[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 26 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H887-H894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hanna). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
America has a long history of religious freedom.
In the 17th century, colonists fled to what would become the United
States of America in search of religious freedom. In 1789, Congress
drafted the First Amendment, ensuring the right to the free exercise of
religion. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
upheld the rights of individuals to practice their religions according
to the dictates of their own consciences. In 2001, President Bush
established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to
``encourage faith-based programs without changing their mission.''
But today, the Obama administration's policies threaten that
fundamental freedom. President Obama's new health care mandate, despite
a flimsy, politically motivated, so-called ``compromise,'' forces
religious organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing
drugs in their health care plans.
So much for over 200 years of religious freedom.
The mandate is an unprecedented act of government trampling over the
deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans. I stand with my
colleagues tonight in showing our united opposition to any efforts by
the Obama administration to flagrantly disregard deeply held religious
beliefs.
I am a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,
introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, which would
protect the rights of conscience for faith-based organizations and
would leave Federal law where it was before the President's divisive
health care plan was passed.
A number of Representatives from around the country are very troubled
by this unprecedented government intrusion into the First Amendment
right of freedom of religion. We are going to take the next 60 minutes
to explore just how wrong this decision was, how meaningless the so-
called ``compromise'' is, and how vital to our country freedom of
religion is today.
At this point, I would like to yield to the courageous sponsor of the
Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, Representative Fortenberry of
Nebraska.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from
Colorado for his leadership in holding this discussion tonight. This is
a very important discussion because it is about a fundamental American
principle.
As you mentioned, over a year ago, we actually began work on the
Respect for Rights of Conscience Act in anticipation that the new
health care law may actually be used to undermine religious freedom and
the moral precepts, the deeply held beliefs, of many Americans in this
country.
You had mentioned that this particular bill--hopefully, we'll get it
through this House soon, and there is a companion measure, by the way,
in the Senate--would not only protect faith-based organizations, which
seem to be most perniciously targeted by this new HHS mandate from the
strong arm of government, which is forcing them to pay for drugs and
procedures that may violate their ethics norms, but it would also
protect all Americans because, right now, these institutions, as well
as other people of good will, are being asked to choose: to follow your
deeply held, reasoned beliefs or to obey President Obama and Secretary
of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius'
[[Page H888]]
new mandate, which is in violation of your conscience rights.
That's a false choice.
That's un-American.
That violates a deeply held principle of this country, namely
religious liberty, which we have held so dear throughout our history.
{time} 1830
The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act really does one simple
thing: It restores us to where we were a year and a half ago before the
new health care law came into being, and it would prevent things such
as this new mandate, which is an intrusion of government into the faith
life of many Americans, from ever happening.
Again, I'm very pleased for your willingness to hold this hour of
discussion with fellow Members. It is a bipartisan bill, by the way.
There are Democrats and Republicans on this bill. It is a bicameral
bill. There are over 200 House Members who have cosponsored this bill
200, Democrats and Republicans; and there are 37 Members on the
companion piece in the United States Senate, dropped by my friend
Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri. In fact, Senator Blunt has offered
this as potential amendments to must-pass legislation in the other
body. We haven't seen that go through yet.
So there is tremendous momentum for this piece of legislation because
it's not about politics. It's not about partisanship. It's about a
principle, a fundamental American principle: the rights of conscience
and religious liberty, as applied in health care.
I'm pleased by the outpouring of support from Members of both sides
of the aisle here. I think that is due to the intensity of concern
across America about how this time, the government has gone too far.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to hold a good conversation
tonight on this fundamental principle of religious liberty and the
rights of conscience for all Americans.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I do want to applaud Representative
Fortenberry of Lincoln, Nebraska, for this courageous move that he has
taken, for being a leader on this important issue of protecting the
rights of the conscience for Americans. I thank you for your leadership
on this issue.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I appreciate it. I hope that we continue to
hold more conversations about this because America needs to know.
America is already speaking. And that is evident in the number of
Members who are deeply interested in this bill.
Mr. LAMBORN. And I can certainly count that 200 Members is close to
the magic number of 218, which is 50 percent of the House. Likewise, 37
is getting close to the magic number of 50 needed over in the Senate.
So you're doing great work. And I appreciate that, and many Americans
appreciate your work.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you very much.
Mr. LAMBORN. At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana,
Steve Scalise.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for
yielding and for taking the lead on this hour dedicated to standing up
for religious freedom.
I also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his
leadership and for bringing forth legislation, of which I am a proud
cosponsor, that would repeal the decision that President Obama came
down with that is an attack on religious freedom.
As a Catholic who attends church, it's rare when you see a Catholic
priest talking from the pulpit, calling on the parishioners to call
Congress, to contact Congress about any issue. Yet I want to applaud
the Catholic bishops who have been so vocal in helping bring this issue
to light, for standing up and saying, This is something that we will
not comply with because it violates our own religious beliefs.
