[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 33 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1162-S1173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1730, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid (for Blunt) amendment No. 1520 (to amendment No. 
     1730), to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to 
     requirements for coverage of specific items and services

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 90 minutes equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong, passionate support of 
the Blunt amendment. It is a very important amendment which we will be 
voting on as an entire Senate at 11 a.m. this morning.
  The Blunt amendment is an absolutely necessary measure to fix what is 
a very egregious overstepping of the bounds of government in terms of 
the 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 and 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. That is crossing a line 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.
  This is a fundamental conscience issue. This is a freedom of religion 
issue. That is exactly why it is so important.
  Let me also clarify, this is not merely about contraception. Folks on 
the other side of the debate and most of the media constantly put it 
merely in those terms. First of all, those measures in and of 
themselves violate the conscience of many Americans. But, second, it is 
not just about that, it is about abortion, it is about abortion-
inducing drugs such as Plan B, it is about sterilization. Clearly, the 
government mandating Americans to buy, to pay for, to subsidize these 
measures violates the conscience of tens and tens of millions of 
Americans. That is why we must act, hopefully today, starting today, by 
passing the Blunt amendment.
  The arguments made on the other side, when we look at them carefully, 
do not hold water. First of all, there is President Obama's so-called 
accommodation, so-called compromise, which is not an accommodation and 
is not a meaningful compromise at all. What did he say? He said: OK. We 
are not going to make Americans, persons of faith, religious 
institutions buy coverage they have moral qualms with. We are merely 
going to make the insurance provider provide that coverage whether the 
customer wants it or not. Well, that is a completely superficial and 
completely meaningless word game. The insurer is providing this how? 
What payment is supporting it? The only payment the insurer is getting 
is from a customer who objects to the coverage. So who is supporting 
it? Who is paying for it? Clearly this is 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 the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University, or Catholic 
institutions? They don't go to an insurance company to buy insurance; 
they are self-insured. That word game doesn't even work on the surface 
there. 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 is that 
somehow correcting this situation through the Blunt amendment or 
through similar measures will shut down access to these services. That 
is 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 cannot afford it, and that is 
not going to change. It is absolutely not necessary to tear away 
religious liberty and violate conscience rights of millions of 
Americans with that argument in mind. It isn't true.
  That is why respected religious leaders, such as Cardinal-designate 
Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
has argued strenuously and passionately against this mandate. Cardinal-
designate Dolan said:

       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.

  And so that is what it comes down to, free exercise of religion and 
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. Again, it is 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 are 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, 
and I hope we start that process in a very serious way today by voting 
positively and passing the Blunt amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are engaged in the business of the 
Senate, and it is not always discernible that it is the business of the 
people. What we see taking place these days is a principle mantra of 
Republicans on the campaign trail seeking 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 are we 
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 government to interfere in the 
most personal aspects of women's lives.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, the Blunt 
amendment, will allow a woman's employer to deny coverage for any 
medical service that they, the employer, have a moral problem with. 
Imagine that. Your boss is going to decide whether you are acting 
morally. The Republicans want to take us forward to the Dark Ages again 
when women were property that they could easily control and even trade 
if they wanted to. It is appalling that we are having this debate in 
the 21st century.
  Yesterday we heard something astounding. It came from Rush Limbaugh, 
who is a prime voice of modern conservatism in this country. Yesterday 
he said--and I had it checked because I wanted to be sure that I am not 
misquoting anything--that a woman who wants affordable birth control is 
``a prostitute.'' Talking

[[Page S1163]]

about your wife, your sister, your daughter, your child. This is 
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 cannot be trusted to make your 
own health care decisions. Your employer may judge if your actions are 
moral. More than 20 million women in America--including more than 
600,000 in my home State of New Jersey--could lose access to health 
care services they need under this scheme.
  The Republican attack on women is not just happening here in 
Congress, it is happening on the Presidential campaign trail. I show 
you here what one of the two leading Republican Presidential candidates 
has to say about birth control:

       I'm not a believer in birth control . . . I don't think it 
     works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to 
     our society . . .

  That is the kind of judgment they want to put in employers' hands? It 
is outrageous. Imagine that in a Presidential contest, dismissing the 
kinds of things that millions and millions of women rely upon to 
protect their health, to keep them from unwanted pregnancies, to keep 
them from disease, to keep them from all kinds of things that can make 
life difficult.
  Women of America, former Senator Santorum and Republicans here almost 
require a tap on the head: Don't worry. We know what is 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 at polls across the 
country, we see what the people in our society are thinking about 
politicians these days. It is 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, and let 
them have an education. No, we are going to spend time here keeping 
people from going to work. There are thousands of jobs that are at 
stake on 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 their happy faces; I like to see them 
feeling good. And if one of my daughters or my son says so-and-so has a 
cold and this one fell and broke something, that is my worry for the 
day. That is 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 daughters, my granddaughters, or my wife. No, 
I don't want Republican politicians making decisions about my family's 
health care or 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 is why President Obama is 
trying hard to make contraception more affordable because he knows it 
is basic health care for women and almost all women of age have used 
birth control at some point in their lives, and yet many have to 
struggle to pay for it. We ought to applaud President Obama for trying 
to make it more affordable. He believes they are capable of making 
their own decision. He wants them to be healthy. His proposal respects 
the rights of religious organizations that don't wish 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 is 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 GOP agenda is about denying benefits, 
restricting access, and taking away options.
  We weren't sent here to intrude in the lives of fellow citizens or to 
drag women back to the Dark Ages. We were sent here to offer people 
options, not obstacles. So I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, hold your head high and say to your family, your daughter, 
your wife, your sister, your mother: We want you to be healthy. That is 
our prime issue in life. I ask that my colleagues turn down this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  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 am a cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I think we all ought to 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 enduring constitutional rights of the American people 
first, over any fleeting and controversial political interests.
  In my view, those who support this amendment have been unjustly 
criticized over the past few days, and they have been unjustly 
criticized on a political basis, not really on an intellectual basis. 
Unable to win this debate through a 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 indictment of the President's 
signature domestic achievement and all of those who support 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 right 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 the government is able to provide all 
good things to the American people through a simple mandate with no 
consequences for cost or access.
  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. They stood as a witness for constitutional liberty, 
the free exercise of religion, and against an administration that put 
basic partisan politics above our beloved Constitution.
  The President's self-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 constitutionality of this mandate, and 
it shows. That is why we are here today: to undo just some of the 
damage to our liberty and our Constitution wrought by ObamaCare.
  All of the misleading arguments regarding this amendment run square 
to one simple fact: ObamaCare only became law in 2010. There was no 
Federal mandate for these services prior to 2010, and the regulations 
have not yet gone into effect. In other words, nobody is taking 
anything away from anybody. But to hear the other side talk, one would 
think the cosponsors of this amendment and the groups who 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

