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 the cost of physical and

mental health care would be too much. i had a moral conviction. i had a moral conviction that if you are a victim of domestic violence, you shouldn't be denied health care. i had a real strong moral conviction about that. then during my hearing, i heard a bone-chilling story. it wasn't just me, those who attended. there was a woman who testified that she had a medically mandated c-section. then she was told by her insurance company in writing that she had to get sterilized in order to receive health insurance from them. the insurance company was mandating sterilizeization to get coverage. i nearly went off my chair. at that hearing there was a representative of the insurance company. they had no moral reaction to that. they had no moral reaction to that. i had a reaction. i had a really big one. that's why we offered the amendments that we did, where you could not deny health care

on the basis of preexisting conditions. so i have a lot of moral convictions around this. that in the united states of america, no child should die because of the absence of health care. no woman should be discriminated against in the health care system. and at the same time that you need to be able to have the opportunity to get the services that your doctor says that you needed. but the other thing is i want it not tonal save lives but to save money, and we knew prevention was the way to go. i came to the floor and offered the preventive health amendment. it was a great day. men and women spoke for it. and it was primarily oriented to women, but it was going to cover men as well. and it was going to make sure that early detection and early screening would save lives. we spoke about the necessity for mammograms. we spoke about the necessity for screening for diabetes and heart

disease. and the kinds of things that if detected early could save those lives. that bipartisan amendment passed. then after it was passed, the bill passed, the secretary of health and human services said preventive benefits should be defined not by politicians and not by a bureaucrat at h.h.s., but by the medical community. so she requested the institute of medicine to define the preventive health care benefit. the preventive benefits that we're talking about, that blunt says an employer doesn't have to provide, came from the institute of medicine. it didn't come from the congress. it didn't come from bureaucracy at h.h.s. it came from a learned, prestigious society that we turn to, the institute of medicine. these are what they said were

the essential preventive services that would save lives and also save money. so this is where this came from. now we're on the floor saying if you have a moral conviction against what's the institute of medicine says is the essential benefit, you can go ahead and do it. again, we're not talking about religious institutions who are employers. we're not talking about religious-affiliated institutions. we're talking about nonreligious institutions. madam president, ordinarily i would call this amendment folly, but this is really a masquerade. and i think it's just one more excuse to opt out of the affordable care act. it's one more excuse to opt out of obamacare. and i don't think it's an opt out. i think it's a cop out.

and we have to stop masquerading, that this is about morality or the first amendment or someone's religious beliefs. so, madam president, i hope we defeat this blunt amendment. and most of all, i wish we would get back talking about the serious issues affecting the american people. i'm going to bring those troops home. i sure want to find that cure for cancer and come up with the resources that we can do it. i want to be sure that no little boy goes through what deamonte driver and his family had to suffer even at the end. madam president, let's defeat the blunt amendment. let's get back to the highway bill. let's get america rolling. and how about let's start functioning in an institution that focuses on civility and finding that sensible center that america's known for in other years that we had our ability to govern. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: thank you. madam president, before the senator from maryland leaves the floor, i think it's an opportunity to thank her so much for really speaking the truth today on the floor of the senate. just the facts. and what the blunt amendment is about and isn't about. and also, as i watched her recite really the history of trying to bring preventive care and essential health care benefits to our people, realizing that she was in that pivotal position in the "help" committee. and i remember her looking at me one day, because we're very close friends. we're not on that particular which the. and she said to me, she said, senator kennedy asked me -- i just get the chills when i think of it -- to take on this issue

of prevention and work with tom harkin and chris dodd and step up to the plate on these essential benefits and on preventive benefits. and she literally raised this issue, particularly on the prevention side. i don't know if you remember in caucuses, on the floor, in the committee, at press conferences, that we could have really a new day here in health care in this country, because although we spend more than any country in the world, we're not getting the same results because we haven't invested in prevention. and as she said, it's not up to politicians to decide what prevention should look like. it's up to the doctors. and under the senator's leadership and that have senator harkin -- that of senator harkin and dodd and all the wonderful members of that "help" committee and the finance committee and, yes, ted kennedy in the background because he was quite, quite ill, but he sent his

messages and his staff helped. they came up with a list of essential health care services that nobody could ever kwourl with. -- quarrel with. and they came up with a list of preventive health care services that were so critical to all of us, and particularly to women. and the great news, proving to us that when you invest in prevention, you save so much down the line. we all know this is a fact. and access to contraception, by the way, was put on the list not by politicians, but by the institute of medicine, because it is known that if the individual chooses that route to plan their families, that means we'll have fewer abortions, it means we'll have healthier families, healthier babies, and many people take the birth control pill as medicine.

to prevent debilitating monthly pain. it's prescribed for skin diseases. it's prescribed to make sure that ovaries -- tumors on the ovaries don't keep growing and growing and you can possibly lose an ovary. but what happened -- and i guess i want to ask my friend one question before she leaves -- is that the blunt amendment would say that anybody for any reason any day could cancel out that whole list of prevention and essential health care services that she fought so hard for. so this -- when they say this is about religious freedom, no, no, no. that's been taken care of by our president in terms of any provider that has -- is religious or religiously affiliated. they don't have to provide contraception directly.

and even catholic charities' response was, this is a good compromise. the catholic health association, so on. so i want to ask my friend, is she aware that when congressman issa held a hearing on women's health care, there wasn't one woman on the panel on that first panel? did she see those photos of that panel that were called to speak on women's health? ms. mikulski: oh, i sure did and it was deja vu all over again, i say to my colleague from california, because it was like the anita hill hearings. remember during that time where there wasn't one woman on the judiciary committee, and what happened there -- you know, this is not number of the discrimination of women has been around a long time. i consider the discrimination against women one of the great social justice issues that whither a secular humanist or

whether you have core beliefs in an organized religion. and i found not only the picture appalling but i want to reiterate what we've been saying here. there is a systematic war against women. we don't get equal pay for equal work, we are often devaluated in the workplace, we worry more about parking lot slots for our cashes thacars than child care r our children. then when it comes to health care, what was so great about the preventive amendment, first of all, we talk the not just about family planning, but we talked about prenatal cairks we talketalked about making sure tt our children had the opportunity for liability and su survivabily at birnl. tbases the picture of us not being included but it shows that

we need to be heard. the issue is women's voices are not being heard. and i'm saying that today the voices of women are being heard and the voices of good men who support us -- and i'm telling you -- not you, senator boxer, but i'm saying out loud that if this blunt amendment passes, i believe voices of women will be heard. they will be heard on the internet, they will be heard on streets and communities and, most of all, they will be heard in the -- [inawed baling] mrs. boxer: i want to thank my colleague for her fighting spirit. the year i came here was the year when we saw that we had no women on the judiciary committee. our president sits on that committee. senator feinstein and senator moseley brown brawmoseley-braunn

who sat on the committee and paved for the way for my colleague to bring her expertise to the table there. but when congressman issa, the chairman of the committee that had no women on a panel talking about women's health -- imagine, no women. do we have that photo here? , the photo of -- the five men testifying about women's health, talking about women's access to contraception, talking about birth control. not one of those men ever gave birth, as far as i know -- unless they are a medical miracle. and this photo, i think is changing this country this year because a picture is worth thousands of words. and you look at this and you see that over on the house side in that republican side that's who they want to hear from. and when a woman in the audience

said to the chair of that committee, can i speak, i think i have some important information, she said she was not qualified. she was not-- so i suppose if you want to be qualified to speak about women's health, you have to be a man, and her story that she wanted to share is of a friend who was unable to get access to birth control because her employer didn't offer it, and the she was too financially strapped to use it, and as a result a cyst on an ovary became so large, she lost her ovary. i just want to say to my colleagues here, we're on a highway bill. you have got to be kidding that we have now wasted three weeks because you are so consumed with attacking women's health. get over it.

we're not going to go back. the women of this country won't allow it. look what happened in virginia. they had a plan they were going to give an invasive -- mandate an invasive procedure, humiliating procedure, medically unnecessary procedure to women. and in virginia the women said, what? and the governor said, whoops, i've got some ambitions to do more than this. i better change. and i just want to say to my colleagues here, vote this down, table this amendment. this blunt amendment -- misnot going to get us anywhere -- this is not going to get us anywhere. what does to do create one job -- except for jobs for attorneys. i'll sure the trial lawyers will love the freerns this bill. sets up a whole new right of action because somebody is going to say, i have a moral objection

against giving cancer treatment to a child because i think prayer is the answer. somebody will sue and that employer will sue and they'll sue and they'll sue and there will be money, money, money, going to lawyers. great, what did that do to help one child? what did that do to make somebody feel better? what did that do to help create one job? i know the leaders on both sides are trying to figure pout a pathway forward on this highway bill. and i am a just saying, we better have a pathway forward because i want to say to the president sitting in the chair, whwho is a proud member of the environment and public works committee and i halted to lose her but everybody wants her on their committee, so i lost her, she knows how it is. she lived in the state where a bridge collapsed. she fought hard to get that bridge rebuilt in record time. she knows how important it is to protect people by making sure our bridges are safe.