The beauty of the Constitution--and especially when you look at the
Bill of Rights--are the rights that it lays out to all Americans. And
when you read that First Amendment, there is a reason why freedom of
religion is included in the First Amendment placed in the Bill of
Rights, because our Founders believed it was a right that was handed
down to us from God through our Founding Fathers and that it was given
to all American citizens.
But yet the President came out with this ruling, and he says, Well,
we'll tailor a little exemption just for places of worship. Not
religious organizations, just places of worship. And everybody else,
they're on their own. They've got religious beliefs that--they don't
want to have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, for example, which the
President mandated. Then the President basically said, No, you have to
do this, even if it violates your religious beliefs. That violates the
First Amendment of the Constitution. It violates the Bill of Rights. No
President has the ability to violate the Bill of Rights, those
constitutional rights we have.
And then the President, just a few days ago, came out with what he
called ``an accommodation,'' an accommodation where he said, Okay,
we'll carve out a little more exception. It still doesn't apply to an
employer, for example, that has those same religious beliefs, so we'll
carve out an exemption.
Well, guess what? After the President carved out that exemption, so
to speak, they actually issued a final rule. This is the final rule
from the Obama administration after he gave a press conference, a
political speech. And in the final rule, it says, ``These regulations
finalize, without change, interim final regulations.'' In other words,
they didn't even put any of the things from the President's press
conference where he said he was going to give accommodations. None of
that is in the final rule.
The final rule still says, if you're a Catholic school, for example,
or a Catholic Church--and I know Colorado Christian University is one
of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit because they would face a $500,000 fine
under this rule. Even if the President gave a press conference, you
can't go to court and say, Look, I'm not going to comply with this
rule, because they're going to say, Well, you have to comply; it's the
law. And they will say, Oh, but the President gave a speech saying I
don't have to. It's still in the rule.
Again, any President who thinks that he has the power to issue
accommodations to the Bill of Rights is a President who thinks he's got
the ability to take away that Bill of Rights. He doesn't have that. And
that's why I'm so proud to stand here with my colleague from Colorado
and so many others that have stood up and said, we are going to stand
up and defend those religious freedoms that are so precious, not just
for religious organizations, but for all Americans, as is called for in
the Bill of Rights. So it's an important issue that we need to keep
fighting for because this is all a component of the President's health
care law.
I remember back in those days when the President stood right here on
this House floor at that podium and he looked at all Members of
Congress and he said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. Do
you remember that? All Americans heard that. Time and time again, the
President said, If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep
it. Guess what: With this ruling, he broke that promise he made to the
American people because if you're a religious organization and you like
the fact that you don't have to provide--and you are not going to
provide--abortion-inducing drugs because it violates your own
conscience, the President is now saying, You can't keep it. You have to
abide by my ruling. That goes against the will. And if you are a
religious organization that is self-insured, they're left out of this
too.
There are so many problems with this. I'm glad that they're fighting
it in the courts. But the bottom line is, they shouldn't have to go to
the court to defend the First Amendment. That should be something
that's sacrosanct. The President shouldn't be trying to violate and
attack our religious freedoms.
I appreciate the gentleman for his leadership tonight.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for making his remarks.
And he mentioned Colorado Christian University. The president of that
fine institution is former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong, who served
Colorado both in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate in such a
distinguished manner. And that is not necessarily a Catholic
institution. It's more of a Protestant evangelical institution,
although people of different Christian backgrounds attend there. But
this shows that it's not strictly a ``Catholic'' issue. All people of
faith are concerned about violations of conscience.
[[Page H889]]
You see here this quote from Martin Luther King. February is Black
History Month. And I think it's appropriate to look at what he said. He
said, There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither
safe nor politic nor popular but because conscience tells one it is
right. He pointed to the need to listen to our consciences when
deciding matters of great importance. And Martin Luther King left a
great legacy for this country, and his respect for the conscience of
the individual is one of those marks of his legacy.
I now yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, we have one of the most serious assaults on religious
liberty in American history. The President's rule, finalized last
Friday, in its unchanged form, as we just heard, violates the
individual rights to religious freedom that every American shares.
The Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to organizations. It wasn't
written for groups. It was written for individuals, every individual
having the right to exercise their religious belief. The President's
rule not only restricts individuals, but it restricts everything except
what exists between the walls of a church building. Mr. Speaker, that's
not what the First Amendment is about.
{time} 1840
My parents, like many immigrants to this country, fled countries
where those beliefs weren't held. My parents came from communist
countries where we don't find it farfetched to believe that they would
imprison, they would punish individuals for their religious beliefs.