[[Page S1164]]

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. After 
2010, access to contraceptives remained abundant, with nobody 
advocating for restrictions on their access.
  Here is what changed in the meantime. In 2010, ObamaCare mandated 
that health coverage include sterilizations, abortion-inducing drugs, 
and contraceptive coverage. 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. It isn't just the Catholic Church; it is many churches that 
feel just the same way as the Catholic Church does. It is 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, so they have to distract and 
confuse. They claim Senator Blunt's amendment is overbroad. They claim 
religious institutions and individuals would deny critical health 
services, such as blood transfusions and psychiatric care. The Senate 
Democratic steering committee claims 20.4 million women who are now 
receiving coverage for preventive services would lose that coverage 
under this amendment. 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 VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, preventing discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in 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 prohibiting s discriminatory 
withholding of health care and other benefits for people with HIV or 
other disabilities remains in place. And the Mental Health Parity Act 
of 2008 requiring equitable coverage of mental illness remains in 
place.
  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 is what the Constitution demands.
  Even though the individuals and institutions protected by the Blunt 
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 are doing. There is only so much politics that should be played 
around here, and this is an issue we should not be playing politics 
with. It involves religious freedom and liberty.
  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--trying to obscure and to make a political 
issue out of this.
  I have had the good fortune of representing the people of Utah for 
many years. It has been an honor for me. In that time, I have seen many 
good people on both sides of the aisle serve well in the Senate. One 
thing we could always be sure of was that when it came to our first 
amendment 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? 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 takover of 
the Nation's health care system--giants such as Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, a Democrat and colleague who served as the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, stood up for broad conscience protections such as 
the one we are 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. It overwhelmingly passed. I was there when President Clinton 
signed it into law. A lot of religious leaders were there and a lot of 
liberals and conservatives were there who were very happy to pass that 
law. But, apparently, those days of bipartisanship are laid to rest, 
and they are long past.
  Today the administration ignores the clear dictates of the first 
amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  ObamaCare is unconstitutional to its core. It threatens 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 townhall meeting recently, one 
Democratic Member of the House of Representatives told her constituents 
that they were ``not looking to the Constitution'' when they supported 
this mandate. No kidding. Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution to 
prevent this type of tyranny; and that is what this is. This is 
tyranny. It is the political bullying of a religious group with--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 they stand for the little guy. Not in this 
case. In this case, the little guy is being pushed around by the State. 
I, for one, am not going to stand for it. This is discrimination 
masquerading as compassion, and I am going to fight it. My oath of 
office, an oath to protect the Constitution, compels me to do this.
  I am putting the administration on notice: I am 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 
are going to get to the bottom of how this happened and, ultimately, I 
am confident that justice will prevail.
  Ultimately, I am confident 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. I urge all 
of my colleagues to vote for it.
  The American people understand this amendment is necessary because of 
ObamaCare, and they know who is responsible for this monstrosity. I 
expect 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. The reaction to those 
who stand by this historic deprivation of first amendment rights? Only 
time is going to tell.
  Let me close by 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 the first amendment, to me, means everything. I have heard 
the President say, well, we will just require the insurance companies 
to provide this. Give me a break. A lot of Catholic institutions are 
self-insured, and that is true of other churches as well.
  Religious beliefs are important. The first amendment is important. 
The free exercise of religion is important. That is what is involved 
here.
  My gosh, to hear these arguments that this is all about 
contraception--that is not what it is about. It is about the right of 
people with religious beliefs to practice their religion, unmolested by 
government.

[[Page S1165]]

  I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Missouri. It takes 
guts to stand up on these issues when they are so distorted by some on 
the other side. I would be ashamed to make some of the arguments that 
were made on this issue. The Catholic Church, which is the largest 
congregation in our country, is not going to abide by this mandate. And 
I am 100 percent with them.
  When we start going down this road, let me tell you, beware, because 
that is when tyranny begins. The religious commitments of our Nation 
have made it the greatest Nation in the world. I have 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want to, since he is on the floor, 
recognize the Senator from Utah and his extraordinary service in the 
U.S. Senate. We do not agree on this issue, but he has done a 
tremendous job for the people of Utah over many years.
  I rise to talk a little bit about the amendment we are 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 and the insurance 
companies--on moral or religious grounds.
  The first thing I want to do--and I have not been around here a long 
time, but I want to first observe in what context we are discussing and 
debating this amendment. We have devoted extensive floor time on this 
amendment about contraception and the 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 I hold in my hand. This is 
the bill that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now. The title 
says:

       A bill (S. 1813) 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, transit, to job creation in the United States. I do not 
think the ``other purposes'' that are talked about in this bill have 
anything to do with contraception or women's health. But that is what 
we are 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 is not.
  In my home State of Colorado, I have held hundreds of townhall 
meetings in red parts of the State and blue parts of the State, and I 
do not remember a single time this issue--the issue that is of concern 
with this amendment--has been raised by anybody--by anybody--in 3 
years.
  I can tell you what people are talking about in Colorado. They want 
to know why we are not 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 
every single generation, until this one at least--the politicians--has 
treated as a sacred trust. Instead, over the last several weeks, we 
have 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 who are able to make the decisions about the health care 
services they need. And we sit here and wonder why the U.S. Congress is 
stuck at an approval rating of 11 percent. Maybe it is because we are 
talking about contraception in the context of a Transportation bill.
  I have a wife and three daughters--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. One thing I know is they 
do not need to be told by the government how to make their own health 
care decisions--nor do the 362,000 Colorado women who would be affected 
immediately if this amendment passed.
  This amendment is written so broadly 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, prenatal care, flu shots, to name only a few essential 
services, and, yes--and yes--the right to make decisions around 
contraception and their own reproductive health.
  My State, the great State of Colorado, is a third Democratic, a third 
Republican, and a third Independent. I can tell you, the last time 
there was an initiative on the ballot in my State to let the government 
intervene in women's health care decisions, it was defeated by 70 
percent of the voters. Seventy percent of the voters said: You know 
what. We would rather leave these decisions to women to make for 
themselves. That is what my daughters want as well.
  People are speaking loudly and clearly on this issue all across the 
country. These are not the issues we should be debating right now. We 
need to be having the conversations people are having at home in my 
townhalls instead of distracting them with politics: How do we create 
more jobs? How do we reform our entitlements so Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security are here for our grandchildren and for our children? 
How do we create an education system that is training our people for 
the 21st century? How do we assure poor children in this country that 
they can have a quality education and 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 is a time to debate this, but that time is not 
now when we are having this infrastructure discussion, we are 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.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the reason this amendment is being debated 
right now is because the administration issued an order that is 
unprecedented. It is unprecedented because the mandate provisions of 
the health care bill are also unprecedented. That is the reason we are 
debating this now. The administration brought this up. I am still 
amazed by the fact that the administration would not have excluded all 
of at least the faith-based institutions from their order.
  The Catholic hospitals, the Baptist universities, the Catholic 
schools of all kinds, the Christian schools of all kinds, the Muslim 
daycare centers--why would they not have exempted these people? They 
say: 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.
  There is a reason we have so much of our health care, our social 
services provided by faith-based institutions, and one of the reasons 
is those faith-based institutions want those institutions--that they 
fund, they support, they encourage--to reflect their faith principles. 
What is wrong with that?
  There are a couple of issues here. One is the separation in the 
President's mind of the work of the church or the synagogue or the 
mosque from the building itself. It is impossible to separate those two 
things; otherwise, you have another high school that has a chaplain, 
you do not have a Christian high school or you have another hospital 
that is run by the Sisters of Mercy, you do not have a Catholic 
hospital, because you have decided you are going to define the 
character of what that hospital stands for and what they provide.
  The administration recently took a Lutheran school to court. The EEOC 
took a Lutheran school to court and asserted that school did not have 
any special constitutional protections as to how they hired people, and 
you could have heard all these same kinds of arguments: Well, they will 
discriminate

[[Page S1166]]

against people; they will not hire people who otherwise should be 
hired; they will not make accessibility to the handicapped. You could 
hear all of that sort of thing, none of which would have been true, and 
the Supreme Court voted 9 0 that the administration was wrong.
  You can try all you want to separate these two issues, but they do 
not separate. They are both fundamental first amendment issues.
  Let's talk about some of the things I have 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. 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 
have those services now, there is nothing in this amendment that would 
change the world 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 does not modify any State or Federal law. And there are plenty of 
Federal laws. There is a Federal law on pregnancy discrimination that 
says pregnancy-related benefits cannot be limited to married employees. 
That law does not go away if this amendment passes. State laws that 
require things to be in health care policies, if you have one, do not 
go away if this amendment passes. It only amends the new mandate 
provisions of title I 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 respect for religious beliefs and moral convictions is 
already part of Federal health programs of all kinds, it just does not 
happen to be in the new law. There is no health care law since 1973 
that does not have these provisions in this bill that are part of the 
law. The law is there now, and the world does not 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 people may be worried about, we 
asked one question: Are people allowed to exclude this service from 
their health care benefit under current State or Federal law? If they 
are not allowed to exclude it under current State or Federal law, they 
would not be allowed to exclude it if this amendment passes. If they 
are not allowed to exclude it, they are 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 does not 
change anything in the law today. So why haven't we heard these 
speeches before about how the law does not 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.
  In fact, it allows for an actuarial equivalent to have to be added to 
a policy if you take something away. That means there is no financial 
reason--there is no financial reason--to exclude a service because if 
you exclude a service because you believe it is 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 of equal value that we did not 
require.
  I assume everybody on the other side of this debate would think that 
employers must be motivated to exclude these services if they are not 
legitimate religious beliefs and moral conviction; that they must 
exclude them because they would save some money. We do not allow them 
to save money. So there is no reason. The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services can say: OK. You can exclude that, but you have to include 
something we did not require something of equal value. That means 
something that is going to be equally used. That means something that 
is going to be equally costly to the employer.
  Why would the employer do that? I mean, why are we not hearing all 
these stories now about how--why did the 200,000 women who have these 
health services today--I think it is 20 million--why do they have those 
services? There is nothing in the law that requires it. This law does 
not change the laws today.
  From the point of view of having a political discussion instead of a 
discussion about what the amendment does or why it is consistent with 
what we have always done, I think the other side has done a great job 
of that. But consistently we have protected this principle of first 
amendment freedoms. In fact, in 1994, in the bill Mrs. Clinton, the 
First Lady at the time, worked so hard for, that was introduced by 
Senator Moynihan--here is what it said. This was the bill that also 
would require people to provide insurance. You know we do not have much 
about insurance because we have not 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, and 
Senator Moynihan said about 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 for abortion and other services if the employer 
objects to such service on the basis of religious belief or moral 
conviction.''
  The most amazing aspect of 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 of the more 
liberal political philosophy, that he would just put that in the bill--
I have asked: Is there any indication in the debate on that bill that 
this was a big item? The answer I hear is: No, it was not a big item 
because it was part of who we are. It was part of what we had been as a 
nation. It was part of protecting the first amendment.
  This amendment does not mention any procedure because I do not know 
what kind of--and nobody knows what might be, at some future date, 
offensive to somebody's religious beliefs, but they have no financial 
reason to not provide a service. So the only reason they would have 
under this amendment would be a true moral objection.
  I had some initial hesitation myself. I said: OK. I understand the 
faith-based institutions. I used to be the president of a Christian 
university and so I understand why it is important those institutions 
keep their faith-based distinctions. But what about other employers? 
Frankly, I did not have to think about that very long to realize that 
if someone is of a faith that believes something is absolutely wrong, 
as an employer why would they want to pay for that? They believe this 
is a wrong thing to do. Why would they want to pay for that?
  The language of equivalency in this bill means, if they choose not to 
pay for that, the Secretary can say: OK. Come up with something else 
that would be equally used and equally valuable that they would pay 
for. So there is no financial reason not to do it. The only reason not 
to do it is they 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 they want 
to be forced by the government to be a participant in that wrong thing? 
The things we are talking about, in my particular faith, I am not 
opposed to all these things the President said he would require. But 
that does not 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 they would not participate in.
  If the congregants want to go on their own and figure out how to 
participate, that is one thing. If they want to go on their own and 
provide insurance to their employees that include these things that 
they heard at church are wrong to do, that is another thing. But if 
they want to say, look, I am not going to do that--but under the new 
mandate, we do not do anything that eliminates the mandate. There is 
still a mandate--under the new mandate, I am not going to do that, but 
I am going to have to add something to the policy to the mandate that 
would be of equal financial value, of equivalent value.