we have safe roads to schools, we have good tr transit alternatives, we fix our roads and our hoissments you know, 70% of our bridges are deficient. i'm sorry, i stand corrected. 70,000 of our bridges stand deficient. 50% of our roads are not up to standard. and we are voting ogee birth control? come on! what's next? egypt in testify a whole list of things that have nothing to do with the highway bill. bring it on! let the people see who is stopping progress, who is hopping this bill? because at the end of marks you know what happens? we run out on the authorization of the highway bill. we run out on the authorization of the transportation bill. we run out and we will lose 630,000 jobs right then and there. instead, we can get this bill

done. it's terrifically bipartisan. it came out of the committee 18-0. it came out of other committees with bipartisan vote. we can get on with it, protect 1.8 million jobs, and create up to another million jobs. 2.8 million jobs are at stake, and we're debating birth control. and i think this is resonating in the country. you know, all of a sudden people wake up and they say, what are they doing there? what is happening therenes ther? and when they see this, it's going to be very clear -- we have a bill that's been stuck on the floor for three weeks because the republicans are demanding votes on matters that have nothing to do with the highway bill. and the first one is birth control. they're talking about something on egypt. they're talking about something

on -- oh, this is a good one: repealing an environmental law that is keeping arsenic, lead, and mercury out of the air. they want to repeal that law. that's great. that will a doing in to make us safe. i'm ready for these amendments. come on to the floorks give us a time agreement. let's get on with it. and let's then allow the germane amendments to be offered. the last thing i will a close with is this because it's haunting me. the picture of 15 stadiums -- football stadiums filled shall every seat filled, would equal the number of unemployed construction workers we have out there today. well over a million, suffering because they can't find construction work. and so, i can only say it's time to get this birth control amendment behind us.

let's beat t let's beat the blunt amendment of it is a disaster. it is dangerous. it is hurtful. it is irrelevant i. irrelevant to this bill and it is dangerous for the country. stop invoking the name of a departed colleague. respect his family. respect hiss memory. -- respect his memory. let's get this vote over with. let's go to the business at hand and create the jobs that the american people are crying for. and i am very pleased to see a and i am very pleased to see a floor. >> got from yesterday with the senate is about to gavel in this morning. do we spend the day debating the transportation bill setting highway and transit programs to policy. senators are expected to vote at 11 a.m. related to an amendment by senator roy blunt allowing employers and other insurance providers to decline coverage of care that they have a moral

objection to. the senator's office called the minute the respect for rights of conscience act. and now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: .let us pray. eternal lord god, who rules the raging of the sea, thank you for the gift of freedom.

we are grateful for a nation where we can speak, vote, and worship as we wish. may we never take liberty's blessings for granted, but remember our accountability to you to be responsible in our thoughts, words, and actions. use our senators to preserve our freedoms. let integrity be the hallmark of their characters, individually and corporately. fill their hearts with your unalterable, undiminishing, and unending love.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 1, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will resume

consideration of the surface transportation bill. as i indicated last night, i now ask consent, unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by prior to the vote in relation to the blunt amendment and all other provisions remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: and the time that senator mcconnell and i use prior to the vote not count against the 90 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so the vote will be somewhat after 11:00 but it shouldn't be long after 11:00. we hope that when we get rid of this amendment that we'll be able to make an agreement with the republicans to move forward on this bill. we've been unsuccessful in doing that to this point. mr. president, too often cooperation is in short supply here in the senate. so i was pleased when we began consideration of a truly bipartisan jobs bill. as i've said here a number of times the past week or so, if

there were ever a bipartisan bill, this is it. progressive barbara boxer, conservative jim inhofe have agreed to move forward on a bill that wail save 1.8 million jobs and create about a million more jobs. so this would put millions of people to work right away. although our economy has grained momentum there are still millions of americans out of work. so it should be obvious why we can't afford to delay efforts to rebuild our roadways and brims. almost a thousand organizations including business groups and labor unions that rarely see eye to eye on anything support this commonsense measure. more than 30 of those groups including the united states chamber of commerce and the american automobile association, triple a, have asked senators to refrain from offering unrelated ideological amendments to this bill. a as i said, mr. president, almost a thousand

organizations, almost a thousand organizations want this done. here's what the u.s. chamber and triple a wrote recently and i quote, "the organizations that we represent may hold diverse views on social, energy, and fiscal issues, but we are united in our desire to see immediate action on the senate's bipartisan highway and transit reauthorization measures close -- quote --." we started on this legislation on february 7. it's the first day of march now. these groups don't agree on much, but they do agree that this legislation is too important to be bogged down with political amendments, so they spoke as one. there was a time when this kind of cooperation was a standard in the senate. there was a time when two senators who had little in common could still share common purpose.

there was a time when groups of senators divided by political party could still be united in their desire to pass worthy legislation. one senator who has always exemplified that willingness to set aside philosophical and political difference is my friend, the senior senator from maine, olympia snowe. i've always appreciated senator snowe's ability to look at every side of an issue, with a practical eye and not a political eye. her courage, common sense and moderation will be missed here in the united states senate. over the last 15 years, i've had the pleasure of working many times with senator snowe on an issue now at the forefront of this debate. both across the nation and on the senate floor. beginning in 1997, we worked together to increase women's access to contraception, and to make sure insurance companies treated contraceptives like

other prescription medications. there are plenty of things senator snowe and i disagree, lots of things. but by finding common ground we improved women's health and reduced unintended pregnancies, something we should all agree on. and there's no question that was accomplished by what we did legislatively. unfortunately, the bipartisan progress senator snowe and i made over the years is now under attack. today, the senate will vote on an extreme ideological amendment to the bipartisan transportation bill. this amendment takes aim at women's access to health care. it would allow any employer or insurer to deny coverage for virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. i repeat, it will allow any employer or insurer to deny coverage for virtually any treatment for virtually any reason. i was pleased to hear that senator snowe intends to oppose this measure. i read that last night. although the amendment was designed to restrict women's

access to contraception, it would also limit all americans' access to essential health care. here are just a few of the life-saving treatments employers could deny if this amendment passes. hard to comprehend but here's what some of them would be. madam owe grams and other cancer screenings. prenatal care, flu shots, diabetes screenings, childhood vaccinations. to make matters works, republicans held up progress on an important jobs bill to extract this political vote. as the economy is finally moving forward a little bit, republicans have tried to force congress to take its foot off the gas. every member of this body knows the blunt amendment has nothing to do with highways or bridges or trains or train tracks. this amendment has no place on a transportation bill. but with two million jobs at stake, the senate cannot afford to delay progress on a job i-creating measure any longer. so developments have agreed to

greed to vote on senator blunt's amendment so we can hopefully move on. once the senate disposes of this partisan political amendment i hope we'll be able to resume in earnest bipartisan work on a transportation bill. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i've spent a lot of time in my senate career defending the first amendment and most of that time i've focused on the part that deals with free speech. but recent actions by the obama administration related to the president's health care law have prompted many of us here and many across the country to stand up and in defense of another freedom that's covered in the first amendment, and that's religious freedom. let me just say at the outset

that most of us didn't expect that we'd ever have to defend this right in a body which every one of us is sworn to uphold and defend the u.s. constitution. boast of us probably assumed that if ploinls liberty were ever seriously challenged in this country, we could always expect a robust, bipartisan defense of it, at least from within the congress itself. but, unfortunately, that's not the situation we find ourselves in. democrats have evidently decided they'd rather defend a president of their own party regardless of the impact of his policies. so rather than defend the first amendment in this particular case they've decided to engage in a campaign of distraction as a way of obscuring the larger issue which 19 a stake here. -- at stake here. if democrats no longer see the value in defending the first amendment because they don't think it's politically expedient to do so or because they want to protect the president, then

republicans will have to do it for them. and we're happy to do that. because this is an issue that's greater than any short-term political gain, gets right at the heart of who we are as a people, and we welcome the opportunity to affirm what this country is all about. what makes america unique in the world is the fact that it was established on the basis of an idea, the idea that all of us have been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or certainly a congress, but by the creator himself. the state protects these rights but it does not grant them. and what the state doesn't grant, the state can't take away. now, the first of these rights according to the men who wrote the constitution is trite to have one's religious beliefs protected from government

interference. the first amendment couldn't be clearer on this point. the government can neither establish religion nor can it prevent its free exercise. and if the free exercise of religion clause of the first amendment means anything at all, it means that it is not within the power of the federal government to tell anybody what to believe or to punish them for practicing those beliefs. and yet that's precisely what the obama administration is trying to company do through the president's health care law. we all remember then-speaker pelosi saying we'd have to 35s the health care bill to find out what was in it. well, this is one of the things we found. that it empowers bureaucrats here in washington to decide which tenets religious institutions can and can't adhere to. if they don't get in line, they'll be penalized.

according to congressional testimony delivered this week by usba uden of the becht fund for religious liberty, this is not only unprecedented in federal law but broader in scope and narrower in its exemption than the 28 state some have pointed to in the administration's defense. moreover, even in states with strictest mandates, religious institutions can still either opt out of state-level mandate or self-sure. -- self-insure. but if they try that now, they run into this new federal mandate making it impossible for the first time for religious institutions to avoid punishment for practicing what they preach. now some of the proponents of this mandate say that in this case we should just ignore the first amendment. that's what the proponents are saying. in this particular instance, just ignore the first amendment. they say that certain religious

beliefs in question aren't particularly popular, so they don't really deserve first amendment protection. but isn't that the entire point of the first amendment? to protect rights regardless of who or how many people hold them. isn't that the reason people came to this country in the first place? as a refuge from governments who said they had to toe the majority line. some of the proponents of this mandate have also said they're willing to offer a so-called compromise that would respect what they call the core mission of loins institutions, but here's the catch: they want to be the ones to tell these loins institutions what -- religious institutions what their core mission is. the government telling the institutions what the core mission is. that's not a compromise, that's another government takeover. only this time isn't the banks or the car companies, it's

religion. i mean who do you think has a better grasp of the mission of the catholic church, the cardinal archbishop of new york or the president's campaign manager? who are you going to listen to on the question of whether this mandate violates freedom of religion? the president of one of the-alarmest seminaries on the planet or -- the largest seminaries on the planet or some bureaucrat in washington? the question answers itself. look, this is precisely the kind of thing the founders fear. it was precisely because of the danger of a government intrusion into religion like this one that they left us the first amendment in the first place, so that we could always point to it and say no government -- no government -- no president has that right. religious institutions are free to decide what they believe, and

the government must respect their right to do so. and remember, as many of us said during the debate on the president's health care bill, this is just the beginning. if the government is allowed to compel people to buy health care, it won't stop there. now it's telling people what their religious beliefs are and what their religious practices ought to be. i wonder what's next. let's be clear, this isn't about one particular religion. it's about the right of americans of any, any religion to live out their faith without the government picking and choosing which doctrines they're allowed to follow. when one religion is threatened, all religions are threatened. and allowing this particular infringement would surely ease the way for others. this is something my constituents understood immediately in this debate.

