Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 46 (Monday, March 24, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 46 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2600-H2606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS IN OBAMACARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meadows). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.

General Leave

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to share the tale of
two garages: the American Dream and the threat to that American Dream.
The first garage is down in Oklahoma, and it is owned by David and
his wife Barbara. In 1972, David and Barbara borrowed $600, and they
began making picture frames in their garage. They had a dream. They
said, you know: People might want to buy premade frames. There are
pictures all the time that people take, and we could do that.
So they enlisted their two sons, Steve and Mart, and they began
building those picture frames. And then they opened up a retail
location--actually, it was 300 square feet in size--and they started
selling those picture frames, and it was very, very successful. And
now, their dream has just blossomed into 556 stores in 41 States, and
70 more are scheduled to open this year.
They have now what started out in the garage with just David and
Barbara and their two sons, they have 16,000 full-time employees. And
we all know that store. I am sure many of us have been there. It is
called Hobby Lobby. We love it. It has expanded now not just to picture
frames, but all kinds of art and decorating supplies. And their
headquarters is actually located just down the street from that garage
in Oklahoma City.
The other garage is over in Pennsylvania, and it is owned by Norman
and Elizabeth Hahn. They have three sons: Norman, Anthony, and Kevin.
And in 1964, about 40 years ago, they, too, had a dream, and they
started in their garage making high-quality doors and wood components
for kitchen cabinets. You know, they said: We can do this, so let's do
it. So they started working hard and expanding.
And from their modest beginnings in just a small garage in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, they have now grown to be one of the industry
leaders in wholesale wood products for kitchen cabinets. They have five
facilities located in the United States in three States--Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, and Washington--and what started out with five family
members, they now have 950 full-time employees. It is truly an
encouraging sign that the American Dream is alive and well.
And something else these two garages and these two families--David
and Barbara Green as well as Norman and Elizabeth Hahn--have in common
is that they care for not only their customers and having a high-
quality product, but they also care about their employees. They both
have provided a lot of high-quality benefits to their employees, paying
them well, and also providing health care for years, as well as other
benefits.
But I am sad to say both of these businesses and both of these
families are in trouble, and these businesses are in jeopardy of having
to close--not because of the economy. Like I said, Hobby Lobby is
actually planning to open 70 more stores. There is a need. People want
their products. It is not because of any other reason other than,
sadly, the government.
The government is threatening these American businesses, what we need
more of. They are providing good jobs and are providing health care.
They are in jeopardy of closing because our government and our
Representatives, a few years ago, passed the President's health care
takeover law. And part of that was a mandate that said, if you provide
health insurance for your employees, you have to include abortion-
inducing drugs. It doesn't matter that you already had a good policy
that your employees like; you have to do that. And if you don't, you
are going to be fined not just a little bit, but a lot.
I have a poster here I want to show you that shows the injustice of
this mandate. You have two numbers here: $36,500; $2,000. Here is the
situation for these two families:
The ObamaCare law says that if you don't provide health care for your
employees, we are going to fine you $2,000 an employee; but if you do
provide health insurance for your employees but just don't include the
abortion-inducing drugs, then we are going to fine you $36,500. Where
is the justice in that? Where is the common sense?
I am from Missouri, and we are the Show Me State. Show me how this
makes any sense at all. This is the situation that faces the Hahn
family and the Green family. They are providing their health insurance
coverage. They are conscientious. Due to their beliefs, they believe
that all life is valuable,

[[Page H2601]]

and they don't want to be complicit in paying for potentially life-
ending drugs. And because of that, our government is going to fine them
this amount of money, $36,500 per employee, which, sadly, could put
both businesses out of work. We would have tens of thousands of people
across this country out of work just because of this government
takeover of health care. It is wrong.
We have a long-standing tradition in this country of following
something in here. It is in the Constitution. It is an amazing little
document that our Founders started. But you know the very first
amendment to the Constitution establishing our rights is that it lays
out the importance of religious liberty. It says: ``Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.''
Our country has always upheld religious freedom and the right to
exercise and live according to your beliefs. There are examples
everywhere where we have done this before up until this point.
Employees have been able to take off on Sundays or religious holidays.
That has been respected. Crosses and other religious symbols have been
respected. Certain special activity restrictions, like kosher foods,
have been honored. Not working certain days, Sabbaths, have been
honored. There is even a religious conscientious objector provision,
where we have honored people's religious beliefs regarding military
service. Always our country has upheld the Constitution first and held
that sacred that it is our religious right to live free.