[[Page S1167]]

  So the only reason to object is they believe it is wrong, and that 
what the first amendment is all about. That is why, consistently, 
through employment law we have protected--even though the 
administration lost a 9-to-0 case trying to interpret that the same way 
they want to interpret this--the government knows best. If we are 
allowed to, we will abuse the hiring situation. Now they say if we are 
allowed to, we will abuse the health care providing situation.
  I think we have 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 has 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 Patients' Bill of Rights or the religious freedom law. It 
was all there.
  I think it is--to come up with all these cases that they would not 
treat prenatal care, might not treat cancer--why would they not do 
that? Why would they not do that? If they do not treat that, they have 
to pay for something else of equal value. Look at the very last 
provision of this amendment.
  So there is no financial reason not to do this. The only reason is 
that they believe it is against their religious views. The phrase we 
use in this bill is exactly the phrase Senator Moynihan used, it is 
exactly the phrase Frank Church used, it is exactly the phrase people 
on the floor at this moment voted for when they said we do not 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. Suddenly, we have all these reasons 
people cannot make faith decisions that relate to providing health care 
to employees. I disagree with that.
  I think the first amendment protects that. I believe if and when--if 
this rule goes forward, it will go to the Supreme Court. It will be 
something close to that 9-to-0 decision on hiring rights. There is no 
difference in the principle. Again, I would say, look at the last 
section of this bill if one believes employers are going to do this to 
save money.
  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 amendment carefully, will understand that 
protection currently in the law is taken away by this amendment. If one 
has a right now, one would still have it if this amendment passed. To 
argue otherwise 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join this debate. I certainly 
respect the Senator from Missouri for his views and for his own 
interpretation of what he thinks his amendment does. But I could not 
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.
  We are 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. 
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 we have been debating?
  I know some people think this is an important debate related to 
transportation. But it seems as if the other side of the aisle, in all 
the discussions we have 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 the continuing resolution. 
It was all brought to a halt until we could have a vote on defunding 
Planned Parenthood. Then we had another vote on it.
  In the latest discussions about the payroll deal, there were 
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.
  I know my colleague from Missouri thinks this issue might just be 
about something the administration has done in the health care bill, 
but his party is making everybody in America believe we cannot get our 
economy going and balance our budget and deal with our deficit unless 
we defund women's health care choices. 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. It is so 
frustrating to think we would be going backward on this. I applaud the 
chair of the Transportation Committee because she has worked hard on 
this legislation. It is 30,000 jobs in the State of Washington by the 
Department of Transportation estimate.
  I know it is going to help save about 1.8 million jobs and create 
another million jobs on a national basis. So I certainly want to get to 
the job at hand. 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 is about contraceptives, 
which it is about that, but it is 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 we get these screenings done--about wellness 
exams, about diabetes screening, about flu shots, about vaccinations, 
about mammograms, about cholesterol, we are having this debate 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 have been having this 
debate, we have been having this debate since almost 2001, 2002, on the 
Bartell drug decision.
  So my colleague who says: These businesses would not dare do anything 
based on costs under my amendment, I think all he has to do is look at 
the Federal cases that were brought against major employers such as 
Walmart, such as Bartell, such as Daimler-Chrysler, and other 
organizations that were not providing full reproductive choice for 
women and discriminating against them in their health care benefits.
  A Federal law, a Federal statute was used to say these practices were 
discriminatory. So the same debate we are having today has played out 
in State after State--in our State, the Bartell drug decision. In that 
decision, the courts found we cannot use these principles to 
discriminate. It is a violation of the civil rights clause.
  While I know my colleague thinks this is a new debate, it is not a 
new debate. It is a debate that has been had in America among States, 
and courts have used Federal statutes to protect the rights of women. 
Now I see we are going to have this debate today. I ask my colleagues, 
how many more times this year are we going to interrupt the business of 
the Congress on things such as transportation, on infrastructure, to 
have a debate that has already been settled?
  I know my colleague thinks the amendment is very narrowly written; it 
is not.
  It is not. I don't think that is 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 that 
have already been found against and say to them: Yes, you can come up 
with a reason and curtail access to preventive health care for women 
that is so needed at this time.
  I ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment, and let's get at the