i've received a lot of letters from religious leaders and concerned citizens who know that an attack on the beliefs of one religion is an attack on the beliefs of any religion. and many of them make the case a lot better than i can. so i'd like to just share for a moment some thoughts from my constituents on this issue. i'll start with the catholic archbishop of louisville, archbishop joseph kurtz, the federal government which claims to be of, by and for the people, has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people: the catholic population. and to the millions more who are served by the catholic faithful. in so ruling, the administration has cast aside the first amendment to the constitution of the united states, denying to catholics our nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.

we cannot, we will not comply with this unjust law. people of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. here's what bishop ronald gainer of the catholic diocese of lech sing to -- lexington had to say: civil law and civil structure protect the church's right and obligation to participate in society without expecting us or forcing us to abandon or compromise our fundamental moral convictions. if we have an obligation to teach and give eyewitness to moral values that should shape our lives and inspire our society, then there is a corresponding obligation that we be allowed to follow and express freely those religious values. anything short of government protection of that freedom represents an unwarranted threat of government interference. here's the president of the university of the cumberlands

jim taylor, the intrusion of the administration into the right of the free exercise of religion is tkeus pointing. the choice -- disappointing. the choice to interfere with religious hospitals, charities and schools with a mandate violating their religious views is disconcerting and will in all probability be totally counterproductive, further polarizing this nation. and finally, i want to read a letter from dr. r. albert moler jr., the president of the southern baptist theological seminary, the flag ship school of the southern baptist convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. i'm going to quote it in full and then i'd like to submit it for the record. here's what dr. moler had to say. "i write to express my deepest concern regarding the recent policy announced by the department of health and human services that will require religious institutions to provide mandated contraceptive

and antiabortion services to employees. this policy announced by secretary sebelius tramples on the religious liberty of american christians who are now informed that our colleges, schools, hospitals and other service organizations must violate conscience in order to comply with the affordable care act. its exemption announced by the obama administration is so intentionally narrow, so intentionally narrow that it will cover only congregations and religious institutions that employ and serve only members of our own faiths. this exemption deliberately excludes christian institutions that have served this nation and its people through education, social services, and health

care. the new policy effectively tells christian institutions that if we want to remain true to our convictions and our consciences, we will have to cease serving the public. this is a policy that will either require millions upon millions of americans to accept a gross and deliberate violation of religious liberty or to accept a total s.e.c. hrarzation -- secularization of all education and social services. christians of conscience are now informed by our own government that we must violate our conviction on a matter of grave theological and moral significance. this is not a catholic issue. the inclusion of abortion forms of birth control such as emergency contraceptives will violate the deepest beliefs of millions upon millions of christians along with americans of other faiths who share these

convictions. the religious objections to this policy are rooted in centuries, centuries of teaching, belief and moral instruction." he goes on. "this policy is an outrage. it violates our deepest constitutional principles and tramples religious liberty under the feet of deliberate government policy. as many religious leaders have already indicated, we cannot comply with this policy. the one-year extension offered by the obama administration is a further insult, providing a year in which we are, by government mandate, to prepare to sacrifice our religious liberties and violate conscience. i along with millions of other americans humbly request that the congress of the united states provide an immediate and effective remedy to this intolerable violation of religious liberty. please do not allow this abominable policy to stand, protection of our most basic and

fundamental liberties now rest in your hands." so, mr. president, i'll conclude with this. if there's one good thing about this debate, it's that it's given us all an opportunity to reaffirm what we believe as americans. it gives us an opportunity to stand together and to say this is what we're all about. this is what makes america unique. this is what makes it great. that's why i'll be voting for the blunt amendment. and that's why it's my sincere hope that the president and those in his administration come around to this view too. that they come to realize from the outpouring we've seen over the past several weeks from across the country that the free and diverse exercise of religion in this country has always been one of our nation's greatest assets and one of the things that truly sets us apart. as i said at the outset of this debate, i hope the president

reconsiders this deeply misguided policy and reverses it. it crosses a dangerous line. it must be reversed. but if he doesn't, either congress or the courts will surely act. mr. president, i want to address one other matter related to my home state. we've had severe storms and tornadoes that cut through parts of the midwest yesterday, including hitting my state of kentucky. people across the bluegrass state are still recovering this morning from considerable damage caused by very severe weather. the national weather service has confirmed four tornadoes struck in kentucky with winds of up to 125 miles per hour. these funnel clouds were cited in elizabeth town, eastern grayson count, laroux county and near downtown hodginville, the

home of abe lincoln's birthplace. six tornadoes across the country through seven states: nebraska, illinois, kentucky, tennessee. reports of severe weather across the region describe frightening detail such as wind gusts of over 80 miles an hour and golf-sized hailstones. there were reports of power outages for thousands of people across kentucky, particularly in my hometown of louisville, towns of elizabeth town, paducah and grayson counties. downed power lines, flashing flooding were reported all across the state. news reports and accounts from my own staff tell me there has been considerable damage across kentucky, including dozens of homes and businesses damaged and several people injured. two people in mccracken county near paducah were rescued from an overturned mobile home and rushed to the hospital in

critical condition. from what we know at this point, however, thankfully it appears no lives were lost in kentucky. unfortunately, the same cannot be said elsewhere, as the severe weather that raged through six other states has reportedly claimed at least 12 lyles. i join -- lives. i join my colleagues from the affected states in keeping in my thoughts today all those affect bid -- by these storms especially the families of those lost. i want to extend my gratitude to the first responders in kentucky and across the entire midwest who have risen to the occasion and provided the much-needed response and relief. let me particularly thank the kentucky national guard, which is there to assist as always when disaster strikes. authorities are warning us that the threat from severe weather is not over. more storms are expected today in alabama, tennessee, and again in kentucky. we'll continue to keep a close eye on kentucky and other states

and the affected region and make sure people have everything they need to clean up, rebuild and reclaim their dignity from the wreckage of this tragedy. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the letter read by the republican leader will be submitted to the record. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1813, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 311, s. 1813, a bill to reauthorize federal aid, highway and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be 90 minutes equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: mr. president, i rise in strong, strong passionate support of the blunt amendment, a very important amendment which we'll be voting on as an entire u.s. senate at

11:00 a.m. this morning. the blunt amendment is an absolutely necessary measure to fix what is very egregious overstepping of the bound of government in terms of the new, newly articulated obamacare mandate on religion. as we all know through the debate and discussion of the last several weeks, the obama administration has made it clear that everyone, including persons of faith, including religious institutions, are not only going to be forced to buy a product in the marketplace -- and many of us think that itself is unprecedented and unconstitutional -- but it gets worse, because they will be forced to buy a product in the marketplace that violates their conscience, that violates their core beliefs. catholics, many other christians, many people of faith do not believe in certain

activity and treatment that is mandated now to be covered by this mandatory insurance. and that is crossing the line that we have never before crossed in this country in terms of government power, government mandates and government intrusion into the conscience of others and to the free exercise of religion. we absolutely need to fix this. mr. president, this is a fundamental conscience issue. this is a freedom of religion issue. and that's exactly why it's so important. let me also clarify, mr. president, this isn't merely about contraception. folks on the other side of the debate and most of the media constantly puts it merely in those terms. well, first of all, those measures in and of themselves violate the conscience of many americans. but secondly, it's not just

about that. it's about abortion. it's about abortion-inducing drugs like plan b. it's about sterilization. now clearly these measures, clearly the government mandating americans to buy, to pay for, to subsidize these measures violate the conscience of tens and tens of millions of americans. and that's why we must act, hopefully today, starting today, by passing the blunt amendment. now, mr. president, the arguments made on the other side when you look at them carefully just don't hold water. first of all, there's president obama's so-called accommodation, so-called compromise. which isn't an accommodation, and isn't a meaningful compromise at all. what did he say? he said okay, we're not going to make americans, persons of faith, religious institutions

buy coverage that they have moral qualms with. we are merely going to make the insurance provider provide that coverage whether the customer wants it or not. mr. president, that is a completely superficial, completely meaningless word game. the insurers providing this -- how? what payment is supporting it? the only payment is is the insurer is getting is from the customer who objects to the coverage, so who's supporting it? who's paying for it? clearly, this is just a word game. if it weren't clear enough for the typical person or institution involved, what about institutions -- and there are many of them -- which are self-insured? what about, say, the university of notre dame, catholic university, catholic institutions? it doesn't go to an insurance company to buy insurance.