You had the Pilgrims come to this country. Why? So they could have
religious freedom. It is the foundation our country has been built on.
And yet it is being jeopardized, trampled on, and attacked by the
Affordable Care Act.
Now, tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear the case of
these two American families and see if they can be forced by their
government to go against their religious moral objections. This is a
historic moment. It is one that will have ramifications forever in our
country. What do we stand for? What will we allow our government to do
and inflict on our lives?
My colleagues and I are here tonight to share the concerns we have as
we stand up for the people that we represent and for what our Founders
started this country on and why we want to stand for future
generations, to protect those freedoms that those who have gone before
us stood up and fought for us, for our generation. And we hope and pray
that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and will not
jeopardize it or trample on it.
So I thank my colleagues for coming tonight, and I would like to ask
my friend from Ohio, Bob Latta, to share his thoughts on this very
important historic moment.

{time} 2045

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for first hosting this
Special Order tonight, and I appreciate you recognizing me to speak
here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of our First Amendment rights
and in support of the millions of American jobs, livelihoods, and
health care plans that are now in jeopardy as a result of the ObamaCare
HHS mandate.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in both
the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius
cases challenging the constitutionality of the ObamaCare HHS mandate. I
am hopeful that the court will recognize and acknowledge that the
mandate unquestionably infringes upon Americans' rights of conscience
and the freedom to live and work according to one's faith or religious
beliefs.
This ObamaCare mandate wrongfully forces American citizens to choose
between their conscience or face oppressive fines, as the gentlelady
has already pointed out, that will undoubtedly destroy family-owned
businesses across this great country. Equally alarming is that this
mandate will drive employers to stop offering health insurance coverage
to their employees altogether to escape the encroaching hand of
government that is coercing individuals to violate their fundamental
freedoms.
We have to remember this is occurring at a time when ObamaCare is
cutting millions of jobs and forcing taxpayers from full-time jobs to
part-time jobs. This is unacceptable and completely contrary to the
tradition of our country and the principles of our democratic
government.
My hope and the hope of millions of other Americans is that the
Supreme Court will act to protect Americans from this government
infringement and reassert the full scope and intent of the liberties
conferred upon all citizens through the First Amendment.
I again thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Latta, and you brought up a
great point, of how employees can lose coverage. They have health
insurance now, these two families are offering it, but an option they
have is to drop coverage completely. How is that helpful to these
hardworking Americans who work there?
Now I would like to turn to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bentivolio).
Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for giving me
this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I, along with 71 of my colleagues, have signed on to the
brief in support of Hobby Lobby. We must fight for religious freedom.
In responding to the Hobby Lobby case, the President has acknowledged
how critical religious liberty is to our freedom. I couldn't agree
more.
There is a reason why the Bill of Rights prioritizes our right to
religious freedom: our Founders knew people could never be free if they
could not worship in a manner they found appropriate. Sadly, ObamaCare
takes away that right by forcing Americans to participate in a practice
they are morally opposed to. ObamaCare is more about forcing Americans
to follow a certain dogma rather than promoting a healthy society.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the advocates for religious
liberty pitted against the voice in support of government moralism.
From Plessy v. Ferguson to Roe v. Wade to the ObamaCare ruling, we have
seen how a handful of judges can take away our natural rights. I pray
the Supreme Court will rule on the side of American liberty.
The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment. The foundation of
our Nation rests upon it.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Bentivolio. Well said.
Foundational principle: religious liberty. I thank you very much for
that.
Now I turn to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) to share
her thoughts on this historic moment.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentlelady from Missouri for hosting this
important discussion because nothing could be more important and more
basic to every American than standing on the principle of our First
Amendment rights of speech and religious expression.
You know, it was very interesting, just the week before last we had
an expert on James Madison speaking to us, and he wrote a book about
Madison. Madison is the author of our First Amendment, and we had the
document in Madison's own handwriting where he had his First Amendment.
James Madison crossed out the word ``full toleration'' when it came to
religious liberties, and instead he inserted not just belief but also
the free exercise, the acting of our beliefs. This is what America is
about. We are standing here in the well of the House of
Representatives, the most important forum for freedom of speech in the
world, and just beyond the double doors of this Chamber lies the
rotunda, and in the rotunda is a painting of the Pilgrims, and the
Pilgrims are on their knees before they come to the United States. It
is the ``Embarkation of the Pilgrims.'' They have open before them a
copy of the Bible, the Geneva Bible, turned to the New Testament. And
why was it that the Pilgrims came to the United States? They searched
for religious freedom and toleration.
One thing that the bill that will be before the Supreme Court
tomorrow addresses is this issue: will toleration be a two-way street?
I think it is. Toleration should not be just the government-enforced
coercion of government's beliefs on every American, because that is
what is happening in a family business, for the Green family with Hobby
Lobby or the Hahn family with Conestoga. This is the government
enforcing its beliefs down the