[[Page S1168]]

business at hand, focusing on our economy and jobs, and stop making 
women's health care a scapegoat for what you think is wrong with 
America. It is actually what is right with America. Let's focus on 
jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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 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 both the employer and the insurer, and a very important issue is how 
the rule would treat these self-insured faith-based organizations. But 
the rule was totally unclear. It simply said that the ``Departments 
intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured 
group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious 
organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.''
  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 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 the President ``is committed 
to rulemaking to ensure access to these important preventive services 
in fully insured and self-insured group health plans while further 
accommodating religious organizations' beliefs.''
  What does that mean, Mr. President?
  I ask unanimous consent that both my letter to Secretary Sebelius and 
her reply be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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 believe the sponsor of this amendment is completely sincere. I want 
to make that clear. But this issue has become yet another sad example 
of election-year politics. I believe 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. Unfortunately, what we 
are left with is another example of the political pandering that has so 
tested Americans' patience.
  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.
  Critics of the Blunt amendment have charged that employers could use 
it as an excuse to deny coverage for services simply as a means to 
reduce their insurance costs. As Senator Blunt, however, has pointed 
out, the amendment includes specific language to require that the 
overall cost of the coverage remains the same even though an employer 
excludes certain services because of their religious beliefs. As a 
consequence, under this amendment, employers would have no incentive to 
exclude coverage of items or services simply because of financial 
considerations.
  Mr. President, while I plan to support the amendment, I do so with 
serious reservations because I think the amendment does have its flaws. 
But when the administration cannot even assure me that self-insured 
faith-based organizations' religious freedoms are protected, I feel I 
have no choice.
  I hope that the Senate will now be able to move forward to address 
the many important and pressing issues facing our Nation such as job 
creation, energy and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2012.
     Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Sebelius: Like many Americans, I was very 
     concerned when, on January 20, 2012, 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 objections. I believe that such a 
     broad 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.
       I was somewhat reassured when, on February 10, the 
     President announced an ``accommodation'' that would require 
     insurance companies rather than religious organizations to 
     provide these services. According to the White House 
     statement, ``religious organizations will not have to provide 
     contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to 
     organizations that provide contraception,'' and ``religious 
     organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of 
     contraception.''
       While the President has announced some changes in how the 
     new preventive coverage mandate will be administered, many of 
     the details remain unclear. A very important issue is how the 
     rule would treat self-insured faith-based institutions. For 
     example, there are many Catholic hospitals that are self-
     insured, and therefore act as both the employer and the 
     insurer. The final rule simply states that the ``Departments 
     intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for 
     self-insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, 
     non-profit religious organizations with religious objections 
     to contraceptive coverage.''
       I would therefore like further specific clarification of 
     how self-insured faith-based organizations will be treated 
     under the rule to ensure that their rights of conscience are 
     protected.
       Thank you for your prompt assistance on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Susan M. Collins,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

                                           The Secretary of Health


                                           and Human Services,

                                Washington, DC, February 29, 2012.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the August 2011 Guidelines on Women's Preventive Services. On 
     February 15, 2012, related final rules were published 
     exempting group health plans sponsored by certain religious 
     employers (and any associated group health insurance 
     coverage) from any requirement to cover contraceptive 
     services under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act 
     and corresponding provisions in the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code, and 
     related guidance.
       As you know, in August 2011, the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration (HRSA) published Guidelines that 
     operate to require non-grandfathered health plans to cover 
     certain preventive services for women, including Food and 
     Drug Administration-approved contraceptive services, without 
     charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible. HRSA based 
     the Guidelines on recommendations from the Institute of 
     Medicine, which relied on independent physicians, nurses, 
     scientists, and other experts, as well as evidence-based 
     research, to formulate its recommendations. Evidence shows 
     the use of contraceptives has significant health benefits for 
     women and their families, significantly reducing health costs 
     for women and society.
       With the Departments of Labor and the Treasury, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services also published in 
     August

[[Page S1169]]