it's self-insured. so that word game doesn't even work on the surface there, and those cases number in the hundreds or thousands around the country. and that is a clear example of how that so-called compromise or accommodation is merely a sleight of hand and a word game. another argument which the other side has made in this debate, mr. president, is that somehow correcting this situation through the blunt amendment or through similar measures will shut down access to these services. that's just patently not true. these services, these medicines and other treatments, are widely available in every community across the country at little cost or no cost for folks who can't afford it. and that's not going to change. it's absolutely not necessary to tear away a religious liberty,

violate conscience rights of millions of americans with that argument in mind, it just isn't true. that's why, mr. president, respected religious leaders like cardinal designate timothy nolan president of the conference of catholic bishops, have argued strenuously, passionately, against this mandate. cardinal nolan has said -- quote -- "never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. this shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the bill of rights" -- close quote. and so, mr. president, that's what it comes down to, free exercise of religion. fundamental conscience protection. the first amendment to the constitution, the first item in the bill of rights.

it doesn't get much headier or more significant than that. and that is what this is all about. and, again, it's all about yes, contraception, but abortion, abortion-inducing pills like plan b, and sterilization. mr. president, please assure me that the free exercise of religion is not now a partisan issue. please assure me that we're going to correct this situation and not allow this egregious overstepping of the bounds of the power of government. we must act to stop this grave injustice, i that process in a very serious way today by voting positively, by passing the blunt amendment. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. we are engaged in the business of the senate, and it's not only -- not always discernible that it's the business of the people. when we see what's taking place these days, the principal mantra of republicans on the campaign trail is that they seek more freedom for the american people. the republicans like to say they don't want government interfering in people's lives.

then i ask why the devil we are debating a republican amendment that limits a woman's freedom to make her own health care choices. with women the republicans have a different idea about freedom. they want the government to interfere in the most personal aspects of women's lives. the amendment offered by the senator from missouri, the blunt amendment, it's called, will allow a woman's employer to deny coverage for any medical service that they, the employer, has a moral problem with. imagine that. your boss is going to decide whether or not you're acting morally. the republicans want to take us forward to the dark ages again, and when women were property, they could easily control

trade, even, if you wanted to. mr. president, it's appalling that we're having this debate in the 21st century. yesterday we heard something astounding. it came from rush limbaugh, who is a prime voice of modern conservativism in this country. what he said yesterday -- and i had it checked because i wanted to be sure that i'm not misquoting anything -- said a woman who wants affordable birth control is -- and i quote him here -- "a prostitute." talking about your wife, your sister, your daughter, your child. hateful. ugly language. and we condemn it. republicans like to talk about the constitution and freedom,

but once again, when it comes to women, they don't get rights, they get restrictions. this foul amendment before us tells women that you can't be trusted to make your own health care decisions. your employer may judge if your actions are moral. more than 20 million people, women in america, including more than 600,000 in my home state of new jersey, could lose access to the health care services they need under this scheme. the republican attack on women is not just happening here in congress. it's happening on the presidential campaign trail. and i show you here what one of the two republican lead --

leading presidential candidates has to say about birth control. he says -- you can read it here -- i'm not a believer in birth control says senator santorum. i don't think it works, i thinks -- i think it's harmful to women. i think it's harmful to our society. and that's the kind of judgment that they want to put in employers' hands. outrageous. imagine that in a presidential contest, dismissing the kinds of things that millions and millions and millions of women rely upon to protect their health, to keep them from unwanted pregnancies but keep them from disease, to keep them from all kinds of things that can make life difficult. so women of america, former

senator santorum and republicans here almost requires a tap on the head, don't worry, we know what's best for you. i want to be clear, rick santorum does not have a physician's training. he is a politician. and when we look out in polls across the country, we see what the people on our society are thinking about politicians these days. it's time for senator santorum and his fellow republicans to mind their business. let's get on with the needs of the country and put people back to work, give them health care, let them have an education. no, we're going to spend time here keeping people from going to work, there are thousands of

jobs that are at stake in the legislation that is in front of us. i have five daughters, and eight granddaughters. and the one thing that i worry about for them more than anything else is their health. i want to know when i see those little kids, the youngest of my grandchildren, i like to see happy faces. i like to see them feeling good. and if i -- if one of my daughters or my son says so and so has a cold, and this one fell and broke something, that's my worry for the day. that's the way it is. so i want them to have doctors making decisions, not some employer who has a self-righteous moral view that he wants to impose on my daughter, my granddaughter, my wife.

huh huh. i don't want republican politicians making decisions about my family's health care, nor yours or even those who are on the other side. on our side of the aisle we believe that women are capable of making their own health care decisions. and that's why president obama is trying hard to make contraception more affordable because he knows it's basic health care for women. and almost all women of age have used birth control at some point in their lives. and yet -- and many have to struggle to pay for it. and we ought to applaud president obama for trying to make it more affordable. he wants women, he believes that they're capable of making their own decisions, and he wants them to be healthy.

this proposal respects the right of religious organizations that don't wish their birth control -- to provide birth control to their employees. under the president's plan, women who work for religious organizations don't have to go through their employer to get affordable contraception. these women will be able to get it directly from their insurance company, and i think it's a reasonable compromise. but some of our republican colleagues refuse to recognize this. listen to what the other side is saying. you don't hear the republicans talking about empowering women or giving them more opportunities. no. the g.o.p. agenda is about denying benefits, restricting access, taking away options. mr. president, we weren't sent here to intrude in the lives of

fellow citizens or to drag women back to the dark ages. we're sent here to offer people options, not obstacles. so i urge your colleagues, reject this amendment, hold your head high, and say to your family, to your female members, your daughters, your wife, your sisters, your mother, we want you to be healthy. that's our prime thing in life. turn this amendment down. i ask you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i have six

unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, very shortly we will be voting on the amendment filed by my colleague from missouri, senator blunt. the respect for rights of conscience act. i'm a cosponsor of this amendment, and i think we ought to all be cosponsors of it. many of my colleagues have supported it as well, and for good reason. it provides statutory protection for one of our deepest constitutional commitments, the right to free exercise of

religion. it is an effort to fulfill our oath to protect and defend the constitution. it is an effort to put the endouching constitutional rights of the american people -- the endouching constitutional rights of the american people people first over controversial political interests. in my view, those who support this amendment have been unjustly criticized over the past few days and have been unjustly criticized on a political basis not really on an intellectual basis, unable to win this debate through fair criticism of the amendment, it has been mischaracterized and misrepresented. opponents are desperate to distract the public from one simple fact: this amendment is necessary because of obamacare, the health care law that manifests new threats to personal liberty and individual rights with each passing week. it is an unindictment of the president's signature domestic achievement and all of those who supported it. obamacare took over and

regulated the nation's health care sector. one-sixth of the american economy. it stripped individuals and employers of their rights to go without coverage and the right to determine what type of coverage they would have. obamacare is what has brought us here today. the health care law requires that women's preventive services, including sterilization and access to abortion-inducing drugs, be included in health care coverage beginning in 2012. this is a questionable policy in and of itself, like the rest of obamacare, it assumes that the government is able to provide all good things to the american people through a simple mandate with no consequences for cost or excess. the problems with this mandate were compounded, however, when the administration deferring to its feminist allies, determined that the mandate would apply to religious citizens and

institutions. to their credit, these institutions which are compelled by this regulation to violate their moral beliefs, announced that they would not comply with this unjust law. they refused to roll over and allow the government to force them to provide sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. religions should have a right to do that because of their own moral interpretations of religious life. they stood as a witness for constitutional liberty, the free exercise of religion and against an administration that put base partisan politics above our beloved constitution. the president himself proclaimed compromise does absolutely nothing to minimize the constitutional problems with this mandate. the department of health and human services never, never consulted with the department of justice about the constutionality of this mandate.

and it shows. and that's why we're here today. to induce -- undo just some of the dabbling to liberty and -- damage to liberty and our constitution wrought by obamacare. all the misleading arguments run square into one simple fact: obamacare only became law in 2010. there was no federal mandate for these services prior to 2010. and the regulations had not yet gone into effect. in other words, nobody is taking anything away from anybody. but to hear the other side talk, you would think that the cosponsors of this amendment and the groups that support it are committed to a monstrous deprivation of women's rights. with due respect, that is absolute hogwash. i appreciate that the advocates of obamacare might be embarrassed by this episode, but we are not going to let them get

away with a gross misrepresentation of what we are trying to do here. prior to 2010 and the partisan passage of obamacare, access to contraceptives was abundant and nobody advocated that the federal government involve itself in those personal moral decisions or force people to be involved. religious people, if you will. after 2010, access to contraceptives remained abundant with nobody advocating for restrictions on their access. here's all that changed in the meantime. in 2010, obamacare mandated that health coverage include sterilizations, abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptive coverage. and as a result, religious institutions and persons will now be compelled by the state to

violate their conscience. compelled by the federal government to violate their conscience. and it isn't just the catholic church. it's many, many churches that feel just the same way as the catholic church does. it's a moral and religious issue that should not be interfered with by the federal government. prior to 2010, and the passage of obamacare, the first amendment was intact. today the first amendment is in tatters. the democrats who passed this law know this to be true, and they have to distract and confuse. they claim that senator blunt's and is overbroad. they claim that religious institutions and individuals would be exempt, or would exempt critical -l health services such as blood transfusions and psychiatric care from health plans. the senate democratic steering committee claims that 20.4 million women now receiving