[[Page H2602]]

throats of two family-owned businesses, and what is at stake is not
just the rights of the people who own the business. What about the
rights of those who work in the business, the employees? They also have
moral rights and protections. These businesses pay very good wages and
they offer very good benefits to their employees. So here is what we
are being looking at: either the business pays over $36,000 a year per
employee for the price of standing up for their moral beliefs, or they
have to give up health insurance altogether for their employees and pay
the government a $2,000 fine per employee. Who, I ask you, benefits?
That is dealing with a case that is coming before the court tomorrow.

An even more fundamental issue is at stake, and it is this: here we
are, Representatives of the United States Congress, and we are having
to fight President Obama on whether or not we can retain our
constitutional rights and liberties. That is what is at stake.
We are standing here for the Constitution. We are standing here for
every man and every woman in the United States that agrees with those
rights. This is a discussion worth having. I thank the Speaker. I thank
the gentlelady from Missouri. Tomorrow is an extremely important day,
and I thank God for all of the wonderful Members of Congress who are
standing up for these important issues. They are not negotiable. They
are not for sale at any price.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Bachmann. Very well said. I
thank God for Members here as well who are standing up for religious
freedoms. I thought she said it so well: Is toleration going to be a
two-way street, or are we going to allow this government to impose its
will, its morals on the rest of us? Thank you for sharing.
Now I turn to my fellow friend from Missouri, Representative Ann
Wagner, and look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for hosting
this Special Order. There is no greater defender or champion for faith
or family or freedom than Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to protect the conscience of the American
people. Since taking office in January of last year, I have heard from
countless constituents on how the government is abusing their
individual freedoms under ObamaCare over and over again.
I recently heard from my constituent, George, a seminarian from St.
Louis County, about the administration's mandate. He notes that what
the administration is asking Catholic hospitals and nonprofits to do is
in direct opposition to our Catholic beliefs. He writes to me:

Mrs. Wagner, I ask you to please stand up for us. We are
being persecuted and unjustly forced to comply with
procedures that are in conflict with our own beliefs.