     2011 an amendment to the July 2010 Preventive Services 
     Interim Final Rules authorizing an exemption for certain 
     religious employers' health plans from any requirement to 
     cover contraceptive services. Twenty-eight states already 
     require health insurance coverage to cover contraception, and 
     the exemption in the amendment to the Interim Final Rules was 
     modeled on one adopted by some of these states. After 
     considering the many comments received in response to the 
     amendment to the Interim Final Rules, the Departments 
     published final rules on February 15, 2012, retaining the 
     exemption.
       At the same time, we released guidance providing a one-year 
     enforcement safe harbor for group health plans sponsored by 
     certain nonprofit employers that, for religious reasons, do 
     not provide contraceptive coverage and do not qualify for the 
     exemption (and any associated group health insurance 
     coverage). Such nonprofit employers could include religious 
     universities, hospitals, and charities.
       In his recent announcement related to these issues, the 
     President committed to rulemaking to ensure access to these 
     important preventive services in fully insured and self-
     insured group health plans while further accommodating 
     religious organizations' beliefs. We are engaging in a 
     collaborative process with affected stakeholders including 
     religiously affiliated employers, insurers, plan 
     administrators, faith-based organizations, and women's 
     organizations as we develop policies in this area. Our 
     preliminary discussions with a number of religiously 
     affiliated employers and faith based organizations have been 
     very productive. And, of course, the future rulemaking 
     process will afford a full opportunity for public input.
       The Administration remains fully committed to its 
     partnerships with faith-based organizations to promote 
     healthy communities and serve the common good.
       Again, thank you for your letter. I appreciate your input 
     on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kathleen Sebelius.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 5 minutes on the Blunt amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in Vermont and 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 rights--
in this case, the right of women to receive contraceptive services 
through their insurance plan. This attack is grossly unfair, and I hope 
men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic 
right.
  Let me add my strong belief that if the Senate had 83 women and 17 
men rather than 83 men and 17 women, a bill such as this would never 
even make it to the floor.
  Two years ago Congress passed a health care reform bill 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 employers. 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 guarantees 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 essential 
health care service their employer or insurance company objects to 
based simply 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 conscience clause included in the Blunt 
amendment would allow an employer to refuse coverage of contraceptives, 
annual well-woman visits, or even treatments for both genders, such as 
mental health services or HIV/AIDS treatment, based not on a doctor's 
recommendation but on the religious belief or moral conviction of a 
person's employer. This is an absolutely unprecedented refusal right. 
The Blunt amendment must be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
8 minutes on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is obviously a difficult time in our 
politics--the polarization. It is a difficult time in the Senate, in 
particular, because over the years this has been a place where we have 
prided ourselves on really working to find ways to avoid the kind of 
polarization we see today and actually to find 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 ``my way or the highway'' 
approaches to partisan politics that have made it harder for people to 
work with each other and actually get things done. I would never speak 
for her, but I think given her diagnosis of what is wrong with the 
Senate today, she has made a decision not to run for reelection. I 
think the amendment we are 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 were put 
into a position of a second-tier status with respect to access to 
health care in America. There were so many discrepancies. One example, 
for instance, that was in error before the reform we passed was where 
Viagra was covered for men, at no cost, by insurance companies but 
contraception, which 99 percent of American women use, was not covered. 
So we addressed this issue in the reform we passed, Congress sent it to 
the President, and the President signed it.
  The administration then took the time appropriate. Recognizing the 
difficulty of implementing some of this, they allowed for a time period 
in order to be able to work through the rules. When they did come out 
with the first rule, I regret that 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 going to work. There was a firestorm in the country over that 
for a brief period of time. 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 the first amendment requirements and the needs of 
people to be able to have access and be protected. I didn't think it 
was and I don't think today 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 perhaps hadn't been able to see all of the implications of what 
had happened at that point in time--quickly moved to recognize that 
indeed the rule was not proposed as it ought to be, and they changed 
it. They responded. That was the right decision. This week, Secretary 
Sebelius made it clear 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 with all due respect to what the Senator from Maine, Senator 
Collins, said a few minutes ago, Secretary Sebelius said publicly, 
after the Senate Finance Committee hearing on this subject on the 
budget, whether it is an insured plan or self-insured plan, the 
employer who has a religious objection doesn't have to directly offer 
or pay for contraception. So I take issue. I believe the letter the 
Senator received actually addresses this question and says they are 
working with the community, as I believe they ought to, 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 we ought to embrace the Blunt amendment as this 
broad-based opening of Pandora's box that carries with it all kinds of 
other risks and potential mischief. We don't have to do that in order 
to protect the self-insured here. I think it is important to work 
together with patience 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 in the spirit of the amendment that is in front of us 
today. I know the Senator from Missouri acts in good faith personally, 
and I respect that. But language is always important, critical in 
legislating, and the language is overbroad. If there is one thing I 
know after 27 years of legislating here, it is that when you are

[[Page S1170]]

writing legislation, it is critical to understand the implications of 
the language you use. Precision matters. This amendment opens the 
potential for overly broad and vague exceptions that could allow 
children to be denied immunizations. It could allow a company--and a 
company is quite different from an individual's right to protection 
under the Constitution--to actually object to mental health services. 
It could allow for the denial of HIV screenings because people think 
somehow that is 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 to a single mother being pregnant and having a 
child.
  There is 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, 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.
  I was interested to hear the minority leader this morning assert some 
things about the first amendment. I think they are absolutely 
incorrect. The first amendment is a guarantee that religious liberty 
will be protected in America and that government will not institute one 
religion or another or establish a religion for the Nation. It also 
says 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--
it 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 objections 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, as the Women's Law Center pointed out:

       Under current law, individuals and entities who wish to 
     refuse a role in abortion services are protected by three 
     different federal laws, the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec.  300a 7), the Coats Amendment (42 U.S.C. Sec.  238n), 
     and the Weldon Amendment, which is attached to the Labor-HHS 
     appropriations bill each year. The health care reform law 
     explicitly said it would not have any effect on these laws, 
     meaning these were the law of the land before the health care 
     reform law and continue to be the law now. So, the Blunt 
     Amendment doesn't ``restore'' these rights because they never 
     went away. What could the Blunt Amendment be about, then? 
     Before the health care reform law, refusals happened all the 
     time, and that was a big part of the problem that the health 
     care reform law was meant to address. People were refused 
     coverage for things like having had a C-section or being a 
     cancer survivor. Insurance plans refused to provide coverage 
     for services, like maternity care or mental health. But to 
     call the refusals that happened before health care reform a 
     ``conscience right'' is a mischaracterization. Refusals were 
     business as usual. They had very little, if anything, to do 
     with an individual's or insurance company's conscience. They 
     had to do with insurance companies refusing coverage for 
     things they didn't find profitable. And by granting a huge 
     loophole with its permission to refuse coverage based on 
     ``moral considerations'' the Blunt Amendment would take us 
     right back there, while hiding under the guise of 
     ``conscience rights.''

