mobilization, we have to depend on our ability to develop new technology for the future, we've troops coming home we have to provide them jobs, we have to provide them education and support so they don't wind up on the unemployment roll.cer: witht

objection. mr. blunt: thank you. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to talk about an amendment that's had lots of attention. it's an amendment that i offered on the -- on the floor a couple of weeks ago and we weren't able -- the leader didn't want to get to it at the time but the majority leader brought it up for me yesterday and i'm glad he did. i'm glad we're able to talk about it. this is an amendment that would allow religious belief or moral conviction to be an important factor in whether or not people compare -- people comply with new health care mandates. now, we have long, mr. president, had this exemption for hiring mandates. and, in fact, when i served in the house of representatives,

i'd been a -- the president of a southern baptist university. i understood the importance of these institutions i thought maintaining their faith distinctives as part of why they provide education and health care and day care and other things. and so i have long been an advocate of -- of a principle that the supreme court held up just a few weeks ago 9-0, that there is a difference in these faith-based institutions. and now that we have health care mandates for -- that could apply to these institutions, all this amendment does is extend the same privilege to them and others who have a religious belief or moral conviction that would lead -- that would -- they'd be able to defend their moral conviction. we don't do anything about the mandate itself. it's important to understand, mr. president, that the

administration, this one or any other, if the affordable health care act is still in force, can issue all the mandates that the act would allow. and, in fact, if you don't comply with those mandates, you'd have the penalties that the act would allow. but the difference is, if the government wouldn't recognize your religious belief or moral conviction, as i think they would likely do. for example, the archdiocese of washington, d.c., saying this is something we have long held as a tenet of our faith that we don't believe should happen, we shouldn't be part of and we don't want it to be part of the insurance policies of our schools or our hospitals. my guess is, if we pass this amendment, without any question the justice department would say, well, you're certainly going to be able to defend that because that's been your belief for the -- for centuries in your faith. this amendment doesn't mention any procedure of any kind.

in fact, just this morning we had a reporter call the office, says, we can't find the word "contraception" in this amendment anywhere. how is this a vote on contraception? of course, we were able to say, as we had said for days, the word "contraception" is not in there because it's not about a specific procedure, it's about a faith principle that the first amendment guarantees. and, mr. president, this -- this language, this exact language of religious belief or moral conviction was first used in 1973 in the public health services act brought to the senate floor by senator church from idaho who i believe was considered one of the liberals of the senate at the time protecting health care providers from having to be involved in procedures they didn't agree with. it's part of the legal services corporation limitation in 1974, the foreign aid funding limitation in 1986, the refusal

to participate in executions or prosecutions of capital crimes in 1994, the vaccination bill that if you come to this country as a nonresident and you don't want to have vaccinations that are otherwise required, you don't have to have them if you have a religious belief or moral conviction against them. and the list, mr. president, goes on and on. the medicare and medicaid counseling act, the federal employees health benefits plan of 1998, the contraception coverage for federal employees in 1999, the d.c. contraception mandate in 2000, the united states leadership against aids act in 2003. and then, mr. president, it's -- this exact same language even more specifically has been in bills that weren't passed. in 1994, senator moynihan from

new york brought a bill to the floor that mrs. clinton -- senator clinton, now secretary clinton, was very involved in, this 1994 health discussion. and that bill said, "nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes" -- which excludes -- "coverage for abortion or other services if the employer objects to such services on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction." this is senator moynihan less than 20 years ago in what was considered a liberal piece of legislation, putting what the country had thought since the beginning of government-paid health care was just a natural part of every health care bill. in fact, the bill we're talking about that this amendment would impact is the first time that the federal government has passed a health care bill that didn't include this language.

the first time it didn't include this language. and, you know, if -- if you're not offended by the current mandate that some religions are, i think it's important to think of what you would be offended by. what in your faith would be an offensive thing to be told you had to be part of and then imagine the government saying, no, you have to be part of that. and even if you don't do it yourself, you have to pay for it. or you have to be sure that your -- that -- that your employees, your associates are part of this thing that is offensive to you because of religious belief or moral conviction. now, before give to my good friend, senator johanns, who understands this issue so well, let me also say that, as i said, mr. president, we didn't eliminate the mandate so you can still have the mandate. the federal government can still come in and say, you're not offering these services so you have to pay the penalty.

and then you have to be able to go to court and prove that you have a long-held belief that this is wrong. you know, the court in 1965, when these -- this particular phrase became the boilerplate phrase for the law, the court said, you can't become a conscientious objector the day you get your draft notice, in essence, that you have to have these two principles. you have to have religious belief, strong moral conviction, and you have to be able to go to court and prove that. all of the -- the fiction writers out there in fund-raising letters and otherwise saying things like, women who have contraceptive services today wouldn't have them. of course that's not true. of course that's not true. the women that have those services today either have them because they've found a way to pay for them themselves or they have a employer who's providing that as part of health care. that employer's not going to be able to turn around and say,

i'm -- i now -- i'm not for that anymore because i reject -- i object for some religious reason that i didn't have all the time i was providing it. this is an important issue. it is a first amendment issue. it's an issue that group after group after group think it violates their religious freedom act, rfra. there are six lawsuits already. i suspect they have a good chance of prevailing because it does exactly what the religious freedom law says you can't do. it needlessly forces people to participate in activities that are against their moral principles, their religious principles. the -- the -- the circumstance in the country has -- we have 220 years of history of this. we have 35 -- we have almost 50 years to of history of -- years

of history of government-paid health care for one group or another that always included an exemption like this exemption. to not do this assumes that the government can make people do things that thomas jefferson and george washington and others specifically said were among the rights that we should defend the most vigorously, that we should hold the most dear, that we should not let a government interfere in these basic rights of conscience -- a term of thomas jefferson when he wrote the new london methodist in 18 1809. these rights of conscience are an area that we should not let the government get between the american people and their religious beliefs. and our laws since then, whether it's for hiring or in the case of any health care discussion have always anticipated the protection of this first amendment right.

not a specific thing but, again, if you're not offended by the things that some people are concerned about today, it's important to think of what you would be offended by. what your rehe lijous belief leads -- religious belief leads you believe to be wrong and how you would feel if the government says now you have to be part of that activity. and i'd like to turn to my good friend from nebraska who has been a real advocate of understanding the importance of the first amendment and the role it plays in our society. mr. johanns: mr. president. mr. president, let me start this afternoon by thanking my colleague from missouri on taking on this issue on putting this legislation together. let me also thank my colleague for telling the real story of this legislation. it is critically important that

we understand the history that brings us here this afternoon and ultimately to a vote on this legislation that i am proud to cosponsor. my colleague just so ably pointed out that what has changed here, what has changed here is the obama administration , working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, took this important language out of this health care legislation. for decades, for decades this important protection was in the legislation and it was supported by democrats, republicans, independents, liberals, conservatives, and that was the history of our country until all of a sudden this change came

about where that conscience protection was taken out of the health care legislation that was passed a couple of years ago. but let's look back even further in our history. the first freedom in our bill of rights is the liberty to exercise any religion that you might choose, or for that matter not participate in any religion whatsoever. and that is what this united states of america is based upon. this concept that you have the freedom to choose what faith you will belong to, what teachings you will follow, and as i said you have the choice to not participate at all if you choose to in this country. yet, the president and my

colleagues from across the aisle want to force, want to force religious institutions for the first time in the history of our country to violate their strong moral convictions, and they go even further. they want to somehow shroud this and veil it as a women's health issue. well, let me set the record straight. this debate is not about that, as some would have you believe, and it is certainly not about contraceptives. what this debate is about is fundamental to our freedom as citizens of this great country. it's religious liberty that we are talking about. it's an american issue that dates back to our very founders who looked at the war that they

had just fought and said to themselves we are never going to allow our country to force us to attend a certain church or to participate in a certain faith, not at all, and it was written in one of our most sacred documents, the bill of rights. yet, the president of the united states is trampling on this religious freedom in attempting to convince americans that it's something else. his power grab is forcing religious institutions to go against their deeply held beliefs, and if they stay true to their beliefs, the congressional research service reports these religious insurers and employers may face federal fines of $100 per day per plan.