As George articulated, the United States Federal Government is
currently discriminating against its citizens of faith in this country.
One of this country's founding principles is the freedom to worship
without interference by the Federal Government. Our forefathers did not
flee from oppressive nations, build a country on liberties, and emblaze
them in the Bill of Rights just for this administration to trample on
them over and over again.
Yet the rule issued by the administration under ObamaCare does just
that. This administration now mandates that religious nonprofits and
businesses must provide health care benefits that go against their
fundamental beliefs. If businesses and nonprofits do not comply with
this mandate, they are penalized with crippling fines that the
gentlewoman from Missouri has talked about. These fines can go up to
$100 per day per employee. This means that if a business decides to
provide health care but does not comply with the mandate, they can owe
up to $36,500 for one employee for the year. This is in comparison to
the $2,000 they could owe for not providing any health insurance--any
health insurance--for that same employee at all.
Mr. Speaker, not only does this not make any sense, it is
discrimination by the Federal Government and it is wrong. This mandate
puts the jobs, the livelihoods, and the health care of millions of
Americans at risk. It forces those who stand up for their conscience to
choose between paying detrimental fines that could shut down their
business or dropping health care coverage, as has been discussed
before, completely for their employees altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Should the Federal Government be allowed to
tell the St. Louis Post-Dispatch what they can and cannot print? Should
the Federal Government tell my neighbors in Ballwin, Missouri, what
they can and cannot say about their government leaders? Should the
Federal Government tell George, the seminarian from St. Louis County,
what he can and cannot preach?
Mr. Speaker, while in many parts of the world authoritarian
governments control the press, prohibit freedom of speech, and only
allow for certain beliefs, that cannot be the case in the United States
of America. We will not, I believe, stand by and watch this
administration strip away our freedoms. I will continue to fight on
behalf of the constituents of Missouri and all the American people to
keep this the land of the free.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Ann. That was great. It really goes back to
people like George. The individuals are having their liberties
violated, and it is wrong. It is just chilling what he said: Are we
going to allow this government to discriminate against citizens of
faith? We don't want that to happen. Thank you for your comments.
Now we turn to someone who knows personally one of these families who
started their business in a garage, followed the American Dream,
succeeded, provided jobs, and now that is in jeopardy. I turn to
Representative James Lankford from Oklahoma to give us your insights in
this moment of history.
Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentlelady for hosting this conversation
and for standing up for liberty. I have seen you on this floor over and
over again, speaking up for what is right in our Nation. I very much
appreciate that.
When a family runs their business by the principles of their faith,
which those principles used to be protected in America, can a President
step in and say: I disagree with your faith, and so I will pass a
regulation.
This is very important because some people believe this is written
into the law. It is not. This is a regulation that was selected by this
President. Can a President step in and say, I am going to create a new
regulation that you can no longer practice your faith at work? You can
practice your faith at home, but you can't practice your faith at work.
Hobby Lobby is a family-owned business. It doesn't want Washington to
be its boss. They believe that abortion takes the life of a child and
that every child deserves the chance at life. What is wrong with that?
If a Federal employee disagrees with the faith practice of someone in
a company, does that business have to change their faith, change it to
the faith of the Federal employee, or can they keep their own faith?

{time} 2100

It is now the rule that to open a company or to work in a job or to
get health care, you have to have the same religious convictions as the
President of the United States.
If you don't, you will be fined until you change your faith practice.
That is not what we are founded on; that is not who we are--every
faith, every opportunity for every person to live out what they believe
at home, at work, and in the community.
Just days ago, the President spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast
about the cornerstone right of the free expression of religion. That
includes Americans who believe that children are a gift of God and they
should be nurtured and cared for, not discarded as tissue.
Washington is not the boss of every American. Our Constitution
matters, freedom of religion matters, and, quite frankly, children
matter.
This family is not some corporate ogre trying to rule over their
employees. They are my neighbor. They live a mile from my house. They
are a quiet family. They are a great family that has lived out their
faith. They are a tremendous community partner in so many ways in our
community and around the country and, quite frankly,