coverage for preventive services would lose that coverage under this amendment. absolutely nothing -- absolutely none of this is accurate. again, all this amendment does is restore the pre-obamacare status quo. all it does is restore the religious liberties and constitutional freedoms that existed prior to this government takeover of our nation's health care system. it restores the conscience protections that existed for all americans for the past 220 years. if this amendment passes, here are a few things that do not change: state mandates for health coverage will remain in place. title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964 tpoergd *fr forbidding -- forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and employment

benefits remains in place. the pregnancy discrimination act requiring health plans to cover pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions remains in place. the americans with disabilities act, a bill that i worked very hard to pass and was a prime sponsor of, prohibiting discriminatory withholding of health care and other benefits from people with h.i.v. and other disabilities, remains in place. and the mental health parity act of 2008, requiring equitable coverage of mental illness, remains in place. i played a role in every one of those. prior to obamacare, very few people excluded any of the services that democrats are pointing at in their efforts to scare the american people. and few will do so should the blunt amendment pass. but our constitution demands that those individuals and institutions that object to providing these services on religious and moral grounds be

protected. that's what the constitution demands. it's the first amendment. it's the first mention in the first amendment. even though the individuals, institutions protected by our amendment are a minority, it is that minority that our first amendment exists to protect. the rule agreed to by president obama would force religious organizations to violate their moral convictions. this cannot be allowed to stand. i call on my colleagues on the other side to wake up and realize what they're doing here. there's only so much politics that should be played around here, and this is an issue we shouldn't be playing politics on. it involves religious freedom and liberty. and there was a time when a regulation of this sort would not have been countenanced by this body, let alone some of the arguments that have been made on the other side. try to obscure and make a political thing out of this.

i've had the good fortune of representing the people of utah for many, many years. it has been an honor for me. and in that time i've seen many good people on both sides of the aisle serve well in the senate. and one thing we could always be sure of was that when it came to our first freedoms, in particular the freedom to practice one's religion without interference from the state, republicans and democrats would join together in the defense of religious rights and liberty. why are we not joining together here? yet, under this administration, our bill of rights has been subordinated to president obama's desire to micromanage the nation's health care system. it was not always this way. when the senate considered president clinton's health care law, itself an attempt at a sweeping takeover of the nation's health care system, giants like daniel patrick

moynihan, with whom i've served, a democrat and colleague who served as the chairman of the finance committee, stood up for broad conscience protections like the one we're considering today in the blunt amendment. i worked closely with many of my democratic colleagues in passing the religious freedom restoration act. i was the author of that bill. we passed it here. it overwhelmingly passed. i was there when president clinton signed it into law on the lawn behind the white house. and a lot of religious leaders were there, and a lot of liberals and conservatives were there. very happy to pass that law. but apparently those days of bipartisanship are laid to rest, and they're long past. today the administration ignores

the dear and clear dictates of the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act. obamacare is unconstitutional to its core. a threat to the liberties announced and protected by our declaration of independence. this mandate is just one more example of how the law restricts personal liberty. it will force religious persons and institutions to violate their beliefs or pay a fine. defending this disaster at a town hall meeting recently, one democratic member of the house of representatives told her constituents that they were -- quote -- "not looking into the constitution" when they supported this mandate. no kidding. our founding fathers fought a revolution to prevent this type of tyranny, and that's what it is. this is tyranny. it is the political bullying of a religious group in the views of the president's allies,

unpopular religious beliefs. so for political reasons, the religious groups who differ with this are being pushed around. the media, polite society and the administration are picking on religious freedom and on religious people. democrats like to claim that they stand up for the little guy. not in this case. in this case the little guy is being pushed around by the state. and i, for one, am not going to stand for it. this is discrimination masquerading as compassion, and i'm going to fight it. my oath of office and oath to protect the constitution compels me to do this. i am putting the administration on notice. i'm not done with you. and my colleagues are not done with you. whatever happens with this vote today, you are going to be held to account for your actions. we're going to get to the bottom of how this happened. and ultimately i am confident

that justice will prevail. i just hope enough of my colleagues realize how important this is. it's a fundamental set of freedoms we've always protected. and nobody was being deprived of the so-called health care that is involved here. and ultimately i am confident that justice will prevail. i commend my colleague from missouri and all of the members who have spoken out for this amendment. it is reasonable. it is just. and i urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. the american people understand that this amendment is necessary because of obamacare, and they know who is responsible for this monstrosity. i expect that they will look favorably on those who stand up for the first amendment today and attempt to correct their folly by restoring the conscience protections that preexisted obamacare. and the reaction to those who stand by this historic deprivation of first amendment

rights, only time is going to tell. let me close by just saying there are very few things that get me worked up as much as i am about this. i feel very deeply about a lot of things but that first amendment to me means everything and for the president to say well we'll just require the insurance companies to provide this, give me a break. a lot of the catholic -- catholic functions are self-insured by the catholic church and that's true of other churches as well. the fact of the matter is, it's no solution whatsoever. and it was something that didn't need this type of intrusion because people had access to these various drugs that -- that some are concerned about here today. and nobody on our side, it seems to me, fails to realize that religious commitment is important. religious beliefs are important.

the first amendment is important. the free exercise of religion is important. that's what's involved here. my gosh, to hear these arguments that this is all about contraception, my gosh. that's not what it's about. it's about the right of people with religious beliefs to practice their religion unmolested by government. i want to commend the distinguished senator from missouri. it takes guts to stand up on these issues when they're so distorted by some on the other side. i'd be ashamed to make some of the arguments that were made on this issue. why do you think -- and i just single out the catholic church which is the largest congregation in our country. they're not going to abide by these laws because their religious beliefs are more

important than what we want to impose on them, ignoring their religious freedoms. i'm 100% with them. when we start going down this road, let me tell you, beware beware, beware. that's when tyranny really begins. it's the religious commitments of our nation that has made it the greatest nation in the world. and i've got to tell you, those of you who vote against this amendment are playing with fire. those of you who vote against this amendment are ignoring the constitution. those of you who vote against this amendment are wrong. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. since he's on the floor i want to recognize the senator from utah and his extraordinary service in the united states

senate. we don't agree on this issue, but he's done a tremendous job for the people of utah over many years. i wanted to rise to talk a little bit about the amendment that we're considering that would allow all employers and insurers to deny coverage particularly for women on any health care procedure or service they object to, not the women, but the employers or the insurance companies, on moral or religious grounds. the first thing i want to do -- and i haven't been around here for a long time, but i wanted to first observe what context we're discussing this in and we're debating this amendment. we devoted extensive floor time on this amendment about contraception and lack of coverage for women's health care in the context of a job creation bill, in the context of the transportation bill. this is the bill. this is the bill that is on the floor of the united states senate right now. and the title, it says a bill, senate 1813, a bill to reauthorize federal-aid highway

and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes. i would have thought those other purposes would be related to transportation, to transit, to job creation in the united states. i don't think the other purposes that are talked about in this bill have anything to do with contraception or women's health, but that's what we're spending our time debating this week on the floor of the senate instead of passing this transportation bill and putting people in this country back to work. how is this conversation relevant to job creation? or to infrastructure? it's not. in my home state of colorado, mr. president, i have held hundreds of town hall meetings in red parts of the state and blue parts of the state. and i don't remember a single time this issue, the issue that is of concern with this amendment has been raised by anybody. by anybody in three years.

i can tell you what people are talking about in colorado, mr. president. they want to know why we aren't spending our time working on how to create more jobs for them, more jobs in the 21st century in this country, or how to fix this nation's debt or deficit. or how we pass a bipartisan transportation bill that creates immediate jobs and fixes a crumbling infrastructure. while maintaining the infrastructure assets our parents and grandparents had the thoughtfulness to build for us. another case where political games are risking our ability to provide more opportunity, not less, for the next generation of americans, something that every single generation until this one, at least in politicians, has treated as a sacred trust. and instead over the last several weeks we've continued to debate about women and whether they should have access to the

health care services they need and whether they should be the ones that are able to make the decisions about the health care services that we need. and we sit here and wonder why the united states congress is stuck at an approval rating of 11%. maybe it's because we're talking about contraception in the context of a transportation bill. mr. president, i have a wife and three daughters, they're 12, 11, and 7. there are a lot of women in my life telling me what to do every minute of every day and during the week and thank goodness for that. and one thing i know, they don't need to be told by the government how to make their own health care decisions. nor do the 362,000 colorado women that would be affected immediately if this amendment passed. this amendment is written so broadly, mr. president, that it would allow any employer to deny any health service to any

american for virtually any reason. not just for religious objections. women could lose coverage for mammograms, parental care --, prenatal care, flu shots, to name only a few essential services and and yes, and yes, the right to make decisions around contraception and their own reproductive health. mr. president, my state, the great state of colorado, is the third can -- a third democratic, a third republican, and a third independent. and i can tell you that the last time there was an initiative on the ballot in my state to let the government intervening -- intervene in women's health care decisions, it was defeated by 70% of the voters. 70% of the voters said you know what? we'd rather leave these decisions to women to make for themselves, and that's what my daughters want as well.