so let me give you an example of how that will work in my state. for a self-insured institution like creighton university in nebraska -- a jesuit university, happen to have graduated from there -- they have about 6,000 health care plans. so the cost to creighton university in omaha, nebraska, to exercise their religious liberty will be an annual price tag of $246 million. that's the price of exercising their religious liberty in the president's world. unbelievable. well, i went on the internet and i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record an open letter to the president that is being signed by women all over

this country. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: women have signed -- and one of the things that they say is they are proud to work for institutions that contribute to their community. let me quote from that letter. they value -- quote -- "the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who choose their job because in a religious institution, a job is also a vocation." unquote. these women are americans who believe that this mandate by the federal government interfering with religious liberty is wrong. i'll wrap up my piece of this by again thanking the gentleman from missouri for his leadership in this area. the president has said he offered an accommodation. the accommodation is that, whoa,

lo and behold this is going to be free. now, i'd like to know what legal authority he relies upon that the president would ever order -- could ever order anyone to offer a service or an item free. he has no such authority. this isn't the soviet union. this is the united states of america. we don't believe that for a moment. of course you are going to be paying for this through your insurance premiums. well, my hope is that we will read our constitution and we will stand as a united front upholding religious freedom which is being violated by this mandate. thank you. mr. blunt: i thank my friend for his good additions to what we are talking about. you know, i would say also that

even if there is some accounting thing that makes this appear that maybe someone you're hiring is paying for it instead of you, if this is something you're opposed to for religious grounds, it's not about the cost. it's about the fact that this is something you don't believe you should be part of. you know, in my particular faith, the contraception part of this is not troublesome for me, but it doesn't mean that i should be less troubled that it bothers others or that i should care less about their religious freedom than i do minor that i should care about the government using the heavy hands of these fines to force you to do something. and the other point i would like to make before g.i. to my friend from idaho is if the government chooses to fine you, you would have to actually go to court and prove that you had a deep religious belief. now, i don't think that would be very hard for creighton university. the entire history of the university is founded on the

principles of faith that would say this is something we don't want to be part of. if that's the case, maybe that justice department wouldn't take you to court or wouldn't make you go to court rather than pay the fine, but they could. we're not -- we're not saying here that anybody could do anything they want to do. we are just creating a way that you can assert your first amendment rights if you choose to do that, and as the governor of idaho, senator risch, was responsible for lots of people that worked for the state of idaho, he knows about this both from the faith perspective and an employer's perspective, and i'm glad he came down to the floor. mr. risch: thank you very much, mr. senator. i want to speak briefly on this issue, and i want to thank those who have put this on the table for us to talk about. every single american should watch the debate on this issue. this debate strikes to the heart of the freedoms that we as

americans enjoy. why do we have these freedoms? because in 1776, the people decided they were sick and tired of the king telling them that they had to do this and that they had to do that and had totally wiped out a number of freedoms that they had, not the least of which was speech and religion. you remember, these people operated under a king who had -- was so powerful, the monarchy was so powerful it established a religion and said you must belong to this religion if you are a citizen of this country. and when we fought to be free of that, when we fought to be a free people, the founding fathers put together a document that specified very clearly freedoms that we would have. we have come many, many years since then, but we will lose

these freedoms if we don't guard them when even a little chip comes out of it, and that's what they're doing here. think about this for a minute. we've gotten to the point where this government has gotten so big and so powerful that it has said look, we don't care about what you believe in your religion because what we're doing here is a good thing, and therefore you must do what we are telling you because the ends justify the means. and the means is to chip away at the religious freedoms that we as americans enjoy. it's wrong. it's the way you lose your freedoms. if you turn your back and let a government do this to you, this is how you lose your freedoms. this government is big, it's

getting bigger by the day, it is getting more powerful by the day. when they sat around the table in 1776, they had just fought with a government that had been terribly oppressive, and they argued amongst themselves, well, what are we going to do here? well, we're going to create a government. they knew from a historical perspective and they knew from their recent experience that any government that they create needed to be distrusted, needed to be watched, needed to have shackles on it, because if they didn't, the government would abuse them just as every government has throughout history, so that's why they drew the document that we live under today, the constitution that we have. they not only gave us one government, they gave us three governments. they gave us a legislative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch, each with a duty to watch the other and beat

the other over the head if indeed they got out of line. they were so afraid of a government that they did everything they possibly could to see that that government didn't abuse them. well, we learned frequently that their fears were well-founded, and today we see once again that their fears were well-founded. what you have here is a government who is saying we don't care what your religious beliefs are. you must do what we're telling you to do because we think it's the right thing to do regardless of your religious beliefs. it's wrong, it's got to be fought, it must be reversed, and i want to thank you, senator, for bringing this to the attention of everyone. i yield the floor back to you. mr. blunt: there are a number of waivers, mr. president, on this. the administration has given over 1,700 waivers to four

million people. if you have got a plan that's better than the government plan. if you have got a plan that might be taxed under the law because it has been negotiated as part of collective bargaining, if you're a fast food institution that has insurance but apparently with high deductibles, those -- those were all reasons to create a waiver. you would think that a faith-based belief would also be the reason that a waiver could have been granted. this amendment just assures that you can have the same kind of opportunity to exercise your religious beliefs going forward as every american has in health care and labor and hiring and other areas up until right now, and i'd like to turn to my friend, the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to express my gratitude to the senator from missouri for his leadership on this issue. this used to be a topic that was

a bipartisan issue, dating back to the passage of the religious freedom restoration act of 1993. but so people can refresh their memory, there have been a number of allusions made to the language of the constitution but let me read the first amendment, part of our bill of rights, the fundamental law of the land that cannot be abridged or changed by a mere act of congress, which is what we're -- what we're concerned about, that the president's health care bill, the affordable care act, so called, purports to change the constitution which it cannot do, and when there's a conflict between the constitution and a law passed by congress, that law falls as unconstitutional. but the first amendment to the united states constitution says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof. let me repeat that. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. and that's what we're talking about, is the free exercise of religion. i agree with senator risch that one of the biggest problems with this legislation, the president's health care bill, the so-called affordable care act which we've come to learn is not so affordable, is that it forces each individual in this country to buy a government-approved product according to the dictates of congress, and that's one of the issues that the united states supreme court will be ruling on, whether that is even within the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause. but senator risch makes a very good point, that is the basic