[[Page H2603]]

around the globe with what they have done to take care of the poor and
the needy and the people of faith all over the world.
They are an incredible gift to our Nation, yet they are being told:
you cannot practice your faith anymore.
This is not something new that they are doing. The government changed
the rules on them. They didn't change their practice. Suddenly, a new
administration walked in and changed the rules and said: you can no
longer live your faith at work.
Well, I am honored that they have stepped up and they have said not
so, not so for their business, not so for businesses around the
country. All of us have seen the lists and lists and lists of waivers
that this administration has given for the Affordable Care Act, waivers
for the employer mandate, waivers for the income and verification
requirements, waivers for the Small Business Health Options Program, a
waiver just given a month ago.
The administration delayed the requirement for businesses with fewer
than 100 employees to offer health insurance until 2016; and then this
one, just March the 5th, a few days ago, the administration announced
it will allow people to keep noncompliant insurance plans through
2016--that is, noncompliant except in this area.
In this one area, they have said: no, we are not going to give a
waiver for that one; instead, we will fine you $36,500. Everyone else
that is noncompliant, we will give you a waiver, except for Hobby Lobby
and other businesses like them. They get no waiver. They get the
hammer.
Is that fair? Is that right? Is this what we have really become as a
Nation? I think better of us.
I look forward to the Supreme Court taking up this case and setting
things straight because, in this country, we have a constitutional
right to speak out and to live out our faith.
With that, I yield back to the gentlelady.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Representative Lankford. I am so glad you
shared about this family. You know them. What a treasure they really
are to our Nation and the world, as you said, and truly courageous,
standing up, putting their business on the line, saying this is worth
fighting for. Those who have gone before us have fought for us. Now, it
is time for us to stand up and fight. Thank you for sharing that.
You are right. They are trying to change the regulations. You can't
practice your faith at work, being coerced to change your faith
practice, gave waivers to others, but they give the Green family the
hammer. Well said. Thank you.
Now, I turn to someone who knows the other family involved in the
Supreme Court decision, who has the honor of representing the Hahn
family. That is my friend and courageous leader for faith, family,
freedom, for years, Representative Joe Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentlelady for
hosting this Special Order. This is so important because, tomorrow, the
U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Hobby Lobby and
Conestoga Wood Specialties against Sebelius. I have the privilege,
tomorrow, to sit in the Chamber and listen to the oral arguments.
At the heart of the argument is the question about whether you stop
following your conscience when you go into business. For family
businesses like Conestoga Wood Specialties, located in my Congressional
district, faith and business are not separate.
Their business would not be the same if they did not apply the values
that guide their life. I visited this business. I have talked to their
employees. I know the Hahn family. They are sincere Mennonites and
wonderful people of faith and good business people.
It is those values that prompted Conestoga Wood to provide quality
health insurance to their employees in the first place. They provided
health insurance long before this regulation or mandate came along
under ObamaCare.
No government mandate had to tell them that it was the right thing to
do. Now, the government wants to use force and fines to stipulate the
details of what that plan covers. Conestoga Wood and many other
businessowners of faith now find themselves in a catch-22 of
conscience.
The First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were
meant to guard against using the heavy hand of government to infringe
on our religious rights. We should not have to leave our faith at the
church door.
Under the First Amendment, we are guaranteed freedom of religion, and
I might remind you, it is the First Amendment. It is not the Second
Amendment. It is not the Sixth or the 16th or the 26th. It is the First
Amendment. It is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment--
freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Pennsylvania has a long history of people of differing faiths
engaging in commerce. 100 years before there was a First Amendment,
William Penn established his colony as a place where religious
dissenters could find freedom and safety.
The Forefathers of the Hahn family--Mennonites and others--came to
Pennsylvania because it was advertised as a place where you could live
and work freely according to your religious beliefs.
These people of faith supported themselves with businesses, and the
colonial authorities in Pennsylvania let them apply their principles
freely. These principles of religious freedom would later inform the
founding of our Republic, and something that had at first been uniquely
Pennsylvanian would become part of our national culture.
Family-owned and -operated businesses provide millions of good jobs
in America. The Hahn family is facing a difficult choice that no
American should have to face.
We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold a basic
Pennsylvania value and a basic American value and the First Amendment
right to religious freedom.
Every American, including family businessowners, should be free to
live and work according to their beliefs without the fear of punishment
or coercion by the government.
Americans don't give up their freedom when they open a family
business. Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold all of
our rights to religious freedom here in this great country we call
America.
I yield back.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentlemen. So true. Family-owned businesses
have a right to not be coerced into giving up their faith just for
providing jobs.
Now, I would like to turn to my friend and truly a leader here for
families and life and common sense, Representative Chris Smith.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend
and colleague from Missouri for her outstanding leadership on behalf of
the life issues, for her courage, and for her consistent approach to
these vital issues that really are also passing. She has been a leader
for so long. Thank you for organizing this, this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues, am grateful that the U.S. Supreme
Court took up this critical case for religious liberty; and I--we, Mr.
Speaker, are hopeful that the court will provide much-needed relief
from this discriminatory ObamaCare policy.
Under the Obama administration's coercive mandate, family-owned
businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have found themselves in
the impossible situation of being forced to violate their moral or
religious beliefs or face crippling fines. This not only puts
businesses in serious and unnecessary risk, but also employees who may
lose their jobs, as well as their health care.
It is the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama
administration to coerce family businesses that provide generous health
care for their employees into a situation that may force them to close
and to shutter their businesses.
The ObamaCare financial penalties are draconian, egregious, and
without precedent in U.S. law. Under ObamaCare, family businesses that
do provide health care for employees, like the Hobby Lobby, but object
to covering certain drugs and devices--in their case, that provide for
abortions--will be fined up to $36,500 per year, per employee. That is
outrageous.
For the Green family of Hobby Lobby, this could mean an amount to
nearly half a billion dollars in fines every year. There is no way they
can absorb that kind of body blow without closing their doors.