people are speaking loud and clear on this issue, all across the country. these aren't the issues we should be debating right now. we need to be having the conversations people are having at home in my town halls instead of distracting them with politics. how do we create more jobs? how do we reform our entitlements so that medicare, medicaid, and social security are here for our grandchildren and for our children? how do we create an education system that's training our people for the 21st century? how do we assure poor children in this country that they can have a quality education, make a contribution to this economy? so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and help us get back on the road to passing a bipartisan transportation bill that will create new jobs and make substantial improvements in our economy and infrastructure. there's a time to gate this, but that time is not now when we're having this infrastructure

discussion. we're having this transportation discussion. i urge my colleagues to support the rights of women all across this country and their families and reject this amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. the reason this amendment is being debated right now is that the administration issued an order that's just unprecedented. now, it's unprecedented because the mandate provisions of the health care bill are also unprecedented, but that's the reason we're debating this now. the administration brought this up. i'm still amazed by the fact that the administration wouldn't have excluded all of at least the faith-based institutions from their order. i mean the catholic hospitals, the baptist universities, the catholic schools of all kinds, the christian schools of all kind, the muslim daycare centers. why wouldn't they have exempted

these people? they said we exempted the church itself, as if the work of the church or the character of the church or the faith distinctives of the church, the synagogue, the mosque, are only what happens inside that building. the reason that we have so much of our health care, our social services provided by faith-based institutions, and one of the reasons is that those faith-based institutions want those -- those institutions that they -- they fund, they support, they encourage to reflect their faith principles and what's wrong with that? there are really a couple of issues here. one is the separation in the president he -- the president's mind from the work of the church or the synagogue or the mosque and the building itself. and there is -- it's impossible to separate those two things. otherwise, you just have another christian school that

happens -- another high school that has a chaplain. you don't have a christian high school. or you have another hospital that's run by the sisters of mercy. you don't have a catholic hospital. because you've decided you're going to dedpien the character of what that hospital -- define the character of what that hospital stands for and what they provide. now, the administration recently took a lutheran school to court, the eeoc took a lutheran school to court and asserted that that school didn't have any special constitutional protections as to how they hired people. and you could have heard all these same kind of arguments. well, they'll discriminate against people, they won't hire people that otherwise should be hired, they won't make access ability to the handicapped, you hear all that sort of thing, none which would have been true and the supreme court voted 9-0 that the administration was

wrong. and you can try all you want to separate these two issues but they don't separate. they're both fundamental first amendment issues. let's talk about some of the things i've heard here this morning. my good friend senator bennet from colorado said if this amendment passed 362,000 colorado women would lose their current health care services. now, why would that be the case at all? this amendment does nothing to modify state or federal laws that are now in effect. if you've got those services now, there is nothing in this amendment that would change the world that we live in right now. people have the same protection today to exert their religious views in their health care policies that they provide as an employer that they would have if this amendment passed. they have those protections now. they would not lose those rights, it doesn't modify any state or federal law, and there are plenty of federal laws. there's a federal law on

pregnancy discrimination that says pregnancy-related benefits cannot be limited to married employees. now, that law doesn't go away if this amendment passes. state laws that require things to be in health care policies if you have one, don't go away if this amendment passes it. only amends the new mandate provisions of title 1 of the new health care law, the health care law that has received so much controversial attention for good reason, and this is one of those reasons. supplying the respect for religious beliefs and moral convictions is that -- is already part of the federal health programs of all kinds. it just doesn't happen to be in the new law. there is no health care law since 1973 that doesn't have these provisions in this bill that are part of the law.

the law is there now, mr. president. and the world doesn't change. no colorado woman will lose any health care benefits they have today if this amendment passes. no new jersey woman will lose any benefits they have today if this amendment passes. regarding any health care service that people may be worried about, we ask one question, are people allowed to exclude this service from their health care benefit under current state or federal law? and if they're not allowed to exclude it under current state or federal law, they wouldn't be allowed to exclude it if this amendment would pass. if they're not allowed to exclude it, they're still not allowed to exclude it under this amendment. and if they are allowed to exclude such service, why haven't the critics been protesting before? this amendment doesn't change anything in the law today. so why haven't we heard these

speeches before about how the law doesn't protect employers from deciding not to offer this or not to offer that? in fact, this makes it much more difficult to exclude services than it is now. much more difficult to exclude services than it is now. in fact, it allows for an actuarial equivalent to have to be added to a policy if you take something away. that means there's no financial reason, there's no financial reason to exclude a service. because if you exclude a service because you believe it's the wrong thing, the secretary of health and human services has the power to say you have to come back and include a new service that we didn't require of equal value. i assume everybody on the other side of this debate would think that employers must be motivated

to exclude these services if they're not legitimate religious belief and moral conviction, that they must exclude them because they'd save some money. we don't allow them to save money, so there's no reason. the secretary of health and human services say you're going to exclude that but you have to include something we didn't require of equal value. that means something that's going to be equally used. that means something that's going to be equally costly to the employer. so why would the employer do that? why aren't we hearing all these stories now about how about employers are not -- why did the 200,000 women that have these health services today -- i think it's 20 million, why do they have those services? there's nothing in the law that requires it. this law doesn't change the laws today. now, from the point of view of having a political discussion

instead of a discussion about what the amendment does or why it's consistent with what we've always done, i think the other side has done a great job that have. but consistently we have protected this principle of first amendment freedoms. in fact, in 1994, in the bill that mrs. clinton, the first lady at the time, worked so hard for that was introduced here by senator moynihan, here's what i it said: nothing -- and this was a bill that also would require people to provide insurance. we don't have much about insurance because we haven't required people to provide it before. there are some federal health benefits about insurance i may talk about in a minute that also are protected. but this was a bill that required people to provide insurance. senator moynihan said in his bill in 1994, less than 20 years ago, "nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent

any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage -- which excludes coverage -- for abortion and other services if the employer objects to such service on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction." the most amazing thing about this whole debate to me is that in 20 years this has gone from language that would be in what was considered the most progressive liberal health care bill that had ever been offered by one of the most respected senators by americans of all political philosophies, but most agreed with by americans with more liberal political philosophy, that he would just put that in the bill. i ask is there any indication in the debate on that bill that this was a big item? and the answer i hear is no, it wasn't a big item because it was part of who we are. it was part of what we've been

as a nation. it was part of protecting the first amendment. and this amendment does not mention any procedure because i don't know what kind -- nobody knows what things might be in some future date religious to somebody's -- offensive to somebody's religious beliefs. but you have no financial reason to not provide a service. so the only reason you'd really have under this amendment would be a true moral objection. and i have initial hesitation myself. i understand the faith-based institutions. i used to be the president of a christian university, and soy understand why it -- and so i understand why it's important that those institutions keep their faith-based distinctives. but what about other employers? i didn't have to think about that very long to realize that if you are a faith that believes

something is absolutely wrong, as an employer, why would you want to pay for that? usable this is a wrong thing to -- you believe this is a wrong thing to do, why would you want to pay for that. the language of equivalency means if you choose not to pay for that the secretary says come up with something equally used and equally valuable that you would pay for. there is no financial reason not to do it. the only reason not to do it is you truly believe it is a wrong thing to do. surely every person in the senate has at least one thing that because of religious reasons they believe is wrong to do. do you want to be forced by the government to be a participant in that wrong thing? the things we're talking about here today in my particular faith, i'm not opposed to all these things that the president said he would require. but that doesn't mean i should be any less concerned about people who legitimately week after week at their place of

worship express this to be something that you should not participate in. now if the congregants want to go on their own and figure out how to participate, that's one thing. if they want to go on their own and provide insurance to their employers that include these things that they heard at church are wrong to do, that's another thing. but if they want to say, look, i'm not going to do that. under the new mandate, we don't do anything here that eliminates the mandate. under the new mandate, i'm not going to do that but i'm going to have to add something to the policy, to the mandate that would be of equal financial value. of equivalent value. so the only reason to object, mr. president, is you believe it's wrong. and that's what the first amendment is all about. that's why consistently through employment law we've protected, even though the administration lost a 9-0 case trying to interpret that the same way they want to interpret this.

the government knows best. and if you're allowed to, you'll abuse the hiring situation. now they say if you're allowed to, you'll abuse the health care providing situation. i think we've taken away the financial incentive to do that. i believe what this does is protect first amendment rights. the first freedom in the founding documents is freedom of religion. and we have protected it over and over and over again. every member of this senate who's been here in any recent time except the very newest members have voted for bills that had this language in them, whether it was the clinton administration, whether it was the moynihan proposal, whether it was the patient's bill of rights or the religious freedom law. it was all there. i think it's -- to come up with all these cases that they wouldn't treat prenatal care, might not treat cancer, why

would they not do that? why would they not do that? if they don't treat that, they have to pay for something else of equal value. look at the very last provision of this amendment. so there's no financial reason not to do this. the only reason is that you believe it is against your religious views. and the phrase we use in this bill is exactly the phrase that senator moynihan used. it's exactly the phrase that frank church used. it's exactly the phrase that people on the floor at this moment voted for when they said we don't want people to have to participate in capital punishment or prosecuting crimes where capital punishment is a possibility because of religious belief or moral conviction. it was good enough for everything up until now, including this principle, until we get to 2012. and suddenly we have all these reasons that people can't make faith decisions that relate to

providing health care to employees. and i disagree with that. i think the first amendment protects that. i believe if and when -- and if this rule goes forward, it will go to the supreme court. it will be something close to that 9-0 decision on hiring rights. there is no difference in the principle here. and, again, i'd say look at the last section of this bill if you believe that employers are going to do this to save money. and otherwise what motivation do they have besides the moral conviction and religious belief that is protected by the first amendment? i hope my colleagues will read this bill carefully, will understand that there's no protection given -- no protection currently in the law is taken away by this bill. if you have a right now, you would still have it if this amendment passed. to argue otherwise just denies

the facts of both people who have coverage today and 220-plus years of constitutional protections in the country. read the bill. it may not change any minds today, but this issue will not go away unless the administration decides to take it away by giving people of faith these first amendment protections. the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i rise to join this debate today, and i certainly respect the senator from missouri for his views and for his own interpretation of what he thinks his amendment does. but i couldn't disagree more on what the amendment says, what the amendment will do and what the process has been for us to get to this point. i mean, we're down here, and i know my own office, myself, my focus is on our economy and