Let's look at what the President's Affordable Care Act has turned
into.
We knew and America knew when that bill was passed, because the
previous Speaker of the House said: We just have to wait to pass it;
we'll find out what's in it. Mr. Speaker, we are finding out what's in
it, and America doesn't like it, because what's in it is the ability,
under the current rule, to restrict individual religious freedom. And
if you choose to exercise your religious freedom, you are punished by
the government with a fine. And it's not just a few dollars; it's
$2,000 per employee.
If an employer has deeply held religious beliefs, deeply held, it's
not up to the President or the Secretary of Health or anyone in the
Federal bureaucracy or government to decide if those are appropriate
religious beliefs. Yet that is exactly what this rule does. It says if
you don't share their religious beliefs or their beliefs in certain
types of health care, you are going to pay a fine to the government.
Well, that sounds a lot like governments where immigrants have fled
from to this country to share in the individual religious belief.
Let's go down the list of what this final rule impairs. It violates
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in this Congress two
decades ago. It obviously violates the First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause because it does place a substantial burden on individuals who
choose to exercise religious belief. That's all they're doing. We have
made it an effective crime to hold a certain religious belief that this
administration disagrees with. That's not America. That describes a
whole lot of other countries in the world, but it doesn't describe
America.
It violates the First Amendment free exercise rights because it
intentionally discriminates--intentionally discriminates--against
religious beliefs. It imposes requirements on some religions, not on
others. It picks winners and losers. That's exactly what the First
Amendment was meant not to do.
And, Mr. Speaker, it's not going to be adequate if we just extend it
to religious organizations because, I remind you, the First Amendment
is not about groups or buildings or churches or any institutions; it's
about the ability of every American to not violate their conscience.
And if their conscience says, It would be wrong for me to provide
insurance to an employee that would provide something that my religious
belief disagrees with, who are we, as the government, to step in and
say, You have to violate your religious beliefs; and if you don't, you
pay a fine to the government.
That's not the America we believe in. It never has been; hopefully,
it never will be.
We know that the President's final rule, because we just heard it--
and, Mr. Speaker, you know, some people listening to us will say,
That's not true; that's not true. Go Google the final rule and compare
it to the rule last summer, the final rule, issued hours after the
President claimed a compromise, and compare it with the interim rule
issued last summer. Not a comma is different; not a comma was changed.
The smoke and mirrors was: Don't listen to what I say; don't watch my
hands as I do this magic.
Go and read the final rule. There was not a single change. There was
an accounting gimmick. Americans understand accounting gimmicks. That's
why we're in the fiscal mess we're in, because Washington likes them.
This time the accounting gimmick attempts to override Americans'
religious conscience, and you can't do that. Americans understand
there's no such thing as free anything. Somebody pays for it. And if
the government is going to mandate that an employer provide insurance
that includes provisions that conflict with their conscience beliefs,
this is an accounting gimmick to say that somebody else has to pay for
the rest of that insurance policy that you provided. Every American
knows that's not true. We know specifically for larger institutions
that self-insure, they are the insurer. There is no other insurance
company. Large bodies, and if they happen to be religious, self-insure.
You will now force them to violate their conscience or pay a $2,000 per
person fine.
I want to thank the Representative from Colorado for bringing this
point up tonight, reminding the American public to pay attention to the
debate. Go look at that final rule and understand that we're in the
same situation as we were last week with a violation of religious
liberty that we should never tolerate.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his insight into
this issue and his comments.
A couple of organizational things just very quickly. Because of the
keen interest to address this important issue, we're going to ask for a
4-minute timeframe for each speaker, and there are several that I need
to take out of the rough order that we have to accommodate tight
schedules.
So, as Mr. Kelly comes forward, I will read a quote here from John F.
Kennedy. Let me read what John F. Kennedy said about conscience:
I would not look with favor upon a President working to
subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.
What a powerful statement.
I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, where I come from in western Pennsylvania, there's an
old saying that goes something like this: Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me.
And I think that tonight, my colleagues and I come before you and
come before this House to talk about some very egregious action that
this administration has just taken. And for the President, who at one
time was a professor of constitutional law and who knows better, he
relies on constitutional convenience. When it's convenient, he follows
the Constitution; when it's not, he follows what he wants to do. And
then he looks upon us, saying, You just didn't get it. Maybe I didn't
use the right words to frame it.
And so he takes policy that is horrible policy, policy that is
against our First Amendment, policy that restricts our free speech,
restricts our freedom of religion, and puts an onerous burden on people
not to be able to choose what they want but what this administration
wants. And he says, You know what? Let me take what I just told you,
put it in a little different box, a little different color paper and
put a little different bow around it, and this is what we're going to
use.
And some people sit back and say, Oh, my gosh, I'm so glad he was
accommodating. That is not accommodating.