[[Page H2604]]

I would note, parenthetically, that a company that does not provide
any health care insurance--the gentlelady from Missouri spoke about
this in her opening comments--will be fined some $2,000 per year,
clearly, an unfair burden, but far less than the $36,500 per year, per
employee, if they refuse, again, to include certain drugs or devices
that violate their moral or religious tenets.
When you calculate that out for the Green family of Hobby Lobby,
dumping their existing health care coverage for employees could result
in fines up to $26 million per year; again, a huge penalty, but that is
still $448 million less than if they actually provided health insurance
and remained true to their core convictions, which they will do.
Mr. Speaker, this burdensome penalty is completely unfair,
unreasonable. It is unworkable, and it is unconscionable. The Obama
administration is saying: we will punish you, we will hurt you, we will
even put you out of business for providing health care to your
employees, unless you provide health care according to the government's
conscience.
Also, employees currently on their business health plan could lose
their coverage that they desperately need for their families, as well
as for themselves. Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have no
business whatsoever imposing their morality on people of faith, but
that is exactly what their oppressive mandate does.
The Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, has a duty to protect the religious
and conscience rights of the Greens and the Hahns and everyone else
suffering government-imposed harm. The U.S. high court must act to
protect the First Amendment rights of these families. Protecting these
rights also protects their employees.
Let's make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. This mandate and its
deleterious effects and consequences are very much Obama's willful
intention. The imposition of this attack on religious freedom is no
accident. It comes straight from the pages of ObamaCare.
In December of 2009, in the runup to the passage of that legislation,
Senator Mikulski offered an amendment which provided the authorizing
language for this oppressive mandate.
In 2009, the same year, when President Obama spoke at Notre Dame
University, which parenthetically is also suing over the mandate, he
spoke about drafting a sensible conscience clause--his words--and yet,
today, protection of conscience is another highly visible broken
promise of ObamaCare.
Mr. Speaker, to tell people that their conscience is irrelevant and
that they must follow the Federal Government's conscience, rather than
their own, is completely antithetical to the American principle of
religious freedom and the First Amendment.
Unless reversed, Obama's attack on conscience rights will result in
government-imposed discrimination against those who seek according to
their faith and their moral code.
Under the weight of the mandate's ruinous fines and penalties, many
businesses could be forced to shut down, eliminating jobs. I would
never have believed that this kind of religious violation could occur
in the United States of America, but it has. The Supreme Court must end
this abuse.
I yield back to my good friend.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Absolutely. This is a moment in history, a moment of
opportunity, for this Supreme Court to stand up and to do the right
thing. Half a billion dollars in fines, half a billion dollars in fines
this company is facing. Thank you for bringing home what that means.