problem with this legislation generally. is it's too big, it's too expensive, and it's too intrusive on the individual freedoms and choices of american citizens. and like i said, it used to be that religious freedom was a bipartisan issue, and that's why i am so concerned that this has turned into a purely partisan issue. it's very obvious to me that some of our colleagues on the floor believe they can make political hay by scaring people, by misleading people, that this is somehow about denying women access to contraception when that is not the issue here. this is about protecting our sacred constitutional freedoms. when i say the religious freedom used to be a bipartisan issue, i was referring to the religious freedom restoration act of 1993, and i think it's interesting to see who the sponsors and the people who were some of the principal proponents

of the bill to demonstrates it was so bipartisan. the lead sponsor in the house was senator chuck schumer, now a member of the united states senate, cosponsors included then-representative maria cantwell, now in the senate, then-representative ben cardin who is residing today and former speaker nancy pelosi. in the senate it had 60 cosponsors. ted kennedy was the lead sponsor, we've heard senator brown, the senator from massachusetts, saying the position he's taking on this issue of religious freedom is exactly the same position that senator kennedy took during his lifetime. but 60 other members of the senate cosponsored it including senator boxer, senator feinstein, senator kerry, senator lautenberg, senator murray, and senator reid, the majority leader of the united states senate today. it was signed into law by then-president clinton demonstrating it was clearly religious freedom was not a partisan issue.

it was a bipartisan concern of congress and the reason why this bipartisan legislation passed to protect religious freedom. so that just like members of the catholic church who are today concerned about being forced to provide coverage for surgical sterilization or drugs that induce abortions or other forms of contraception, members of the muslim faith, if they're a woman, need not be concerned about restrictions on their ability to wear their -- their desire to wear a head scarf in public buildings or dietary rules practiced by observant jews or that christians would not somehow be interfered with when it came to wearing religious symbols like crosses or rosaries. this is not about those -- those pieces -- those rules or those items of clothing or religious symbols. this is about religious freedom.

over which congress shall pass no law under the words of our constitution. so i am somewhat disappointed that we now find ourselves -- that the lines seem to have been drawn so sharply in a partisan way over an issue that used to enjoy broad bipartisan support and it's my hope that our colleagues will reconsider because it's not good for the country, it's not good for our constitution, it's not good for the preservation of our liberties for the very fundamental law of our land, the bill of rights, to become a partisan issue. but if there is a fight, if there is a disagreement, i believe it's our responsibility to speak up for -- in defense of religious freedom and to say and to remind our colleagues that congress shall pass no law restricting religious freedom and that's what we're here talking about. so i thank my colleague from missouri for being the leader on

this important amendment. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to voice the reasons for my support, and i hope our colleagues who are opposed to the amendment or have already publicly stated their opposition will reconsider. mr. blunt: i do, too, senator. while we don't have as much bipartisan support as we'd like to have, we'll have some and senator ben nelson from nebraska along with senator ayotte from new hampshire and senator rubio from florida and i introduced this bill in august of last year. this is not just something that we came up with recently. members who were in the senate when the health care act, the affordable health care act passed said they believed if it had passed at a more normal way that this would have been in the final bill, that that would have been an understanding just like it was in the patients' bill of rights draft and legislation that was introduced

in 1994 or the health care bill in 1999. this same language was an accepted and bipartisan part of who we are as a country in forcing -- enforcing the first amendment and in fact in the religious freedom restoration act it says government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, even a rule that would generally apply, the government should not burden a person's exercise of religion unless it demonstrates a burden that it's in the furtherance of compelling government interest -- and i can't imagine -- nobody has had to do this ever before. why would suddenly defining insurance policies be on the faith beliefs -- beyond the faith beliefs of individuals and groups that were long held, why

is that a sudden compelling government interest, or it's the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. surely not. i'll repeat for what may be the third or fourth time, we don't do anything in this amendment that would end the mandate. that's for another debate at another time. the government can still have a mandate. the government can still say here's what we are telling you a health care plan has to look like, but this allows people who have a faith-based first amendment right to object to that to have a way to do it. and one of the original cosponsors of the bill that is the amendment we're debating today has joined us, that is senator ayotte from new hampshire and she is an advocate of the first amendment as a former attorney general, i'm glad she's here. ms. ayotte: thank you so much, senator blunt. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to be here to rise in support of a pending amendment that is based upon as

senator blunt mentioned, a piece of legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis earlier in the year called the respect for rights of conscience act. which i was proud to cosponsor. during the past few weeks we've heard certainly impassioned arguments from both sides of the aisle about this issue, and certainly it's been a robust and important exchange of views, which i've appreciated. however, i think it's regrettable that like so much else that happens around here, this issue has been used as an election-year tactic to score political points, and in some cases there have been the facts of what this amendment and our bill hope to accomplish have been supplanted by mistareqizations -- mischaracterizations and distortions.

that's unfortunate because what we're here to talk about is incredibly important. this is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role of our federal government. it's about who we are as americans and renewing our commitment to the principles upon which this nation was founded. this debate comes down to the legacy left behind by our founding fathers, and over two years of american history. we have a choice between being responsible stewards of their legacy as reflected in the first amendment to the constitution, or allowing the federal government to interfere in religious life in an unprecedented way. the first amendment to the constitution starts with congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. just last month, we saw our united states supreme court unanimously uphold under the

establishment and free exercise clauses of our constitution a ruling in the hosannah taber case that the federal government may not infringe on the rights of religious institutions in their hiring practices. to do so, they ruled on a unanimous basis, would interfere with the internal governance of the church. protecting religious freedom and conscience rights has in the past been, as has been mentioned here, a bipartisan issue. no less than ted kennedy himself, a liberal icon of the senate, wrote in 2009 to the pope i believe in a conscience protection for catholics in the health care field and will continue to advocate for it. senator kennedy had previously pushed for the inclusion of conscience protections in legislation he proposed in 1997 as well as in his affordable health care for all americans act proposed in 1995. these are the same protections

our amendment seeks to restore. in 1994, provisions aimed as protecting conscience rights were included in recommendations made by the task force on national health care reform led by then first lady hillary clinton. and in 1993 when president bill clinton signed the bipartisan religious freedom restoration act into law, he said the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. protecting religious freedom was once an issue that bound americans together, and it certainly is a very important issue as we take the oath of office here to uphold the constitution of the united states. and i believe this effort which is so fundamental to our national character must bring us together once more on a

bipartisan basis. i'd like to make one very important point about this amendment. unfortunately, many have tried to characterize this amendment as denying women access to contraception. that's a red herring, and it's false. we are talking about government mandates that are interfering with conscience protections here that have long been engrained in our law and just to be clear, women had access to these services before the president passed the affordable care act, and after this amendment would be passed, we'd still have access to these important services. contrary to what some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have asserted, this measure simply allows health care providers and companies to have the same conscience rights they had before the president's health care bill took effect.