Now, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I will tell you that for many, many
months and for many years I have wondered why our religious leaders,
the people we look to for spiritual guidance, have been silent and have
taken a back seat and have let things happen that they should not have
let happen.
Bishop Zubik from Pittsburgh, Bishop Trautman from Erie, and my
[[Page H890]]
priest, Father Steven Neff in Butler, have all spoken up from the
pulpit, and they have spoken very clearly about this violation, and
they have articulated much better than any of us can. They have done it
from the pulpit. They have done it in the papers. They have done it on
the radio and on the TV. The American people now know what is going on.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. No way.
And we are here tonight because we have had enough of an
administration that continues to trample on our Constitution,
marginalize it, and use it only when it's convenient. And when it
doesn't meet their means, we talk about constitutional niceties. We
talk about a Constitution that was well written at the time, really
doesn't address the needs of today.
I would tell you that the needs of today have nothing to do with the
needs of the American people, the rights of the American people, the
freedom of the American people in speech or religion. It has to do with
an administration that finds it a little too onerous for their agenda.
So I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I would hope that all
Americans, not just Catholics, not just Christians, but all Americans,
are outraged by this attempt to violate our First Amendment rights.
{time} 1850
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
There are a number of freshmen, including Mr. Kelly, who are making a
big impact here in Congress just at 13 months of service.
Another one, who I would like to refer to as speaking next, is Ann
Marie Buerkle of the State of New York.
Thank you for coming and speaking.
Ms. BUERKLE. I thank my colleague for putting together this hour that
is so meaningful and so important not just for Democrats or Republicans
but for every American, not just for people of faith but for those who
have no faith. This is a First Amendment issue.
I stand here tonight as a health care professional, someone who is so
vitally aware of the importance of conscience and the protection of
conscience rights.
This HHS rule is the largest intrusion that we have ever seen from
the Federal Government on our rights of conscience. Every American--
every American--must understand what an insult this is to our
constitutional rights.
I want to just take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to challenge our
media as they listen to this debate, and it is a debate that really
encompasses so many unlikely bedfellows, I would say, that you see
liberals, conservatives, Catholics, atheists, Christians, and Jews
coming together in an outrage because our First Amendment rights have
been assaulted and have been attacked by this administration. But I
would challenge the media to not be fooled by the red herring that this
administration continues to throw out there. Mr. Speaker, this is not
about contraception. This is not about women's health. This is not
about Catholicism. This is about protecting the most fundamental right
that we, as Americans, have.
So many of my colleagues have mentioned about the reasons people came
to this country and they continue to want to come to this country,
because we ensure that you will not be persecuted for your beliefs, for
your religious beliefs. That's the bedrock of the United States of
America. That's why there's such outrage over this HHS rule.
As my colleague from Maryland mentioned, this rule has not been
changed. Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of this
administration. This rule remains the same. It remains an assault on
our First Amendment rights. I plead with America and I plead with the
media to understand what's at stake in this debate.
I thank my colleague again for this opportunity.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentlelady for her comments.
There's one other person who has a strong scheduling issue that I
would like to come forward, from the State of Kansas, another person in
his first term who has impressed me greatly, Representative Huelskamp.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman. It's a pleasure to stand with
you today. It is a pleasure to be here. But it is a real shock to see
what is happening today.
I would agree with the comments of my colleague and many others. I
must admit--and I guess in today's environment it is an admission. I
must admit I am Roman Catholic. This issue is not about what faith you
call your own. This issue is about our religious freedoms, whichever we
choose.
Who would have thought of an administration that would identify and
select a certain group and say, We are going to violate their
conscience? We knew this was coming. We knew this was coming.
I'm reminded of a few quotes that I've heard in the last few months--
actually, in the last few years--a famous quote that was already used
previously, that we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it,
the former Speaker of this House. We're finding out what was in it. We
found out many things that we did know were in it.
Actually, when this was debated on the Senate side, there was an
attempt by our leadership, Republican leadership, that said, no, let's
make certain that this doesn't happen. This was anticipated by this
administration, I believe, to attempt to violate the conscience of
millions and millions of Americans, and yet they continued forward with
that.
We also found out that, once we read the bill and it was passed--or
passed and then read it--that this administration, the HHS Secretary
who we talk about, Kathleen Sebelius, began to give waivers and said,
well, it applies to some groups and not others. If you happen to know
the Secretary or happen to be from the right district or happen to work
for the right company, you can find a waiver, and I remember speaking
out about it. What I didn't anticipate was having to ask a waiver to
actually have your beliefs, still hold those in America. Who would have
thought that we'd have to get permission from the President of the
United States and his Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, for permission to
believe what I believe? That's shocking.