{time} 2115

You know they are going to coerce. You said that it is draconian,
that it is unprecedented, that they are going to force you. That is the
definition of a bully. ``We are going to bully you into doing what we
think is right.'' We stand up against that in every other arena, and we
are standing up against it here as well.
Now I would like to turn to my friend from Nebraska, Representative
Jeff Fortenberry, to share his thoughts at this moment in history.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. First, let me thank the gentlelady from Missouri for
her leadership, not only tonight, but on this absolutely most critical
issue.
Mr. Speaker, there is an important court case tomorrow, one that has
come upon our country fairly quietly. I am not sure most Americans
actually know what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not
the relationship between the government and her people will
fundamentally shift, whether the government will be able to coerce
people who disagree as to the content of what their health care should
be based upon their religious faiths or their deeply held ethical
sensibilities. If they don't obey, they will be fined, as was mentioned
here earlier.
In a very ironic way, the case before the Supreme Court tomorrow is
about whether or not Hobby Lobby, a store at which millions of
Americans, I assume, enjoy shopping--at which I enjoy shopping--that
very outwardly celebrates, projects, its Christian perspective in the
way it conducts its business. I assume, because of that perspective--
the desire to do the right thing by their employees--they have
established a good health care plan. If they drop their health care
plan, they will be fined $2,000 by the government. That is all they
will have to pay. Yet, if they refuse to go along with that which
violates their religious perspective and fundamental ethical
sensibilities, the government will fine them $36,000.
Again, the irony here is striking in that a business that is doing
the right thing, which is based upon the values of their owners, which
promotes good products that millions of Americans enjoy, which closes
on Sunday because that is their stated Christian belief and because
that is the way they choose to exercise it--I don't see any lawsuits
over that--nonetheless is saying, in their health care plan, they
simply cannot provide certain drugs that would violate the dictate of
their faith, certain drugs that this administration has deemed
``preventative.''
Another irony here is, when most of us were looking at the health
care bill when it was first passed, there was a portion that was put in
there called ``prevention services.'' Now, I did not vote for the
health care bill. I believe we need the right type of health care in
our country, one that actually reduces costs and improves health care
outcomes and protects vulnerable people; but what we have instead is a
huge shift of cost to unsustainable government spending and a serious
erosion of health care liberties. We can do better than this. We must
do better than this.
Buried in that health care bill was prevention authority. To me, that
means that we are going to try to prevent the onset of diabetes or the
onset of heart disease--chronic disease--which is part of what is
driving up our health care costs and which is that we could maybe get
underneath if we were all thinking about and adhering to the principles
and dynamics of wellness. That is what I thought it was about. Instead,
it is an ideology of the administration's that is imposing upon people
of faith or other Americans who simply do not have a faith perspective
on this but who know that religious freedom is a first freedom and the
government should not coerce people from their deeply held, reasonably
held belief systems or those who have ethical sensibilities to certain
types of drugs and procedures. That is what is at issue here, and if it
goes the wrong way, the relationship between the government and her
people will ultimately change.
You see, the government will then be conferring this right of
religious liberty, not protecting it. It will be deciding who gets to
exercise what type of religious liberty rather than protecting the
individual conscience of the person--that sacred space that is inherent
to the dignity of all persons--which is where our rights actually come
from. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, this is clearly
stated, and it is reflected in the ideals of religious liberty and in
the separation of church and State. I have a copy of the original Bill
of Rights--not the ``original'' original but a copy of the original--in
my office, and actually penciled in there, as they were working through
the draft, is ``the rights of conscience.'' That concept actually
precedes the principle of religious freedom because it says, again,
rights are not conferred by the government. They come from the inherent
dignity of each person by virtue of who he is and the way in which he
has been created; and that person's ability to exercise who he is in
the most poignant way, particularly in his religious faith, is a sacred
space