getting our country moving again and focusing on jobs. and so, when i see a transportation bill that is now mired in this debate, i ask myself how much more time are we going to waste debating and redebating an issue that we've been debating. i know that some people think that this is an important debate related to transportation, but it seems as if the other side of the aisle, in all the discussions we've been having for the last year about jobs, about appropriations bills, about the debt ceiling, about moving forward on reconciliation, all come down to one thing. let's get rid of reproductive health care for women. in february of last year, they introduced a bill, h.r. 1. they said let's defund planned

parenthood. then later in april came a big moment of, are we going to move forward with a continuing resolution, and it was all brought to a halt until we could have a vote on defunding planned parenthood. and then we had another vote on it in the latest discussions about the payroll deal. there was discussions about whether a rider was going to be in there that cut women's reproductive health care access. and appropriations bills just last december, same issue. every step of the way it seems as if there is an assault on women's reproductive choice and having access to health care. so i know my colleague from missouri thinks that this issue might just be about something the administration's done in the health care bill, but his party is making everybody in america believe that we can't get our economy going and balance our

budget and deal with our deficit unless we defund women's health care choices. and nothing could be more incorrect about that logic. we are holding up the business of america just for these votes on basically curtailing rights to access that women already have. so, mr. president, it's so frustrating to think that we would be going backwards on this. and i applaud the chair of the kr-pgs committee, because she's -- transportation committee because she's worked hard on this legislation. it's 30,000 jobs in the state of washington by the department of transportation's estimates. i know it's going to help save about 1.8 million jobs and create another 1 million jobs on a national basis. and so i certainly want to get to the job at hand. and when i think about the 435,000 washington women who would be affected by the blunt amendment by curtailing their access to health care, and while

some people think it's about contraceptives, which it is about that, but it's also about breast cancer screening -- and we have one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the country, so we want to make sure that we get those screenings done. about wellness exams. about diabetes screening. about flu shots. about vaccination. about mammograms, about cholesterol. we're having this debate today instead of talking about transportation infrastructure, about defunding these vital programs. the reason why i say this is so important to us and so important to us in washington state is because we've been having this debate. we've been having this debate since almost, i think, 2001, the two on the bartel drug decision. so my colleague who says that while these businesses wouldn't dare do anything based on cost under my amendment, i think all he has to do is look at the federal cases that were brought against major employers like wal-mart, like bartels, like

dimon chrysler and other organizations who weren't providing full reproductive choice for women and discriminating against them and their health care benefits. and a federal law, a federal statute was used to say that these practices were discriminatory. so the same debate we're having here today has played out in state after state, in our state the bartell drug decision. and in that decision, the courts have found that you cannot use these principles to discriminate. it is a violation of the civil rights clause. and so while i know my colleague thinks that this is a new debate, it's not a new debate. it's a debate that has been had in america among states, and courts have used federal statutes to protect the rights of women. so now i see that we're going to have this debate today, and i ask my colleagues: how many more

times this year are we going to interrupt the business of the congress on things like transportation, on infrastructure, to have a debate that has already been settled? and i know my colleague thinks that the amendment is very narrowly written. it's not. i don't think that's the interpretation of any legal mind that it is narrowly written. it will affect and give employers the right -- the courts have already said they don't have the right to discriminate. it will reopen the cases of those large employers who have already been found against and say to them, yes, you can't come up with a reason and curtail access to preventive health care for women that is so needed at this time. so i ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment, and i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's get at the business at hand, focusing on our economy, focusing on jobs, and stop making women's health

care a scapegoat for what you think is wrong with america. it's actually what's right with america, and let's focus on jobs. i thank the president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have always been a very strong proponent of family planning programs and of measures to promote and protect women's health. like many americans, however, i was very concerned in january when the department of health and human services issued a final regulation to require religious universities, hospitals, charities, and other faith-based organizations to pay for health insurance that covers contraceptives and

sterilizations regardless of the organization's religious beliefs. i believe that such a mandate poses a threat to our religious freedom and presents the catholic church and other faith-based organizations with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating federal regulations. in february, president obama announced what he termed "an accommodation" that would require insurance companies rather than religious organizations to provide these services. but as i read the details of that accommodation, it became very clear to me that many parts of the plan remained unclear. a key issue, for example,

revolves around self-insured religious-based organizations. there are many catholic hospitals and universities that are self-insured and, thus, act as bodg both the employer and te insurer. a very important issue is how the rule would treat these self-insured faith-based organizations, but the rule was totally unclear. it said that the department would just continue to work with nonexempted, nonprofit religious organizations. so in an attempt to clarify this critical issue, i sent a letter to secretary sebelius asking for specific clarification on how faith-based organizations that are self-insured and, thus, act as both the insurer and the

employer would be treated. would they have their rights of conscience protected? this was not a complicated question. it was a very straightforward question. and, frankly, the answer to the question was going to determine my vote on this very important amendment. sadly, the administration, once again, skirted the answer. in her response, secretary sebelius simply said that the president is -- quote -- "committed to rule making to ensure access to these important preventive services and fully insured and self-insured group health plans while further accommodating religious organizations' beliefs." end quote. what does that mean,

mr. president? and i would ask unanimous consent that both my letter to secretary sebelius and her reply be put in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: this was very frustrating to me. i asked a key question, and i could not get a straight answer. it also demonstrates many of the problems associated with employer mandates. i also think this is a sad -- i would ask permission to have two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: thank you. i believe that the sponsor of this amendment is completely sincere, and i want to make that clear. but this issue has become a sad example of election year politics. i believe that a good compromise

could have been reached -- and should have been worked out. for example, in maine, state law requiring contraception coverage includes a specific exemption for religious employers, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. surely we could have reached a similar accommodation. and, unfortunately, what we're left with is an issue that's important and that too many people, including this administration, are playing politics with. since i could not and did not receive a straightforward answer to my question about protecting self-insured faith-based organizations, i feel that i have to vote for senator blunt's amendment, with the hope that its scope will be further

narrowed and refined as the legislative process proceeds and recognizing that state laws will not be preempted. i do this with -- with a lot of conflict because i think the amendment does have its flaws. but when the administration cannot even assure me that self-insured faith-based organizationorganizationsorganis freedoms are not protected, i feel i have no choice. i hope the amendment will be refined, and i also hope that the senate will move forward to address the many important pressing issues facing our nation and stop engaging in what is clearly an election year ploy. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask permission to speak up to five minutes on the blunt amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: mr. president, in vermont and all across this country, there is growing frustration that members of congress -- mostly men, i should add -- are trying to roll back the clock on women's reproductive right rights; in ts case, the right of women to receive contraceptive services through their insurance plans. this attack is grossly unfair, and i hope that men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic right. and let me add my strong belief that if the united states senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 38 men and 17 women, my strong guess is that a bill like this would never even make it to the floor. two years ago congress passed a health care reform that will

expand health care access for over 30 million americans who are uninsured as well as millions of americans who are covered through their employer. this bill is by no means perfect. i would go further, but it is a step forward in allowing us to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world that guarantee health care to all of their people as a right. unfortunately, the amendment we are discussing today -- senator blunt's amendment -- would undermine much of the progress being made for women's health care through a new version of a so-called conscience exemption. not just content to attack women's rights, mr. blunt's amendment would go even further and seeks to deny patients access to any -- to any essential health care service their employer or insurance company objects to based sumly -

based sumly on the employer's "religious beliefs and moral convictions." this amendment would especially have an adverse impact on women's health. starting in august, women enrolled in new plans will have access to a range of preventive services at no cost. but allowing the kind of extreme so-called consciou conscience ce included in the blunt amendment would allow an employer to refuse contraceptives, annual well-visits or even mental health services or hiv-aids treatment based not hon a doctor's -- based not hon a doctor's recommendation but the religious belief or moral conviction of a person's employer. this is an absolutely unprecedented refusal right. this is the blunt amendment must be defeated. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kerry: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to eight minutes on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. kerry: this is obviously a very difficult time in our politics. we're all familiar with that -- the polarization. it is a difficult time for the senate because over the years this has been a place where we've prided ourselves on working -- and i mean really working -- to find ways to avoid the kind of polarization that we see today and actually define the common denominator on a number of sensitive issues. i think our friend from maine, senator snowe, spoke for many of us this week when she talked about the -- quote -- "my way or the highwa highway" approaches o politics to get things done. i think given her diagnosis of

what's wrong with the senate today, i think that the amendment that we're debating today frankly is exhibit "a." two years ago many of us voted to end an era where many americans felt that women in particular, but poor people and others also, but women in particular were put into a position of a second-tier status with respect to the access to health care in america. there were so many discrepanci discrepancies. just one example, for instance, that was an era before the reform that we passed where viagra was covered for men at no cost by insurance companies but contraception, which 99% of american women use, was not covered. so we addressed this issue in the reform that we passed, and

the congress sent it to the president; the president signed it. the administration then took the time -- appropriate -- recognizing the difficulty of implementing some of this the, they allowed forea time period mured to be able to work -- in order to be able to work through the rules. when they did come out with the first rule, i regret, they came out with a rule that many of us felt -- i felt and shared with others in america -- a sense that it was not imping t going . there was a firestorm in the country over that for a brief period of time and i spoke out in our caucus and i said, i thought there was a better way to try to deal with that that created a balance between access and the need to be protected. i don't think it is right to force a religiously affiliated institution to pay for