As I mentioned, I am a Catholic, and Pope Benedict XVI a few months
ago said that freedom of religion is the most American of all freedoms.
And I think about the thousands of folks that have served in this
Chamber, that have walked up here and fought for our freedoms and spoke
on the floor for them; they would have never guessed that if you are of
a particular group--in this case, Catholic, and others that disagree
with this administration--you would have to pay a fine to actually
disagree with them.
Congressman, you have showed a real civil rights leader in the
history of our country, Martin Luther King. One of his other tremendous
quotes was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
That didn't just apply to his beliefs. He thought it applied to all
Americans. But what is shocking to me is that we have a President who
disregards basic American freedoms and is willing, somehow--it's just
shocking to me that he's willing to risk his election, to alienate
folks because of what he's attempting to impose. But that's what we
expect from ObamaCare. That's what we expect from his health care plan,
because it is government mandates. It is government control.
As the Attorney General of Virginia said, the President's health care
plan, the debate over that is not about health care. The fundamental
issue is liberty. And that's what we're finding out right here.
I call upon this President, I call upon Kathleen Sebelius, please,
reach deep down into your soul, and also think about your next
election. Because we know if this rolls back, it's about the next
election. But we don't care about the next election. Americans care
about their freedoms and liberties.
I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention.
We've been fighting this on many routes, and I think it's just
absolutely critical. I thank you for your efforts, and, hopefully, we
will recall those words: An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.
Mr. LAMBORN. If I could ask the gentleman, is there any chance that
Kathleen Sebelius will issue waivers to religious organizations, not
just the labor unions who up until now have been the main ones getting
waivers?
Mr. HUELSKAMP. That is an excellent idea I guess we would expect from
[[Page H891]]
the administration, but, fundamentally, that is favoritism. That is
picking who gets to believe what. And as previous colleagues talked
about escaping, immigrants that came to this country came here for this
particular reason, to avoid paying a fine for what they believed.
That's exactly what we are being forced to do.
Do we get permission from the President not to pay the fine? Do we
get a waiver? Well, how do we accommodate religious freedom, Mr.
President? How do we accommodate that, Secretary Sebelius? How do we
balance? It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution we're going to
balance what you want with our freedoms.
The First Amendment is very clear. And the first part of the First
Amendment is the freedom to believe in the God as we choose. And I
appreciate and thank you for that.
I'll do this. Let's ask for a waiver for everybody in America to
actually get a waiver so we can believe what we want to believe. I
would ask for that as well.
So thank you, Congressman, for your leadership, and we will continue
to join you in this effort.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Kansas. He's been an
excellent addition to the newer Members coming here to Congress, an
excellent addition.
Among those who are having scheduling conflicts, unfortunately, is
me. I have a committee that's meeting right now that's having a markup.
We're having recorded votes on amendments and passage of bills out of
committee, so I have to leave in just a moment. As much as I so badly
wish I could finish up this discussion and hear the comments that have
been moving to me so far, I have to depart.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren)
is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the
majority leader.
{time} 1900
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, might I make an
inquiry as to how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the Speaker.
At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Nunnelee). We are trying to keep it to about 4 minutes apiece. And I'm
not just saying that because you're ready to talk, but that's the time
we have.
Mr. NUNNELEE. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
California, for your leadership in this area.
Religious freedom in America is under attack, not from some outside
source, but from within. And if we've learned anything from history, we
should have learned that great civilizations are at a greater risk of
destroying themselves from within than they ever are in danger from any
outside peril.
Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our society. In
1789, when James Madison and the rest of the Framers of our
Constitution were crafting that great document, their genius created
the concepts of separation of powers, checks and balances, limited
government. However, when that document was presented to the States,
the people said that with all of its genius, that document was
inadequate. While it outlined a framework for government, it failed to
guarantee individual rights.
So in order to establish the Government of the United States of
America as we know it today, our ancestors insisted that our Nation
adopt the Bill of Rights--10 amendments to the Constitution that would
guarantee rights to every individual. That Bill of Rights begins:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Yet the Obama administration has displayed a disturbing contempt for
the religious liberty guaranteed in that Bill of Rights. The message
coming out of them seems to be: it's okay to have religious beliefs as
long as you confine that practice to your church. They just don't get
it. They don't seem to grasp the fact that our faith is part of who we
are. We don't check it in and check it out when we walk into our places
of worship. We take it with us everywhere we go.
Now, defenders of this health mandate are attempting to play a clever
political game. They're attempting to frame this as a narrow debate
between women's rights and the Catholic Church. The truth is, this is
about an outrageous idea that the State can force citizens of this
Nation to violate their religious beliefs by some degree or regulation,
and that some bureaucrat at Health and Human Services can violate
constitutional rights.
