we do know this is going to be a major issue. My first question is, Why is this even included in this bill at all? There is already a protection that the State has the opportunity to be able to make sure they are enforcing the law within their State. This new private right of action, though, goes above and beyond that and gives the opportunity for entrepreneurial lawyers to be able to practice their craft at the detriment of entities all over the country. What it really does is it silences any individual who may disagree and discourages any faith-based entity from cooperating with government; to say, if you want to be able to partner with the State in the area, you probably aren't welcome here because you don't share the same beliefs. The third big issue that we try to correct in this that is a major problem in this bill is, in the bill, if you actually read from the text 7(a)--now, 7(a) probably means nothing to many people outside this room, but the 7(a) section is designed to be able to protect the rights of individuals or entities not to be able to lose their nonprofit status or grants or contracts or whatever it may be, but it has very specific language that is built into this. The specific language is, if that benefit or right does not arise from a marriage. It is very carefully written. When I passed it around to different attorneys to say what does it mean, it has been fascinating to me to learn different interpretations of this statute. This particular section 7(a) is written so vague that it is very difficult to understand what it does mean, but it is very clear what it doesn't mean. When it says all these different rights that have been granted based on does not arise from a marriage, it doesn't include your belief about marriage. It just says does not rise from a marriage. Why do I say that? Our amendment actually includes the belief about marriage included into it to make it very, very clear that if you have a different belief about marriage, you won't lose your nonprofit status, you won't lose your opportunity to have grants or contracts, but that is not included in this statute. What is included in the statute is just does not arise from a marriage. That will be a problem in the courts and, unfortunately, that will have to be litigated until that is actually determined what it would mean. What we could do instead is pass my amendment. The amendment makes it very clear. What I hear from even some of the bill's sponsors is they say: No, this is what it is intended to mean. I look at it and say: That is not what it actually says. So let's have that section say what you actually intended for that to say to make it clear. Let's take away the private right of action so that people around the country aren't perpetually worried about a lawsuit coming at them constantly. Let's take away this under the color of law section so that there is not a fear of faith-based nonprofits not partnering with their own government for fear government would step in and say: Oh, if you are going to partner with us, then you have to surrender these different beliefs. Again, I have had individuals who are sponsors of this bill say none of those things are what we intend. But courts don't rule on intentions of Congress; they rule on the text that we actually put out. Those are three major problems in this text. If they are not corrected and if they are not corrected today, my fear is President Obama's statement of just 7 years ago that we would not ``recognize different viewpoints [and] revere our deep commitment to religious freedom'' would today be ignored. I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I encourage everyone in this body to ask a very simple question of themselves: Is today about respecting the rights of all or is it about silencing some and respecting others? I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this amendment is very, very narrowly tailored. It is in response to the bill. I have talked to several of the bill's sponsors, and they have told me their intent is to be able to protect religious liberty, which I appreciate that to be able to have a balanced perspective in this particular bill because people of good will on both sides have disagreements in this area. The problem is, there are three certain areas of the text that do not actually meet that standard of being a balanced protection. So this amendment goes into those three areas and corrects the text to make sure it actually says it is going to protect religious liberty. It is three areas. One is a very wide perspective of operating under the color of State law. That has a very broad net on it. We tried to be able to correct that one. The second one deals with striking the private right of action on this, which will dramatically increase the number of lawsuits. I can assure you, if Congress passes a law that opens up a new lane for lawsuits, there will be lots of new lawsuits in that area. The third area is in 7(a), where it talks about protecting all these rights if it does arise from a marriage, not from a belief in a marriage. So we are trying to correct that text to make sure it is not just the action of marriage but also the belief of marriage. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. LANKFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

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