contraception if it violates fundamental religious beliefs. i am glad to say that the administration -- the white house, which i think, you know, perhaps hadn't been able to see all of the implications of what had happened at that point in time -- quickly moved immediately to recognize, indeed the rule was not proposed as it ought to be and they changed it, they responded. that was the right decision. and this week secretary sebelius has made it clear that they are still working with the faith community on a final rule that will address the concerns of my church and of other institutions which are self-insured. but, you know, with respect to what the senator from maine, senator collins, just said a few minutes ago, with all due respect, secretary sebelius said

publicly after the senate finance committee hearing on this subject on the budget, she said, "whether it's an insured plan or self-insured plan, the employer who has a religious objection doesn't have to directly offer or pay for contraception." i take issue. i believe the letter the senator received actually addresses this question and says that they are working with the community, as i believe they ought to be, in order to come up with a means of guaranteeing that self-insurance will be protected, as i believe it ought to be protected. but i don't believe that we ought to embrace the blunt amendment as this broad-based opening of pandora's box amendment that carries with it all kinds of other risks and potential mischief. and we don't have to do that in order to protect self-insurance here. so i think it's important to work together with patients to try to find a way to do no harm,

if you will, to the constitution or to the rights of women in this country to access health care. i believe the spirit of the amendment that is in front of us today not intentionally -- i know that the senator from missouri acts in good faith personally on this and i respect that. but the language, as language is also important, critical, in legislating, the language is overbroad. and if there's one thing i know after 27 years of legislating here, is when you're writing legislation, it is critical to understand the implications of the language that you use. precision matters. this amendment opens up the potential for overly broad and vague exceptions that could allow children to be denied immunizations. it could allow companies -- a

company -- a company is quite different from an individual's rights to protect under the constitution -- but it will allow a company to actually object to mental health services. it could allow plans to -- you could allow for the denial of h.i.v. screenings because people think that somehow that's a disease that belongs to a category they object to in terms of social life and structure in america. it would allow potentially the objection of maternity care for single mothers because people have an objection about a single mother being pregnant and having a child. i mean, there are all kinds of mischief that could be implemented as a consequence of people's assertion of a belief that is not, in fact, covered under the first amendment but which is a result of the language in this -- as a result of the language in this amendment could be swept into some claim. and i don't think we should do that. that is not good legislating. that is dangerous. now, i was interested to hear the minority leader here this morning assert some things about

the first amendment. i think they are absolutely incorrect, mr. president. the first amendment is a guarantee that religious liberty will be protected in america and that the government will not institute one religion or another or establish a religion for the nation. and it also says that no religious view will be imposed on anybody. the blunt amendment is, in fact, an assault on that protection of the first amendment because it imposes one view on a whole bunch of people who don't share that view or on those who want to choose for themselves. the affordable care act and the president's compromise and the final rule leave all of the existing conscience clause provisions in place. doesn't change them at all. while adding additional protection for churches and for religious organizations. the administration's compromise regulation, endorsed by the catholic hospital association

and other religious organizations, maintains conscience protections so that any religious employer with protections to coverage of contraceptive services will not be required to provide, refer or pay for these services. furthermore, all churches and houses of worship are exempt from the compromise regulation. in fact, the women's law center pointed out, makes it clear -- quote -- "under current law, individuals and entities who wish to refuse a role in abortion services are protected by three different federal law laws." mr. president, i would ask the -- unanimous consent that the balance of my statement be placed in the record as if read in full. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. i'd simply close by saying that the senate should not rush to undercut the protections already in place and which ultimately would undermine the teachings of my church which argue that social conscience and values are

to be really primarily exempt -- established by caring for our sick. and this would, in fact, deny that, to some degree. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i would ask that i be allowed to speak for five minutes and then senator murray conclude our side with five. the presiding officer: without t objection without objection, sot objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i have news for supporters of the blunt amendment. we were not born yesterday, and no matter how much you say this is nothing more than a restatement of old laws, the facts just are not with you. we have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies. and if you wanted to give them a chance to say "no," a lot of

them don't have any consciences, they'll take it. and this is what blunt does. it allows any insurance company that doesn't want to provide a service -- maybe an expensive service -- to say, "oh, i meant to tell you, i have a moral objection to this." what a situation. how many people have struggled with their insurance companies to get them to cover what they've paid for, for years and years and years only to have the insurance company say, sorry, sue us? now, mr. blunt is giving insurance companies a way to s say, "he oh, we really feel sorry that you have cancer. we're really sad that you have diabetes. we're really torn apart that you might have a stroke. but you know what? we have a moral objection to the kind of therapies that that are out there today, so we're sorry." that's what the blunt amendment does. and if you think i'm making it up, let's look at the words in the blunt amendment.

they're right here. they're right here. and so the senator from maine can say whatever she wants about it. the senator from missouri can talk about what he wants to. the fact is, they say that if you deny any coverage from the essential health benefits package or the preventive health package, it's fine, as long as you hide behind -- my words -- a moral objection. so this started out with birth control. and there was a hearing over in the house that is an iconic picture that will last through my lifetime and yours. mr. president, here is the photograph of a panel discussing women's health care over in the republican house. women's health care. do you see one woman there? i don't. they're all men.

and these men are waxing eloquent about birth control and the fact that, oh, it's just a moral issue with them and they don't think women should have the right to have it. not one of them suggested that men shouldn't have their viagra but we'll put that aside. we'll put that aside. not one woman was called. and when a woman raised her hand in the audience and said, i have a very important story to tell about a friend of mine who lost her ovary because she couldn't afford birth control works have controlled the size of the cyst on the ovary. you know what mr. issa said over there? he said, "you're just not qualified. you're not qualified to talk about women's issues." i guess only men are qualified to talk about women's issues. and we have men on the other side of the aisle here, for the most part -- with a little assist -- telling women what

their rights should be. i cannot believe this battle. on a highway bill. on a transportation bill. where 2.8 million jobs are at stake, we have been diverted with this amendment about women's health. and look at the different important benefits that any insurer or any employer could walk away from because if this amendment passes, they have the right to do it. they would no longer have to cover emergency services, hospitalization, maternity care, mental health treatment, pediatric services, rehabilitative services, am ambulatory parent services, laboratory services. they would no longer have to offer breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings. all they have to do i is say, ", i'm really sorry.

we believe prayer is the answer. we don't believe in chemotherapy. we believe that," you know, "if someone is heavy, they're obese and they get diabetes, we have a moral objection to helping them, because you know what? they didn't lead a clean life." so they could deny any of these things, flu vaccines, osteoporosis screening, t.b. testing for children, autism screening. so i would say, in conclusion, vote down this dangerous amendment. vote it down. we'll have a motion to table. and stand for the women and the families of this nation and let's get back to the highway bill, get rid of this thing. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: time has expired. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from washington state is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, thank you so much. and i want to thank the senator from california and the many senators who've stood up proudly to fight for a woman's right to

make her own health care decisions. certainly in this year of 2012, after decades of fighting to make sure that women have rights and opportunities to be whoever they want and to make their own health care choices, this vote, this vote today is an affirmation of that if we can beat back this blunt amendment. we are at a very serious time in our nation's history. our economy is struggling. we are getting back on track. millions of families get up every day and are concerned about whether they can afford their mortgage or send their kids to college. i have to tell you, millions of women in this country did not think they would have to get up this morning and worry about whether or not contraception would be available to them depending on who their employer was. mr. president, this is a serious issue. we've heard a lot of rhetoric about what the blunt amendment is.

my colleague from california just described it to you. it is terrible policy. it will allow any employer in america to cut off any preventive care for any religious or moral reason. it would simply give every boss in america the right to make the health care decisions for their workers and their families. it is a radical assault on the comprehensive preventive health care coverage that we have fought so hard to make sure that women and men and families across this country have. if this amendment were to pass, employers could cut off coverage for children's immunizations if they object to that. they could cut off prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents if they object to that. mr. president, the american people are watching today. young women are watching today. is the united states a -- senate

a place where their voice will be heard and their rights will be stood up for? we have watched this assault on women's health care for more than a year now, when a year ago, almost at this time to this day, we were working to make sure we kept the government open by putting together our budget agreement. in the middle of the night, all the numbers were decided, all the issues were decided, we were ready to move forward within hours to make sure that our government did not shut down. what was the last issue between us and the doors of this government closing? the funding for planned parenthood. i was the only woman in the room and i stood up with those men and i said no, we will not give away the funding for this over this budget. and the women of the senate the next morning stood tall, we gathered all of our colleagues together, we fought back. we won that battle. but those who are trying to take away the rights of women and to -- to make their own health

care choices and to have access to contraception in this country today have been at it every day since. we are not going to allow a panel of men in the house to make the decisions for women in this country about their health care choices. we're not going to allow the blunt amendment that is before us today to take away that rig right. we believe that this is an important day. and, in fact, mr. president, this happens to be march 1. it is the beginning of women's history month in this country. let us stand tall today in this moment of history and say the united states senate will not allow to let women's health care choices to be taken away from them. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote with us to table the blunt amendment and to tell women in this country everywhere that we stand with them in the privacy of their own

homes to make their own health care choices. mr. president, has all the time expired on this amendment? the presiding officer: all time is expired. mrs. murray: mr. president, i move to table the blunt amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll on tabling the blunt amendment. vote: vote

vote: vote vote: smie vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the ayes are 51, the nays are 48. the motion to table is agreed to. without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business until 2:00 today senators allowed to speak up to ten minutes each during that period of time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

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