All Americans--its individuals, not just religious institutions--
should be free to purchase and provide health insurance that does not
violate their religious beliefs. This principle is so basic that it's
tragic that we even have to introduce legislation to reaffirm it. But
it's the position of the Obama administration that has put us in the
position we're in today. That's why I'm a proud cosponsor of the Rights
of Conscience Act, and I urge its swift passage.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. It's a privilege to be here to stand on the House floor
with my colleagues this evening and discuss an issue that is facing
Americans today that really we should not be standing here talking
about. We face tough economic times, but instead we have to be dealing
with the administration's rule that he is implementing that came out of
the health care bill passed several years ago. This is a freedom-of-
religion issue. This issue is not about birth control. This issue is
about government control.
I'd like to share a couple of lines from our founding documents that
I think are very important. I think one thing that has happened over
the past couple of years is that Americans have become more familiar
with our Constitution, because I believe the Constitution has the
answers for the problems that we face today.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share this particular line that actually
influenced the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment:
All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience.
That is found in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The First
Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today and I believe that this is a
threat to our freedoms. I stand here as a Baptist, along with my
colleagues from many denominations who believe that this is a threat to
our freedom of religion. Can you imagine the outcry if the President
told journalists what stories they could write? This is no less
appalling. The President's decision to force individuals of faith to
violate their conscience is a blatant assault on the First Amendment.
One of the things that is so foundational here in America is that we
are a people of strong convictions. We are a people of faith. What this
rule does is it puts the real American safety net at risk. We have so
many faith-based organizations, charities, people that organize to help
those who are in need. They are the backbone of the social safety net
of this country. I believe that this rule interferes with those core
beliefs and that HHS has jeopardized the mission that so many Americans
have to help people across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share this quote by one of our famous and
well-respected Founders and Forefathers of our country, and it is
Daniel Webster, who said this in addressing Americans about preserving
the principles of the Constitution. He said:
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was
made to guard the people against the dangers of good
intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern
well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters.
Mr. Speaker, I'd submit to you today that this administration, past
Congresses, has good intentions; but they are beginning to control and
to rule
[[Page H892]]
the people in ways that violate our constitutional freedoms and our
liberties.
So I want to thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order
because I believe that the people must know that this is a rule that
will infringe on their First Amendment rights.
The last quote I'd like to read tonight is a quote from Thomas
Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson says:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent.
I ask the American people to voice their opinion, to voice their
freedom, and to let their Member of Congress know what this ruling does
to the freedom of religion.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
It is now a pleasure on my part to be able to recognize for his words
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate the opportunity from the gentleman from
California to stand with my colleagues tonight to speak on an important
issue.
It was an amazing experience for me this morning to be part of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee and to have a hearing where
we had numerous members of religious organizations, including leaders
in the Catholic, the Jewish, and the Protestant faiths, in front of us,
men who were appealing for rights that should be taken for granted in
this country, the rights of religious freedom.
It brought back to me the thoughts that I experienced just a year ago
almost this very day when I was in Israel and had the opportunity to
hear from the Prime Minister of Israel as he spoke with glowing
admiration for America. He talked about the religious liberty that was
unlike any other place in the world in Israel today for all faiths, all
religions, based upon, as he said, the experience, the value, and the
documents of America and its foundings.
{time} 1910
And so, today, to hear our religious leaders speaking for their
religious liberty was unreal. Those documents that the Prime Minister
of Israel referred to going back to the Declaration of Independence,
where it says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are
created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
Liberty.
And our First Amendment has been quoted numerous times tonight. The
beginning of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
These truly sacred documents, documents that we live by, at least we
should, documents that we can carry and quote from, are under serious
attack today. These documents of liberty, liberty, not just for
organizations but for individuals, not just for churches, but for
parishioners who have businesses, who are body shop owners, who are
lawyers, who are doctors and have employees that they want to care for.
We have today a Justice of the Supreme Court who recommends to a
country looking for a constitution to write, not America's
Constitution, but constitutions of other countries. Unbelievable.
And attorneys, labor attorneys pooh-poohing the opposition to attacks
on our own Constitution as constitutional niceties. This is not America
that we understand.
And now the attack on the constitutional right of religious
conscience, the foundational liberty upon which this great land was
birthed, our churches and our individuals.
We would do well to listen, Mr. Speaker, to the warnings of our
Framers and Founders.
And with this I close: Jonathan Witherspoon, a minister who signed
the Declaration of Independence said:
A republic once equally poised must either preserve its
virtue or lose its liberty.
John Adams followed by saying:
Liberty lost once is liberty lost forever.
We would do well also to take the heed of enemy voices who desire the
destruction of America and its liberty, lest we unwittingly follow and
fall into their advice, advice such as this that was said:
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is
threefold; its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life.