we're not breaking any new ground here. in fact, we are respecting what is contained within the first amendment to the constitution and what has long been a bipartisan effort to respect the conscience rights of all americans, whatever their religious views are. this vote goes to the heart of who we are. if we allow the government to dictate the coverage and plans paid for by you religious institutions, that's the first step down a slippery slope. when religious liberty has been threatened in the past, members of both sides of the aisle of congress have taken action to preserve our country's cherished freedoms. we must do so again now, or risk compromising a foundational american principle. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give this amendment careful consideration and appreciate that it is an amendment that will respect the conscience rights of all religions and will certainly not deny women access

to services that they need and deserve. i appreciate your having me today, senator blunt, and i hope that my colleagues will support this important amendment. thank you. mr. blunt: thank you for your leadership on this, senator ayotte. and from the beginning of this discussion back in august when senator ayotte and senator rubio and senator nelson from nebraska and i have filed this bill, we've been joined in this amendment by three dozen or more other sponsors. one of whom actually i mentioned a piece of legislation that he was involved in, the first time he was in the senate, and it protected the religious rights of people who were temporarily in the country, with exactly this same language, who might have some religious belief or moral conviction that meant that they didn't want to get the vaccines that we would require a visitor to have, and senator

coats who in 1996 put this in a law that virtually every member of the senate on both parties serving today voted for, as they have time after time after time when this issue was -- this language was understood to be an important defense of the first amendment in a health care piece of legislation. and senator coats, i'm glad you joined today, and whenever i've looked into research this, saw that you had used this very language 15 years ago in a piece of legislation, and i know you're an important advocate of religious freedom. mr. coats: mr. president, i thank the senator from missouri, senator blunt. i thank him for his willingness to engage in this amendment, to put it in play here for us to engage and discuss. it is one of the fundamental

principles of our constitution. it deserves this debate and it deserves this body putting their yea or nay on the line relative to how we're going to go forward with this. anyway, i commend him for his leadership. i'm pleased to work with him and join him as well as many others on this. this is an issue really that's as old as this nation is, that we are all blessed to live in and all blessed by the wisdom of our founding fathers in guaranteeing our rights. in fact, the very first right they guaranteed under the constitution was the right of religious freedom. so many of our settlers, early settlers came here because of that very right, because of their desire to come to a country where their religious beliefs and tenets and principles would be respected and honored, where they would not be dictated by the government which they lived

under before they came here, but would be protected and preserved as a basic fundamental right. it was a transformational idea at the time, and yet for now well more than 200, 220 years or so it has been maintained throughout the history of this country. it stands as a bulwark against government interference with personal beliefs and government trying to dictate how we exercise the religious freedoms that we're also privileged to have. it's been said, and i want to just repeat it, the debate today is not about access to contraception. this is not about whether or not it is appropriate to use contraception. it's not about a woman's right to contraception. as a pro-life christian and protestant, i'm not against contraception, but i also believe it's a decision that individuals must make in accordance with their own faiths

and beliefs, not a decision made for them by their federal government. so what this debate is really about is whether congress is going to sit by and idly allow this administration trample this freedom of religion, a core american principle, or whether we stand up and protect what our founding fathers put their lives on the line for and what millions of americans today will defend. we cannot pick and choose when to adhere to the constitution and when to cast it aside in order to achieve political prerogatives. we must consistently stand for our timeless constitutional principles. and the debate that is taking place is a stand to protect an inalienable right, the right of conscience, established in our nation's founding days and sustained for over 200 years. i regret that this issue has been reframed for political purposes into a women's, woman's

right to choose, into denying women the opportunity to exercise their right to make their choice, because that is not what this is about at all. and yet, some have said it has been so successfully reframed that politically those who defend this as a matter of religious conscience and freedom are on the losing side of the political argument. well, we may be or we may not be. i think it's up for, up to this body to decide that with a thorough debate and a vote, as i say, that puts our yeas and nays on the line. nevertheless, whether it's a winner or a loser politically is irrelevant to the argument. it's irrelevant, should be irrelevant to the debate, because this clearly is a fundamental principle of religious freedom that needs to be protected regardless of the political consequences.

and so those of us who are standing up to debate this are setting aside any kind of political risk, setting aside any advice that basically says you don't want to touch this because it's been reframed in a way that the american people don't understand it. so we're here today to basically say here we are stand. here we stand to protect the liberties that are granted to us by our constitution. and regardless of the political consequences, we will continue to do that. so, mr. president, i again want to thank senator blunt and all those who are willing to address this issue, and trust that our colleagues will see this as a fundamental breach of a constitutional provision provided to us by people who sacrificed their lives to do sofplt with that, mr. president -- to do so. with that, mr. president, i thank the senator and yield back

to him. pwhrupb. mr. blunt: i yield to my neighbor in the congress, neighbor in the senate and neighbor in real life. i'm glad senator boozman came down to discuss this issue. mr. boozman: thank you. mr. president, i want to thank the senator from missouri and appreciate his hard work in bringing his leadership and bringing this amendment forward. president obama's accommodation of religious liberty, his resraoeusd health care mandate covering contraceptives, sterilizations, medicines covering abortions raising more questions than it answers. perhaps the more troublesome part is even with this revision, the president's mandate refuses to acknowledge that the constitution guarantees conscience protections. he instead tries to run around them. you don't accommodate religious liberty. you respect them. that's why they are enshrined in

the constitution. those constitutional protections should prevent the president from trampling the conscience rights of americans and religious institutions who hold a strong belief that contraceptives, sterilizations, drugs causing abortion are wrong. clearly however these constitutional protections are not enough. president obama's accommodation shows that he considers it to be an inconvenience to be able to remake america in his vision. that is why we need the respect for rights of conscience act. the respect for rights of conscience act is introduced by my colleague from my neighboring state, senator blunt, seeks to restore conscience protections that existed before president obama's health care law. these are the same protections -- and i think this is really important. these are the same protections

that have existed for more than 220 years since the first amendment was ratified. the senator from missouri's bill has been offered as an amendment to the surface transportation act, and we expect a vote on it as early as tomorrow. the amendment's goal is commendable, and i look forward to supporting it. it is simply asks the president to respect the religious liberties of americans. many long-standing federal health care conscience laws protect conscientious objections to certain types of medical services. president obama could have just as easily followed that course when he issued a mandate requiring almost all private health insurance policies, including those issued by religious institutions, such as hospitals, schools and nonprofits, to cover sterilizeizations, contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives at no cost to policyholders. but he did not. now congress must step up and protect the religious liberties

of all americans. we can do this by passing senator blunt's amendment, and i certainly encourage all of my colleagues to take a close look at this. this is so important, and restore the conscience protections that we as a nation have always stood for. again, i commend the gentleman from missouri and look forward to supporting his amendment. a senator: thank you, senator for coming down. mr. blunt: let me conclude here by saying a growing list of group support this amendment. the home school appeal defense association family research council, the southern baptist convention, americans united for life, american center for law and justice, susan b. anthony list, pwebgt fund for religious liberty, u.s. conference of catholic bishops, focus on the family, christian medical association, national right to life, national association of evangelicals, orthodox union of jewish congregations, concerned

women for america, eagle forum, religious freedom coalition, catholic vote dot org, american family association, catholic advocate, traditional values coalition, alliance defense fund, christian coalition, advance u.s.a., american association of christian schools, american principles project, wall builders, let freedom ring, liberty council action, free congress foundation, council for christian colleges and universities, students for life of america, heritage action, and others are supporting this amendment. we go back to 1965 in a supreme court case where the determination of how a conscientious objecter would be defined was clearly established in ways that led to this

religious belief and moral conviction becoming the standard. it's not just something that we came up with for this amendment. it's been the standard since 19 -- since in a 1965 case. these are the elements that you have to have. you can't just suddenly decide that you have got a religious conviction. this is a conviction that has to be a provable part of who you are. the public health service act in 1973, where senator church brought this language in to the public health arena -- this is really the first major legislation after medicare and in the medicaid discussion, the legal service corporation limitation, foreign aid funding limitation, the refusal to participate in executions, our capital crimes limitation. this language was plenty good for those things and almost every member of the current

senate, if they were there then, voted for these things and since, including the action that senator coats talked about earlier, the medicare and medicaid counseling and referral act, the federal employees health benefits plan, contraceptive coverage for federal employees in 1999, d.c. contraceptive mandate in 2000. leadership against hiv-aids and tuberculosis act in 2003. all included this language. we had to get to the affordable health care act which passed the senate and then suddenly it wasn't possible to go through the final process of legislating here. there was no conference committee. there was no house bill. my belief is that almost nobody who voted for that act originally thought that would be the final bill.