  I have met with and had conversations with conscientious people in my 
Church, because it is important to listen to help find answers to these 
difficult questions. It has left me convinced that we don't have to 
support a back-door dismantling of health care rights to protect 
religious liberty. The administration's dialogue with the faith 
community to reach a final accord that protects patients, including 
women, and also protects religious liberty is a far better outcome than 
to have the Senate rush to undercut that effort and pass something that 
is overly broad, risking dangerous unintended consequences.
  Mr. President, this amendment would be a mistake--for women, for 
health care, for millions of Americans who don't want to go back to the 
days when they could be denied care for any reason. We don't need to 
drive another wedge in our politics. We need to drive towards that 
common denominator, that common ground--and that is why this amendment 
must be defeated.
  I would simply close by saying the Senate should not rush to undercut 
the protections already in place and which, ultimately, would undermine 
the teachings of my church, which argues that social conscience and 
values ought to be primarily established by caring for our sick, and 
this would in fact deny that, to some degree.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address Senator Blunt's 
amendment to the surface transportation bill, which deals with the 
Obama Administration's recent proposal to require group and individual 
health insurance plans, with the exception of those issued to churches 
or other houses of worship, to cover contraceptive care for all women.
  I believe the administration's proposal is inadequate, but I will not 
support the Blunt Amendment because I believe it is too broad. I want 
to discuss how this amendment came before the Senate and then I will 
lay out the reasons why I will vote against it and offer a different 
way forward.
  The question before us deals with one of the most controversial 
matters raised by the Affordable Care Act--which is finding a balance 
between requiring health insurance plans to cover a core level of 
benefits and respecting the religious rights and moral beliefs of those 
who will be mandated to purchase these health insurance products. This 
is a difficult issue because religious freedom, as enshrined in the 
Bill of Rights, is literally the first of our freedoms. And the issue 
of access to quality health insurance for every American is at the 
cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act.
  I would like to quickly review how the administration has addressed 
this question in its regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act. 
The ACA, as adopted by Congress, directs all health insurance plans to 
cover a number of preventative care services, without cost sharing or 
copays, to include some immunizations, preventive care and screenings 
for children and adolescents, and with respect to women, additional 
preventive care and screenings that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services has determined should include contraception and contraception 
screening.
  In explaining its decision to include contraceptive services within 
that mandate, the administration has referenced the Institute of 
Medicine's conclusion that there are significant health benefits 
derived from providing women with access to contraceptive care. I agree 
with the Institute of Medicine and the overwhelming majority of 
Americans who believe that having access to contraceptive care is 
important for women and is a right protected by U.S. Supreme Court 
precedent. But then we have to ask, must the cost of contraceptive 
coverage be covered by the health insurance plans of every employer?
  In answering this question, we are required to address the concerns 
of those who oppose the use of contraceptives based on their religious 
or moral convictions. The administration provided, correctly in my 
view, a total exemption from this mandate for houses of worship that 
oppose the use of contraception on moral and religious grounds. But the 
administration did not extend this total exemption to such church-
affiliated, non-profit organizations as hospitals, charities, and 
schools.
  In response to the public outcry to the original regulation, the 
President amended his proposal in order to allow church-affiliated, 
non-profits, such as hospitals, schools, and charities, to exclude 
contraceptive coverage in the health insurance plans they provide to 
their employees, but only if their insurer directly contacts each 
employee covered under their health insurance plan and makes them aware 
that they are eligible to obtain contraceptive coverage at no cost if 
they choose to do so. In my view, this proposed compromise falls short 
of protecting the values and beliefs of America's faith-based 
institutions. It can and should be strengthened to give religiously 
affiliated organizations the same protection

[[Page S1171]]

of their religious beliefs as the administration would give to houses 
of worship.
  I do not see why religious affiliated institutions like hospitals, 
universities and their employees should be treated differently from 
churches, synagogues and their employees. Many States, ever the 
laboratories of our democracy, have already addressed this question in 
a reasonable and responsible way that is different from the 
administration's response. In fact, many States have established their 
own mandates with regard to contraceptive coverage, and along the way 
devised their own approaches to respect the balance between requiring 
health insurance plans to cover a core level of benefits and respecting 
the right of conscience for those who purchase or offer a private 
health insurance plan to their employees.
  Specifically, I believe that Connecticut's approach to this question 
is one that could serve as a model of how to address this issue on a 
national level.
  In Connecticut, health insurance plans are required to cover 
contraceptive care for all women, but the law provides a full exemption 
for health insurance plans purchased and provided by churches and 
church-affiliated organizations, acknowledging their unique, faith-
inspired mission and core religious values. Specifically, the law in 
Connecticut states that churches and their affiliated institutions, may 
be issued a health insurance policy that, ``excludes coverage for 
prescription contraceptive methods which are contrary to the religious 
employer's bona fide religious tenets.'' The law in Connecticut also 
allows any individual beneficiary in any health insurance plan to opt 
out of contraceptive coverage as long as she or he notifies their 
insurance provider, ``that prescription contraceptive methods are 
contrary to such individual's religious or moral beliefs.''
  Unlike Connecticut's approach, Senator Blunt's amendment would 
provide a broad based exemption from all mandated health insurance 
benefits required by the Affordable Care Act--by allowing any business 
or organization to refuse to offer any coverage to its employees that 
it finds objectionable on a religious or moral basis. Such a broad 
exemption could undermine the intent of Congress in mandating coverage 
for such essential services as maternity care, mental health, and 
immunizations.
  In conclusion, the experiences of many of our States, including 
Connecticut, shows that it is possible to find a better balance between 
requiring health insurance companies to offer a quality health 
insurance product and respecting the religious liberties of our 
Nation's religious-affiliated organization than either the 
administration or this amendment offers. There is a better way forward 
on this important decision than the options that have been presented so 
far and I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate to develop one.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senate is considering a bipartisan bill that would 
reauthorize critical infrastructure investments and that will protect 
an estimated 1.8 million jobs if enacted before the end of this month. 
Unfortunately, in order to move forward on this important legislation, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle have demanded that we first 
consider an amendment entirely unrelated to transportation or even job 
creation. We have now spent the past 2 days considering a Republican 
amendment that would roll back access to health care for millions of 
Americans.
  Access to health care for women has come under attack in recent weeks 
after the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would 
follow the recommendations of the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine and 
require that under the Affordable Care Act, health plans must cover a 
range of preventative services for women, including contraception. This 
is not a novel solution. Twenty-eight States, including Vermont, 
already require such coverage. The new rule will also include no-cost 
preventative coverage of a range of services for women including 
mammograms, prenatal screenings, cervical cancer screenings, flu shots, 
and much more.
  Some religious institutions were apprehensive about the policy and, 
in response, the Obama administration made further accommodations to 
address these concerns. The new policy strikes a reasonable balance and 
is a solution that continues to recognize the obvious truth that women 
have a right to affordable and comprehensive health care, just as men 
do. One thing we all should agree on is that availability of birth 
control has improved women's health and reduced the number of teen 
pregnancies and the rates of abortion. This should be applauded.
  Unfortunately, this compromise did not satisfy some who insist on 
politicizing women's health. At a House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee hearing a few weeks ago, a thoughtful Georgetown law student 
was prevented from testifying about her experiences because she was 
deemed not ``appropriate and qualified'' to testify at the hearing by 
its Republican chairman. Not surprisingly, the all-male panel failed to 
raise any first-hand concern about women's health care needs. Rather 
than demonizing women who speak out on behalf of the millions who use 
contraception, we should be having a principled debate about access to 
health care. Last year, Congress nearly shut down the government over 
funding for Planned Parenthood and other title X providers. States have 
recently followed suit by passing laws limiting women's access to 
health care services. Our focus should be on improving access to 
quality and affordable health care for all Americans, not arbitrarily 
restricting important services needed by millions of women.
  The Republican amendment marks just the latest overreach and 
intrusion into women's health care. While this debate began as one 
focused on access to birth control, the amendment has a far greater 
reach and jeopardizes virtually any health care service that an 
employer or insurance plan deems contrary to its undefined ``moral 
conviction''--whether the employer is a religious institution or not. 
For example, any plan or insurer could deny coverage of vaccinations or 
HIV/AIDS treatment based on a moral or religious objection. The pending 
amendment would allow any employer or insurer to refuse contraceptive 
coverage, annual well-women visits, gestational diabetes screening, and 
domestic violence screenings. This amendment could allow an insurance 
provider to refuse coverage of health care services to an interracial 
couple or single mom because of a religious or moral objection.
  At the core of the Affordable Care Act was the principle that all 
Americans, regardless of health history or gender, have the right to 
access health care services. This amendment turns that belief around 
and would take decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors and 
place them with businesses and insurance plans. This serves only to put 
businesses and insurance companies in the driver's seat, allowing them 
to capriciously deny women coverage of health care services. The 
amendment is a direct attack on women's health that would have public 
health consequences for all Americans.
  Today marks the first day of Women's History Month. Instead of 
considering legislation that might promote women's equality such as the 
Paycheck Fairness Act or the Fair Pay Act, we are being forced to vote 
on the amendment that undermines the ability of women to access basic 
health care. I will vote today in favor of the health of women and 
against the proposed amendment. I urge my fellow Senators to do the 
same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 5 minutes, and that Senator Murray conclude our side with 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have news for the supporters of the 
Blunt amendment: We were not born yesterday. And no matter how many 
times they say this is nothing more than a restatement of old laws, the 
facts are not with them. 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 conscience, so they would take it. And 
this is what Blunt does. It