If we undermine these three areas, America will collapse from
within.
Joseph Stalin.
May God grant us, Mr. Speaker, wisdom so that our President, this
Congress, and all of America will never let these words be a prophecy
fulfilled.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his
powerful words.
At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
the gentleman for holding this Special Order tonight.
Mr. Speaker, as a young man, I swore an oath to protect and uphold
the Constitution of the United States when I was sworn into the United
States military. Literally, millions of young men and women have sworn
that oath, shed blood, precious blood, to protect the individual
liberties and freedoms that we take for granted in this Nation. And
now, no longer, due to the actions of this President, can we take those
for granted.
I want to associate my remarks tonight with my colleagues who've so
eloquently spoken. Once again, it tells us why government should be out
of these individual decisions that we make. We passed almost 2 years
ago, and Mr. Lungren remembers this very well, on this House floor we
debated this health care bill that now mandates not only what we should
buy, an essential benefits package, but what's in it and how it's
administered. How ridiculous that is. Individuals have that right and
should maintain that right and that freedom to do that.
Our government was established to protect rights of conscience for
all Americans, not just some Americans, but all Americans. Neither the
HHS nor any other government Department should have the power to force
people to violate their conscience. Since 1973, health care and
coverage providers--and I am a physician, I am an obstetrician and
gynecologist--were granted protections in the law to follow their
conscience. This rule that was passed and will be the law of the land
cancels those protections. Cancels those protections.
This HHS rule will force individuals and organizations to violate
deeply held moral convictions with no opportunity to opt out, no
opportunity to opt out. Protection of the rights of conscience is a
fundamental American principle, a fundamental liberty, not a marginal
consideration to be subordinated or ignored because of Federal
mandates. It's guaranteed in this book right here, the Constitution.
The freedom of religion is the first one mentioned in the First
Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The HHS rule gives people and me, a provider, an impossible choice:
either break the law, or violate your beliefs. This rule is causing
buyer's remorse in someone who previously supported the health care
reform bill.
Former Representative Kathy Dahlkemper recently said:
I would never have voted for the final version of the bill
if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic
hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for
contraception.
Christians cannot distinguish between purely religious activities and
provisions of health care. Because of this rule and because of this
President, many may have no choice but to stop providing coverage for
their employees. And providers like myself and others with conscience
clauses may have to stop providing care.
This is not a choice that any of us should have to make. It's a
freedom guaranteed by over 200 years of bloodshed for this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot stand by and let this happen.
I appreciate very much the gentleman holding this Special Order
tonight.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to share the last 9 minutes with the
gentleman from New Jersey, the man I call the William Wilberforce of
this Congress, Mr. Chris Smith.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my great friend from California for
his leadership, former Attorney General of California, one of the most
decisive and
[[Page H893]]
wonderful debaters in the House of Representatives and a great champion
of life.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama's slick public relations offensive this
past Friday contained neither an accommodation nor a compromise, nor a
change in his coercion rule. It was, instead, a pernicious attack on
religious freedom.
The Obama final rule promulgated on Friday is an unprecedented
government attack on the conscience rights of religious entities and
anyone else, and I repeat that, anyone else who, for moral reasons,
cannot and will not pay for abortion-inducing drugs, such as ella, or
contraception and sterilization procedures in their private insurance
plans.
Mr. Obama is arrogantly using the coercive power of the state to
force faith-based charities, hospitals and schools to conform to his
will at the expense of conscience.
Mr. Obama's means of coercing compliance, ruinous fines of $2,000 per
employee when faith-based organizations refuse to comply, and they will
refuse to comply, will impose incalculable harm on millions of children
educated in faith-based schools. It will also impose harm on the poor,
sick, disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such
extraordinary compassion and dignity by faith-based entities.
For example, Catholic Charities employs 70,000 employees. They will
be hit with a fine by the Obama administration of $140 million per
year. That's the fine. That's the penalty: $2,000 per employee.
Notre Dame has about 5,000 employees. That will be a $10 million fine
on Notre Dame. And so it goes for those faith-based organizations.
Let me just say to my colleagues that vocal apologists of the Obama
coercion rule say over and over again that the IOM, the Institute of
Medicine, panel that reportedly researched and did recommend the
coercion rule was somehow independent. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
{time} 1920
Journalist Kathryn Jean Lopez reported that the Human Life
International organization looked into the members of the panel. You
stack the panel, you get a predetermined outcome. They found that it
was packed with pro-abortion activists.