frankly, i think if we ever had a more normal process, this normal element of protecting the first amendment would have been added as it was added every other time. and this is about the first amendment. i understand the fund-raising ability to make it about something else. i understand the p.r. ability to make it about something else. but it's not about anything else. it's -- a minute ago we had three protestants on the floor here who actually on the contraception issue have probably no religious problem at all. there may be other elements of this health care later that i'd have problems with. but it doesn't matter if i have a problem with it. what matters is that i represent lots of people, and we represent lots of people who do, and the constitution is specifically designed to protect those strongly held, those religious views. as senator coats said, it was

the first thing in the first amendment. the first thing in the first amendment. it was exact in its duplication in 1994 in the great -- in the health care effort that was made in 1994. whether it was the religious, protection of religious freedom or the patients' bill of rights or the effort that the first lady clinton worked hard to do, this wasn't even really a debatable item because everybody understood this was a necessary part of protecting the first amendment to the constitution. again, i'd say if these two or three things that are most objectionable to the catholic community right now and many of the people who are opposed to this are opposed to this because they wonder what they could be

for that the decide -- what they could be opposed to that the government would decide that they had to participate in, they had to be a provider of, they had to pay the bill for, and i would ask my colleagues to think of something in their religious view that they wouldn't want to be forced by the government to be part of. and let's just give all americans that same capacity who have these strongly held religious beliefs. appeared so you'd encourage my colleagues to support the first amendment. i am grateful for those groups around the country who have rallied around the first amendment. freedom of religion defines who we are, and has defined who we are since the very beginning of constitutional government, where the first thing added to the constitution was the bill of rights. and the first thing in the bill of rights is the -- is respect for religion. and we need to not give that

away just to prove that everybody has to do what the government says because the government knows best rather than your conscience and your personal views. and this is not about whether people provide health care or not; its about whether they're -- it's about whether they're required to provide elements of health care that they bheeive are fundamentally wrong -- believe are fundamentally wrong. and how could the government force people to do things that they believe and have a provable religious conviction are fundamentally wrong? and so, mr. president, i would yield back -- i think i've used -- we've used the hour we have. but this debate will go on. there will be a vote tomorrow, but this debate will go on until this important freedom is soundly protected in health care, in hiring, in all of the elements that create that faith distinctive in individuals and

institutions that make us uniquely who they are. and i'm going to yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from missouri as he talked about his amendment. i know that he is very sincere in his efforts to protect the first amendment. if that's what this amendment was about, he would have my support. but let me try to go over the amendment and put it in context of how it is drafted. because this amendment goes well beyond -- and i would agree with with my colleague -- the issue of contraceptive services, although the genesis of this amendment was because of contraceptive services and the request from religious institutions not to -- not having to provide coverage for those services. the amendment that we have before us would allow an

employer -- any employer -- or any insurance company to deny essential medical service coverage based upon a religious or moral objection. so the concern with this amendment is that it would allow any employer in this country to deny coverage of essential medical services in a plan that the imhoi employer provides. yes, it could cover women's health care issues, it could cover contraceptives, an employer could very well say i'm against the moral issue providing that coverage. i don't believe that the historical interpretations that my colleague went through apply to that type of circumstance. this amendment would go well beyond one particular service and would cover any medical service.

in fact, it says that if an employer or insurance plan has any religious or moral objection to a service that it can choose to exclude that service from the essential benefit package or the preventive services provisions of the affordable care act. yes, it would fact women's health care. there is no question about that. it would affect health care of men and of children. the affordable care act ensures that all plans offered in the individual small-group market must cover a minimum set of essential health benefits including maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, including oral and vision care; rehabilitative services and devices; and mental health and substance abuse services including behavioral health treatment. under the blunt amendment, any employer could say, look, i don't want to cover

rehabilitative services for whatever reason. i have a moral objection to itment and they could exclude that service. preventive care would be at risk, prenatnatal care would bet risk, lifesaving i am munization would be at risk, element tail screening, hearing and vision tests, any employer could make a judgment mott to cover any one of those -- not to cover any one of those services. any insurance company could based upon a -- quote -- "moral objection. qutle "that's a very broad standard. that's why pediatricians and advocates for children across the nation oppose it. the american academy of pediatrics, the american congress of obstetricians oppose it, the association of maternal and child health programs, the children's dental health project, easter seals, genetic alliance, the march of dimes, the national association of pediatric nurse practitioners -- these are not political groups;

these are health care groups. because they know that this amendment could put at risk what we were attempting to achieve in the affordable care act and that is to make sure that we had coverage for essential fee-for-services for all of the people of this -- for essential health services for all of the people of this country. an employer could say, i don't want to cover those services, i have a moral objection. understand that could happen. this amendment would allow employers to decline offering lifesaving screening for prostate cancer screening by expliementing a moral objection even though one in six men in the united states will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. last year 33,000 americans died from prostate cancer. an employer who claims a moral objection to cigarette smoking could under the blunt amendment deny employees coverage for smoking cessation programs or treatment for lung cancer. i have a moral objection to

smoking. i'm not going to cover in my health care plan treatment for lung cancer. more people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. more than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year. and more than 150,000 die from it. last year 85,000 were men. an employer who claims a moral objection to alcohol consumption could under the blunt amendment deny coverage for substance abuse or rehabilitation or for medical treatment for liver disease, if it is found to be the result of alcohol abuse. nowhere in the affordable care act does it stipulate that any american must take advantage of the expanded preventive health services. here's where we have an agreement, we have an agreement. we're not trying to tell anyone what they have to do. we certainly -- i've been a defender of the first amendment my entire legislative career. you have a religious objection to this, then don't use the

services. nowhere in the affordable care act does h. does is it require a woman to use contraception or a man to have cancer screening or woman to receive well-baby visits. it requires that every american have access to these services so they can decide for themselves with the advice of their physician whether or not they are appropriate and healthy to utilize. the blunt amendment -- if the blunt amendment were used by employers to deny bein access to care, we're denying the people the right to make that choice themselves. and i agree. it is not just contraceptive services. it is the choice to be able to have preventive services, to take care of that you are children to have the screenings for early detection of cancer or to have treatment for sear just disease -- for serious diseases. all that have could be put at risk. the affordable care act sees health care as a right, not a risk.