[[Page S1172]]

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 have 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 say, oh, we feel 
sorry that you have cancer; we are sad you have diabetes; we are torn 
apart you might have a stroke, but, you know what, we have a moral 
objection to the kind of therapies that are out there today, so we are 
sorry.
  That is what the Blunt amendment does.
  Should anyone think I am making it up, let's look at the words in the 
Blunt amendment. They are right here. They are right here. So the 
Senator from Maine can say whatever she wants about it, the Senator 
from Missouri can talk about what he wants to, but the fact is they say 
if you deny any coverage from the essential health benefits package or 
the preventive health package it is fine as long as you hide behind--my 
words--a moral objection.
  This started out with birth control. There was a hearing over in the 
House, and this iconic picture will last through my lifetime and yours. 
Here is a photograph of a panel discussing women's health care over in 
the Republican House. A discussion on women's health care. Do you see 
one woman there? I don't. They are all men. And these men are waxing 
eloquent about birth control and the fact that, oh, it is just a moral 
issue with them and they do not think women should have the right to 
have it. Not one of them suggested men shouldn't have their Viagra, but 
we will put that aside. We will 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, 
which would have controlled the size of the cyst on the ovary, you know 
what Mr. Issa said over there? He said, you are not qualified. You are 
not qualified to talk about women's issues. I guess only men are 
qualified to talk about women's issues. 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 is 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. Look at the 
different important benefits that any insurer or any employer could 
walk away from. Because if this amendment passes, they would have the 
right to do so. They would no longer have to cover emergency services, 
hospitalization, maternity care, mental health treatment, pediatric 
services, rehabilitative services, ambulatory patient services, 
laboratory services. They would no longer have to offer breast cancer 
screenings, cervical cancer screenings. All they have to do is say, oh, 
I am sorry, we believe prayer is the answer. We don't believe in 
chemotherapy. If someone is heavy and they are 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, TB testing for children, 
autism screening.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote down this dangerous 
amendment. Vote it down. We will have a motion to table, and I urge my 
colleagues to stand for the women and the families of this Nation and 
let's get back to the highway bill. Get rid of this thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Washington State.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I want to thank 
the Senator from California and the many Senators who have stood 
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 women have the rights and opportunities to be whoever they 
want and to make their own health care choices, 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, and though 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 say, I 
am sure millions of women in this country did not think they would have 
to get up this morning and worry about whether contraception would be 
available to them depending on who their employer was.
  This is a serious issue. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about what 
the Blunt amendment is. My colleague from California just described it 
for us. 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 health care 
decisions for their workers and their families. It is a radical assault 
on the comprehensive preventive health care coverage we have fought so 
hard to make sure 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.
  The American people are watching today. Young women are watching 
today. Is the 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. A year ago, almost to this very 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, and we were ready to move forward within 
hours to make sure 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 with those men and I 
said, no, we will not give away the funding for this over this budget. 
The women of the Senate the next morning stood tall. We gathered all 
our colleagues together and we fought back and we won that battle. And 
those who are trying to take away the rights of women 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 about their health care choices. We are not going 
to allow the Blunt amendment before us today to take away that right. 
We believe this is an important day. In fact, this happens to be March 
1, 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 women's health care choices to be taken away from them.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[[Page S1173]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________