For example, member Claire Brindis, member of the organization of
NARAL Pro-Choice America; Angela Diaz, member of Physicians for
Reproductive Choice and Health; Paula Johnson, chairwoman of Planned
Parenthood League of Massachusetts; Magda Peck, also on the board of
directors, or was, of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council
Bluffs. She was chair of the board as well as vice chair. If you just
stack an IOM or any other panel, you will get a predetermined outcome,
and so they did.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act
reasserts and restores conscience rights by making absolutely clear
that no one can be compelled to subsidize so-called services in private
insurance plans contrary to their religious beliefs or moral
convictions. This legislation must be on the floor soon, and I hope the
American people will realize how important this bill offered by Mr.
Fortenberry is to conscience rights in America.
I thank my good friend for yielding.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to avoid
personalities with regard to the President, such as accusations of
arrogance.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for his
comments, and I thank him for his leadership on many, many issues of
human rights, not only in the United States but around the world.
I was astounded when I heard the comments of the leader of the
minority party in the House of Representatives several days ago when
she referred to those who were concerned about this decision by the
President of the United States and the secretary of HHS as using
religious liberty as an excuse. What an insult to those men and women
of good faith who've expressed their concern about how this will
require them to either violate their consciences or pay fines in
tribute to the Federal Government.
Interestingly enough, Alexis de Tocqueville said this about
Catholics:
The American Catholics are faithful to the observance of
their religion. Nevertheless, they constitute the most
Republican and most Democratic class of citizens which exists
in the United States. Although this fact may surprise some
observers at first, the causes by which it is occasioned may
easily be discovered upon reflection.
What he suggested was the consciences of Catholics who utilized their
consciences to bring to the public debate did not undermine America, it
fortified America.
We've crossed this bridge before. Unfortunately there were those who
claimed to be Republicans in the 1800s who led the fight against men
and women of conscience who happened to be Catholic. This caused
Abraham Lincoln to say these words in a letter to Joshua Speed in 1855:
As a Nation, we began by declaring that all men are created
equal. We now practically read it ``all men are created equal
except Negroes.'' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will
read ``all men are created equal except Negroes and
foreigners and Catholics.''
What does it mean? The Know-Nothings feared that Catholics would
bring their conscience and their values of faith to the public debate.
We've been across this bridge before. We should not accept it. It's
not just Catholics. It is men and women of all religious beliefs and
even those of no religious beliefs who understand that a government
that commands that you do something against your conscience is a
government that can basically take anything away from you, and in this
case, perhaps the most precious thing there is in you, your faith.
We cannot let it stand. It is a question of the culture of America,
the tradition of America, the first amendment to the Constitution of
America.
This is a serious debate because it questions whether anyone, anybody
in government, can basically tell you that you must check your
religious values at the door.
Interestingly enough, just a week and a half ago, I was present when
I heard the President speak at the National Prayer Breakfast and say he
does not and we do not and we cannot check our religious values at the
door. That's precisely what this edict--and that's what it is--this
edict does.
We ought to understand. We speak not just for Catholics, we speak not
just for Christians, we speak not just for Jews, for Muslims, for
Hindus, for people of faith, and for those who have no faith. We speak
for all Americans in understanding that the First Amendment is not made
up of mere words; it is made up of first principles. And we cannot
allow first principles to be cast aside.
That's why we must stand in unity against this rule, this
unprincipled, this unlawful, this unconstitutional rule that has no
basis in fact, has no basis in the Constitution, and has no basis in
the culture of this country properly understood.
I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I thank all for their
contribution.
General Leave
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject
of this Special Order this evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start tonight by continuing
our discussion on conscience protections and our First Amendment
rights.
As I did yesterday during the press conference on the same topic, I'd
like to read the First Amendment to our Constitution. It states:
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
[[Page H894]]
Our Founding Fathers thought that those specific five tenets were
crucial to the citizens of America--so critical that they needed to be
guaranteed first and foremost.
The conscience protection debate that started a few weeks ago with
the administration's announcement of a new rule regarding
contraception, sterilization, and insurance policies is a perfect
example of the importance of these rights.
The government cannot, and should not, be forcing any employer,
whether they are Catholic charities and schools or an individual
businessman, to violate the tenets of their faith.
As this debate continues, it highlights the great need to have a
standard that explicitly protects employers from attempts to erode our
First Amendment rights.
We need to fight for the standard in H.R. 1179, the Respect for
Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, introduced by my good friend from
Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.
It simply protects employers from being forced to violate their
religious or moral beliefs by an overreaching mandate from the
administration. It takes nothing away from the public, nor does it
prohibit women from getting services that are already provided, as some
have alleged.
H.R. 1179 is a responsible and reasonable response to clarify what
can and cannot be mandated through the healthcare law regarding
conscience protections.
We cannot allow the federal government to start going down the
slippery slope of eroding our constitutionally protected rights--we
took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
As a mother and grandmother, I will do everything in my power to
ensure that the rights we enjoy today continue to be guaranteed for my
daughter, grandchildren, and generations to come.
____________________