so i understand the intentions may be very pure and we want to have a resolution saying that we support the first amendment. you'll have all of us in agreement on that. but when you say you're using that to remove from the affordable care act the essential health coverage for services, i think all of us agree should be available to every person in this country to make a decision whether i or she wants that health care, this amendment could be used to deny them that ability to get that health care, whether it is women's health care issues, which was the genesis of this amendment originally -- the debate we had a couple weeks ago -- or whether it is the care of our children or the care of each american. this amendment puts that at risk by allowing an individual employer or insurance company to make a decision to eliminate essential health service coverage. i don't believe we want to do

that, and i urge my colleagues to reject the blunt amendment. with that, mr. president, i and, mr. president, i just am on the floor here today, as i was earlier, to talk about the dangers of this blunt amendment. and senator blunt says it has nothing to do with providing health care to women, it's nothing to do with that. it's just about freedom of religion, he says. well, as many people say, when someone comes up to you and says, "you know, it's not about the money." it's about the money. and when someone says, "it's not about access to women's health." it'health. ", it's about religious freedom." it's about access to women's health. why do i say that? because that's what this debate is s all about. and we see it all over the country with right-wing republicans trying to take away women's health care. why are they trying to do this, you'd have to ask them, but we

are here to say no. and the thing about the blunt amendment, it would not only say that any insurer or any employer for any reason could stop women from getting access to contraception, it could also stop all of our families from getting access to essential health care services and preventive health care services. why do i say that? let's take a look at the blunt amendment. enough of this chatter. let's take a look at it. here's what it says. a health care plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health care benefits package described in our law or preventive health care services described in our law if they exercise what they call a moral objection. so say someone has a moral objection to someone who has smoked, and the

person wants to give up smoking and they want to get a smoking cessation program as part of their insurance. if the insurance says, you know, that's your fault, you're not getting it, or someone who may have diabetes and the employer or the insurer says, you know what, that was your problem, you ate too much sugar as a kid, too bad. that's what the blunt amendment does, and that is a fact. here it is. i nailed it here because this is the amendment. that's what it says. now, i want to show you this list of preventative services and essential health care services that the blunt amendment threatens. remember, the blunt amendment says there is a new clause that now says any insurer or any employer can deny any one of these benefits -- emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care,

mental health treatment, pediatric services, rehabilitative services. that's just some. here is the list of the preventative health care benefits that any insurer or any employer could deny. breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis a and b vaccines. yes, contraception. h.i.v. screening. autism screening. hearing screening for newborns. and here is the list. why do i show you this list, mr. president? particularly because i know you served on the health committee and helped put this together. this is the list of services that was put together by the expert physicians in the institute of medicine. this list of preventative health care and this list, essential health benefits. now, i was stunned to come on the floor and hear senator ayotte inspoke the name of our

dear colleague and our dearly missed colleague ted kennedy, and she tried to infer that he would support the blunt amendment. now, she is not the first republican to do it, and i am calling on my republican friends to stop right now because there are several reasons why they are wrong to do that. first of all, ted kennedy in one of his last acts here voted for the health care bill and voted for the health care bill that came out of the "help" committee. he helped to write the preventative section. he helped to write the essential health benefits section. and he would never, ever, as his son has said, ever support the blunt amendment that would say to every employer in this country, if you don't feel like offering any of these, you don't have to. he fought hard for these.

he wouldn't give an exception to an insurance company or a nonreligious employer. never. how else do i know that to be the case? i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a series of bills. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: what are these bills? these are bills that called for equity for women to get contraceptive coverage if they were given other coverage. they had the right to get contraceptive coverage. ted kennedy was a leader. he is a cosponsor on all of these bills. do you know for how many years, mr. president? 12 years. 12 years ted kennedy fought for women to get access to contraceptive coverage in their insurance. so i just say to my republican friends don't come to the floor and invoke the name of our dear colleague.

i was so proud, the first thing i did when i came to the senate, he asked me if i would help him work on a bill to protect people who were going to clinics. women's clinics that were being harassed at the clinic door, and you know what? i worked it for him. i helped him on the floor. i was so proud we won that, and now there is a safety zone for women when they go to a clinic for health care, their reproductive health care. that was ted kennedy. yes, ted kennedy supported a conscience clause. we all do. and president obama has taken care of that. he has stated it clearly in his compromise that if you are a religious institution, you don't have to offer birth control coverage, and if you are a religious-affiliated institution, you don't have to cover it directly but you do indirectly. that was a solomon-like decision

by our president. but that's not enough for my republican colleagues. they have to fight about everything. so i have to say -- and i would like to put into the record also the letter that patrick kennedy wrote to senator brown in which he said you are entitled to your own opinions, but i ask that moving forward you do not confuse my father's position with your own. and he said i appreciate the past respect you have expressed for his legacy, but misstating his positions is no way to honor his life's work. so i ask my colleagues here in this debate, come here and state your own views but don't misstate the views of a dear departed colleague who for 12 years supported the woman's right to have access to contraception. mr. president, i think the people watching this today have to be a bit confused because when they look up at the screen,

it says that we're on a transportation bill, and indeed we are and indeed we have been on it for almost three weeks now. and i say to my colleagues who know the importance of this bill, please let us get to it. let us get to the heart of the matter. we have a huge unemployment rate among construction workers. the unemployed construction workers, they could fill 15 super bowl stadiums. that's how many are unemployed. we need to get to this bill. it's important to our businesses. it's important to our workers. it's important to our communities. it's important for our safety. it's important to fix the bridges and the highways. it's important to carry out the vision of a republican president dwight eisenhower who said it was key that we be able to move people and goods through our great nation. you know, when olympia snowe, our very respected colleague from maine, told us yesterday that she would not seek

re-election, she said it was because there is so much polarization here. and i said this morning, this bill is exhibit one. here we have an underlying bill that came out of four committees in a bipartisan way, and it means that we can save 1.8 million jobs, create up to a million new jobs, and guess what. the first amendment, birth control, women's health, an attack on women's health. and we have to come here to the floor and stand on our feet and fight back. and you know what? i'm proud to do it. i'm proud to do it. i'm proud of the men and women who have stood on this floor and who have come to press conferences and have been on conference calls fighting for women's rights. but this issue was decided a long time ago. we know that access to contraception is critical for people. a full 15% of women who use it use it to fight debilitating

monthly pain or to make sure that tumors don't grow any larger or for severe skin conditions, and the rest use it to plan their families, and when families are planned, you know what happens, mr. president? the babies are healthier, the families are ready, abortions go down in number. it's a win-win. and we all know that, we really all know that. and i always thought we could reach across the aisle and work together to make sure that there was family planning, but today just proves the opposite, that our colleagues on the other side, the republicans, are really bound and determined to go after women's health. i stand here today opposing the blunt amendment, thanking my colleagues for their eloquence and hoping we can dispose of it, defeat it and get back to our transportation bill. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to oppose the blunt amendment which simply goes way too far. the president has struck the right balance in his decision to address religious institutions' concerns when it comes to providing women's health services, but this amendment gives all employers shockingly broad discretion to make moral decisions for their employees, fundamental decisions about some of the most personal issues an individual faces. the health care needs of themselves and their families, a woman's decision about contraception and family planning, decisions about whether their child gets a blood transfusion for a deadly disease, decisions regarding the use of prescription drugs, decisions on who to treat and how to treat them based entirely on an employer's moral views, not an individual's moral beliefs. the bottom line is health services should not be provided

at the moral discretion of an employer but on the medical determination of the employee and their doctor. according to the department of health and human services, 1.7 million new jerseyans, almost 100,000 children, over 600,000 women, over 600,000 men, benefit from the expanded preventative service coverage from their private insurers that we created under the law. screenings for coloradoon cancer, -- for colon cancer, mammograms for women, a host of other routine procedures. all of these could be taken away under this proposed amendment should their employer determine it's against their personal beliefs or convictions. every day, millions of americans who are worried about a health condition go to see their doctor. millions of women go for necessary screening and access to legal medical procedures. their doctor evaluates their condition and recommends a course of treatment, and that can change from simple

