[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 33 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1160-S1162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have spent a lot of time in my Senate 
career defending the first amendment. Most of that time, I 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 in defense of 
another freedom that is covered in the first amendment; that is, 
religious freedom.
  Let me say at the outset that most of us didn't expect we would ever 
have to defend this right in a body in which every one of us is sworn 
to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Most of us probably assumed 
that if religious 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 is not 
the situation in which we find ourselves.
  Democrats have evidently decided they would 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 have 
decided to engage in a campaign of distraction as a way of obscuring 
the larger issue which is at stake.
  If Democrats no longer see the value in defending the first amendment 
because they don't think it is politically expedient to do so or 
because they want to protect the President, then Republicans will have 
to do it for them. And we are happy to do that because this is an issue 
that is greater than any short-term political gain; it 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.
  The first of these rights, according to the men who wrote the U.S. 
Constitution, is the right 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 it is not within 
the power of the Federal Government to tell anybody what to believe or 
to punish them for practicing those beliefs. Yet that is precisely what 
the Obama administration is trying to do through the President's health 
care law.
  We all remember then-Speaker Pelosi saying that we would have to pass 
the health care bill to find out what was in it. Well, this is one of 
the things we found: 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 will be penalized.
  According to congressional testimony delivered this week by Asma 
Uddin of the Becket 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 mandates that some have pointed to in the 
administration's defense.
  Moreover, even in States with the strictest mandates, religious 
institutions can still either opt out of State-level mandate or 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.
  Some of the proponents of this mandate say that in this case, we 
should just ignore the first amendment. That is 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 that said they had to toe the majority line?
  Some of the proponents of this mandate have also said they are 
willing to offer a so-called compromise that would respect what they 
call the core mission of religious institutions. But here is the catch: 
They want to be the ones to tell these religious institutions what 
their core mission is. The government telling the religious institution 
what the core mission is--that isn't a compromise; that is another 
government takeover, only this time it isn't the banks or the car 
companies, it is religion.
  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 
largest seminaries on the planet, R. Albert Mohler, or some bureaucrat 
in Washington? The question answers itself.
  Look, this is precisely the kind of thing the Founders feared. 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.

[[Page S1161]]

  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 is telling people what their religious beliefs are and what their 
religious practices ought to be. I wonder What is next?
  Let's be clear: this is not about any one particular religion.
  It is about the right of Americans of any religion to live out their 
faith without the government picking and choosing which doctrines they 
are 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 have 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 will start with the Catholic Archbishop of Louisville, Archbishop 
Joseph Kurtz. Here's what he wrote:

       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 Bishop Ronald Gainer of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington:

       Civil law and civil structures should recognize and 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 witness to the 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 is 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 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 Mohler, Jr. 
I mentioned him earlier. He is the President of the Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist 
Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. I am going 
to quote it in full.

       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 abortifacient services to 
     employees.
       This policy, announced by Secretary Sebelius, tramples upon 
     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. The religious exemption 
     announced by the Obama Administration is 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 heath care. The new policy 
     effectively tells Christian institutions that, if we want to 
     remain true to our convictions and 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 the total secularization of all education and social 
     services.
       Christians of conscience are now informed by our own 
     government that we must violate our convictions on a matter 
     of grave theological and moral significance. This is not a 
     Catholic issue. The inclusion of abortifacient forms of birth 
     control such as so-called 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 of teaching, belief, and moral 
     instruction.
       This policy is an outrage that 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. The protection of our most basic and fundamental 
     liberties now rests in your hands.

  I will conclude with this: if there is one good thing about this 
debate, it is that it has given all of us an opportunity to reaffirm 
what we believe as Americans. It gives us an opportunity to stand 
together and to say, this is what we are all about. This is what makes 
America unique, and this is what makes it great.
  That is why I will be voting in favor of the Blunt amendment.
  And that is why it is 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 have 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.


                        STORM DAMAGE IN KENTUCKY

  Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about another matter related 
to my own State. We have had severe storms and tornadoes that cut 
through parts of the Midwest yesterday, including in my home State of 
Kentucky. People across the Bluegrass State are still recovering this 
morning from the considerable damage caused by the severe weather.
  The National Weather Service has confirmed 4 tornadoes struck in 
Kentucky with winds of up to 125 miles per hour. These funnel clouds 
were sighted in Elizabethtown, eastern Grayson County, Larue County, 
and near downtown Hodgenville, which is home to the Abraham Lincoln 
Birthplace National Historic Park.
  In all, the National Weather Service has confirmed at least 16 
tornadoes across the country through seven States--Nebraska, Kansas, 
Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Indiana, and Kentucky. Over 300 reports 
of severe weather across the region describe frightening details such 
as wind gusts of over 80 miles per hour, and golf-ball sized hail 
stones.
  There were reports of power outages for thousands of people across 
Kentucky, particularly in my hometown of Louisville, the towns of 
Elizabethtown and Paducah, and in Muhlenberg and Grayson counties. 
Downed power lines and flash flooding were reported across the State.
  News reports and accounts from my own staff tell me that 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 6 other States has reportedly claimed at 
least 12 lives. I join my colleagues from the affected States in 
keeping in my thoughts today all those affected by these storms, 
especially the families of those lost in these tragic and unforeseeable 
circumstances.
  I also 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, who 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 
my home State of Kentucky.

[[Page S1162]]

  We will continue to keep a close eye on Kentucky and other States in 
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.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________