preventative measures such as exercise and diet to a prescription drug regimen to major surgery. the last thing that a woman or her doctor should have to concern themselves with is whether their employer will deem their medical treatment to be immoral based on their employer's personal beliefs, regardless of their own beliefs or needs. the last thing they need is to be denied coverage by an employer who would be allowed under this amendment to effectively practice a form of morality medicine that has nothing to do with accepted medical science or the affected individual's personal beliefs. under the language of this amendment, that's exactly what would happen. it would allow employers simply to deny coverage based on a particular religious doctrine or moral belief, regardless of the science, medical evidence or the

legality of the prescribed treatment. put simply, we expect our health insurers, no matter where we work, no matter what our faith, to cover basic benefits and necessary medical procedures recommended by our doctor. that we as individuals should have the right to decide which of those benefits we use based on our own personal beliefs, our medical diagnose and our treatment options. just because one person makes one decision or holds one belief doesn't mean someone else will do the same. that's what freedom is all about. the arbitrary denial of coverage based on anything other than good science and rational medical therapy was the driving force behind the need for health care reforms that ensure that if you paid your premiums, you would be covered. freeing families from having to choose between putting food on the table, paying their mortgage or using their savings to pay for medical treatment because an

insurer, based on their rules, refused to cover them. with this amendment, we are turning back our clock and allowing the arbitrary denial of coverage based on someone else's sense of morality. that, mr. president, is not what america is about. it is not what freedom of religion is about. in a system predicated on employer-based health insurance coverage in which workers often forgo other benefits such as wage increases in exchange for coverage, it is vitally important to ensure families can count on their coverage to provide the treatments and benefits they need, and we can continue doing so, as we have for many years while respecting people's personal moral beliefs. supporters of this amendment claim that it's about protecting religious freedom. they are wrong. supporters of this amendment claim that recent regulations guaranteeing a woman's access to

preventative health care services is a governmental overreach. they are wrong. what supporters of this amendment are actually trying to accomplish has nothing to do with either of those issues. it has to do with trying to dismantle health care reform to score cheap political points and throw america's mothers, daughters and sisters under the bus in the process. this amendment is not about religious freedom. the president rightly addressed that concern with a recent compromise he announced for religious institutions. no, it's about allowing morality-based medicine to deny coverage for neonatal care for unwed women. to deny access to life-saving vaccines for children. to refuse to cover medications for hiv-aids and other sexually transmitted diseases or even deny coverage for diabetes or hypertension because of an ethical objection to an unhealthy lifestyle. the scope s unlimited. if it were truly about religious

freedom or about contraceptives, then why have so many nationally respected organizations that have nothing to do with birth control, reproductive issues or religion such as the easter seals, the march of dimes, the spina bifida association, come out in such strong opposition? the answer is simple. because the amendment isn't about birth control and it isn't about religious freedom. the amendment is about fundamentally undermining our system of patient protections, especially for women, and leads us backward to a time when insurance companies and employers could play life-or-death games with insurance coverage. supporters of this amendment will stop at nothing to undermine the progress made thanks to health care reform. progress that says insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of a preexisting condition, can no longer impose arbitrary caps on the coverage you can receive or

cancel a policy because of a diagnosis they deem too expensive to cover. mr. president, in my view, it is shameful that they are using women's health and access to vital preventive services as a scapegoat for larger anti-health agenda. any attempt to say otherwise is simply wrong. so let me close by saying, mr. president, by allowing any employer to deny any service for any reason, we are doing a disservice to the people we represent. we would be turning the constitution on its head to favor a morality based medical decision over good science and the relationship between a patient and their doctor. this is an incredibly overreaching amendment with radical consequences and i urge my colleagues to oppose it and preserve the progress we've made on trying to level the playing field for workers and patients in this country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise to thank distinguished senator from new jersey for his remarks and my friend and colleague from california. she has fought this fight along with the dean of our women, senator mikulski, year after year and time after time. before i speak about the blunt amendment, i just wanted to express that the retirement -- or announced prospective retirement of senator olympia snowe is for me a heartbreak. i have regarded her as one of the most impressive senators in our body. she still has many good years ahead of her. i've had had the pleasure of working with her on a number of bills, most importantly we did really the only fuel economy

improvement that had been done in 20 years if the ten over ten bill. and what's interesting about it, it was a bipartisan bill and it goss passed thanks to senator ted stevens, who was chairman of the commerce committee at the time, and put it in his bill. and so it was really quite wonderful to see this happen. mr. president, i've been here, this is my 20th year along with my friend and colleague, senator boxer. and over the ten -- last ten years, what i've seen is more and more attacks on women, women's health, stemming largely from the abortion business, but not only that. we've fought and senator mikulski has led the way, for -- against equal pay discrimination, attacks on title ten family planning grants and programs, attempts to defund planned parenthood,

attempts to limit access to preventive health care such as contraception. these attacks to limit a woman's right to make her own reproductive health care choices have escalated now to really an unprecedented level. i'm not going to go into the specifics of some of them, but trust me, i never thought i saw people in public office put forward some of the bills that have been put forward. i believe strongly that all women should have access to comprehensive reproductive care, should be able to decide for themselves how to use that care regardless of where they work or what insurance they have. the other side of the aisle has tried to take away access not only to contraception but also primary and preventive screenings for low-income women that are provided by the title 10 family planning program and by planned parenthood.

these programs provide services to almost eight million americans nationwide. they are not minor. they are major. and for many individuals, it is their only source of care. and now here we are, defending not just women's rights but the right of all americans to access essential and preventive health care benefits. so i strongly oppose this latest attack in the form of the blunt amendment, and i join my colleagues on the floor to speak about the harm that this amendment will do. i think it was stated by senator menendez that the amendment is vague, but what it does in its vaguery, it becomes a predicate for any provider, employer or insurer to decline to provide to cover a myriad of health care benefits simply on the basis of religious beliefs or moral

conviction. there's no statement in the legislation as to what the religious belief has to be or what the moral conviction has to be or when it begins or when it ends. it is really an excuse as to why they do not want to do something. what does this mean? well, what it means in reality is 20 million women could be denied any preventive health care benefits, including contraception, including mammograms, including prenatal screenings, including cervical cancer screenings. in addition, 14 million children -- and this is right -- could be denied according to the words of this blunt amendment access to recommended preventive services, including routine immunizations, necessary preventive health screenings for infants and developmental

screenings. in my state alone, an estimated 6.2 million individual, 2.3 million women, 1.6 million children, and two million men could be denied access to the preventive services afforded them by the health reform law, which incidentally, is four typewritten pages single spaced. a list of preventive services. this debate is not about religious freedom. it's about allowing providers and employers the right to deny access to care for autism screening, s.t.d. and cancer screening and well-baby exams for any reason. all they have to say is they have a moral concern with it, that their conscience bothers them. for instance, any employer could refuse to cover screening

for type 2 diabetes because of moral objections to a perceived unhealthy lifestyle. a health plan could refuse to cover maternity coverage for an interracial couple because they have a religious or moral objection to such a relationship. the only thing this amendment does is protect the right to deny. it doesn't give anything. it allows denial. it does nothing to protect the rights of employees to access fundamental health care. the radical wing of the republican party does not speak for most of the women in this country. about a hundred organizations nationwide oppose this amendment. the national partnership for women's and families, national physicians alliance, human rights campaign, and the american public health association. earlier, we heard from

intensive care nurse who had worked 37 years in intensive care in a boston hospital saying when people got the best care is essentially when the politicians stay away, and i really believe that. i have heard today -- and i'm sure senator boxer has likely heard from a similar number -- from 11,500 constituents in my state, senator boxer's state, that oppose this amendment and have grave concerns about its implications. i don't need to tell the women in this body that we have had to fight for our rights. no one has given women anything without a fight. we had to fight for our right to inherit property, our right to go to colleges, our right to vote, and for the last ten years, the right to control our own reproductive systems.

we will continue to fight the blunt amendment, and other attempts to roll back the clock. so i urge my colleagues to think carefully about the long reaching implications of this amendment and oppose it. i want to -- senator boxer shared with me a letter, and she indicated that she had read one part of it. i'd like to read another part of it. this is a letter from patrick kennedy to scott brown, and i want to read this paragraph because it involves someone that everybody on this floor knows sat right over there at that desk for years, was known as the lion of the senate, and when he stood on his feet, everyone listened. and here's what he said. my father believed that health care providers should be allowed a conscience exemption from performing any service that conflicted with their faith.

that's what was in his 1995 law and what he referenced to the pope. that is completely different than the broad language of the blunt amendment that will allow any employer or even an insurance company to use vague moral objections as an excuse to refuse to provide health care coverage. my father never would have supported this extreme legislation. and it's signed patrick kennedy, and i believe senator boxer, you put the letter in the record so anyone that would like to see the whole letter has access to it. but i really hope that this is defeated on the floor, and now i see the distinguished senator from the neighboring state, maryland, the dean of the women on the floor, and so i will yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, what's the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the majority has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent to extend this time for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues who have spoken on this amendment, particularly those who oppose the amendment. mr. president, i come to the floor today with sadness in my heart. i come because yesterday -- or over the weekend one of our maryland national guard was killed in afghanistan. he was one of two men working in a building in which he was attacked by someone he trusted at the interior service, and it appears that he was

assassinated. i talked to his widow. we're sad. we're sad that somebody who went to defend freedom was killed in such a terrible way. i'm sad because last night i spoke to a dear friend of mine whose husband is very ill from the ravages of brain cancer. and we remembered so many good times we had together, but those good times now don't seem possible in the future. and i want so much that she be with her husband and not think about the consequences of cost and so on, and today, -- or last night we learned that our very dear friend and colleague, senator olympia snowe, is going to retire because -- not because she's tired, but because she's sick and tired of the partisanship. senator snowe is not tired.

she's sick and tired. of the partisanship. and you know what, so am i. we have a highway bill here. we have an unemployment problem. we could solve america's problems and get it rolling again, and if we pass the highway bill with the appropriate debate on amendments germane to the bill, we could do it. so i'm really sad. i am sad that i have to come to the floor to debate an amendment that has no relevance to the highway bill. and i'm sad because we are so tied up in partisan politics and scoring political points that we don't look at how can we get our troops out of afghanistan, how can we make sure we have a budget that can fund the cure for cancer and at the same time make sure any family hit by that dreaded c word doesn't go bankrupt during care and i'm devastated that a dear friend and an extraordinary public servant is so fed up with how toxic we've become that she

chooses not to run for office again. so i want to be serious, and, therefore, you need to know i'm really sad about this but i'm also really very frustrated about this. so i want to talk about this blunt amendment because we've heard nothing but mythology, smoke screens and politics as masquerading as morality all day long. so let me tell you what the blunt amendment is not. it is not about religious organizations providing health care and government saying what the benefits should be. it is not about affiliated religious organizations and government saying what the service is to be. this amendment is about nonreligious insurance companies and nonreligious employers. it is about secular insurance companies and it's about secular employers. the blunt amendment allows that

any -- any -- health insurer or employer can deny coverage for any health service that they choose based on something called religious beliefs and moral convictions. now, there's a body of knowledge that defines religious beliefs, but what is a moral conviction. that's not doctrine. that's your personal opinion. a moral conviction, no matter how heartfelt, no matter how sincere, no matter funded upon ethical principles, is still your personal opinion. so we're going to allow the personal opinions of insurance companies and the personal opinions of employers to determine what health care you get. what happened to doctors? what happened to the definition of essential health care? so this is not about religious

freedom. this is not about religious liberty, because it's not even about religious institutions. so let's get real clear on this blunt amendment. this amendment is politics masquerading as morality. and make no mistake, the politics is rooted in wanting to derail and dismember the affordable care act and our preventive health care amendment. so what the blunt amendment does, as i said, allow any insurer or any employer to deny coverage based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. well, what that essentially means is this: let's look at examples. if an employer has a conviction, a personal opinion, against smoking, they can refuse to cover treatment for lung cancer or emphysema.

if an employer has a personal opinion that he calls a moral conviction, that doesn't approve of drinking alcohol, they can refuse to cover any program for alcohol treatment or substance abuse. let's say that there's an employer who doesn't believe in divorce and says "i won't cover health care in my bill for anybody who is divorced because i think i have a moral conviction against." suppose you say in some schools of thought that says i have a moral conviction that says a woman can only see a woman doctor. and i won't cover anything where she's seen by a male physician. where are we heading here? i mean, i could take this down. these are not ridiculous

examples. it puts the personal opinion of employers and insurers over the practice of medicine. this is outrageous. this is vague. it's going to end up with all kinds of lawsuits. and let's speak about lawsuits. while we've all been pounding -- some have been pounding their chest and talking about religious freedom and the constitution, what's also on the blunt amendment is this whole thing that gives employers access to federal courts under the blunt amendment if they feel they can't exercise that amendment. this is a new lawyers full employment bill. i'm shocked because the other party over there is always trashing lawyers. they're always trashing the trial lawyers association. now they've created a whole new right, an opportunity for federal court action, clogging the courts on this particular

issue. you see, this is why america is so fed up. they want us to be focusing on health care. they want us to be focusing on how to lead better lives. so let me talk about how we got to this in the first place. remember why we had health reform legislation? i remember because it still exists. 42 million americans are uninsured. 42 million americans are uninsured with health care. this is the fifth anniversary of a little boy in prince george's county who died because he did not have access to dental care. his infection was so bad, so severe there was nobody to see him, his mother was too poor to be able to pay for it. that little boy in the shadow of the capitol of the united states did die. that's why we work for the affordable care act. you can call it obamacare. i don't care what you call it. i call it an opportunity for the

american people to get what a great democratic society should provide. and then we also not only looked at what was uninsured, we also looked at the issues around women. senator stabenow held a hearing. i held a hearing. and guess what we found? women paid more for their health insurance than men did of equal age and equal health status. nobody said, wow, that's a social justice issue. well, i have a moral conviction about that. i have a really deeply felt moral conviction that if you're a woman, you shouldn't be discriminated against by your insurance company. we also found that women were denied health care because of preexisting conditions. we found that in eight states, that if you were a victim of domestic violence, you were doubly abused not only by your spouse, but you couldn't get insurance coverage because they said