[[Page H2605]]

that the government must protect. That is why they listed it as the
number one spot in the Bill of Rights, but that is what tomorrow is
about.
In the aftermath of the French Revolution, there was a young child
born named Jeanne Jugan. She was one of eight children, and they lived
in the west coast of France, and her father was a fisherman. One day,
he was lost at sea, and the family was reduced to poverty. As a
teenager, Jeanne Jugan went out and worked as a maid servant, doing
servile labor, to help the family and to help sustain herself. She
received a proposal of marriage, but in her own discernment decided
that was not appropriate for her, and she, apparently, lived a quiet
and humble life.
One day, outside in the cold, she saw a woman who was blind and
paralyzed and freezing, and she picked her up and brought her to her
own bed. This was a key turning point in Jeanne Jugan's life. Perhaps
she always knew her life would turn out this way. There was a religious
order called the Little Sisters of the Poor, which traced its origins
back to that simple act of kindness, to Jeanne Jugan. She was canonized
a saint by Pope John Paul after a medical doctor from the Omaha area of
Nebraska received a miraculous cure after having asked for her
intercession. She was recently canonized a saint. The Little Sisters of
the Poor are not nuns on a bus, and they are not political activists.
They just take care of the vulnerable elderly through health care
facilities. Yet they find themselves having to sue the Federal
Government to be able to exercise their religious freedom as they see
fit.

That is what this health care bill has brought about through this
prevention mandate. It is a direct frontal assault on America's first
freedom, so much so that a group of humble nuns--and as I spoke to one,
she told me: In the elderly, we just see Christ--that has dedicated its
life to the poor and vulnerable in health care is now having to fight
in the court system for its right to exercise its religious faith as it
sees fit.
So tomorrow's decision, while it is about two very strong
businesses--Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood--has very vast
ramifications. Even the people who are in religious orders who have set
up charitable institutions are being forced by the government to,
again, buy products through their health care plans for their
employees, products that are inconsistent with their faith traditions.
As one of the nuns told me: It violates our conscience. We didn't want
to sue the government, but yet here we are.
I am glad to have had a little bit of opportunity with you tonight,
my good friend Vicky Hartzler, to discuss this most essential of issues
because, if we don't speak, who is going to speak? I am not quite sure
that all of America has really realized what is at stake at 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning--whether the government will be allowed to coerce
Americans into violating that fundamental first freedom of religious
faith and the rights of conscience. If so, it will be tremendously
unfair. It is un-American. It will change the nature of the
relationship between government and her people. Let's hope that the
Supreme Court gets this right. There have been a few precedents before
this in which they have gotten it right. In fact, the Little Sisters of
the Poor has gotten an injunction so that this is not being forced upon
it at the moment.
The deeper principle here that is at stake is whether or not the
First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to
religious freedom--an appropriate separation between church and State--
is going to hold and remain that most cherished freedom in our country
to come.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentleman.
A fundamental shift this would represent, you said. The relationship
between the government and her citizens will forever change. That is
chilling.
I appreciate your sharing the story of the Little Sisters of the Poor
to show that this isn't just about the two entities that are before the
Supreme Court tomorrow. In fact, there are 94 different lawsuits around
the country from other small businesses and entities and colleges and
others that, too, are being forced into this. So this has huge
implications, not just for the 94 that have bravely, courageously stood
up and said ``no'' and challenged it, but for each and every citizen.
With that, I would like to thank my friend, Representative Dan
Lipinski from Illinois, for coming here today. I appreciate his
leadership of the Pro-Life Caucus and of other pro-family liberty
issues.
So thank you for coming. What would you like to share tonight?
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank Mrs. Hartzler for yielding and for her
leadership on this critical issue, which is not just as partisan issue.
I am a Democrat. I know this is not a partisan issue--religious
liberty.
This is not even just a foundational American principle. It is a
fundamental human right. Many of the men and women who came to America
were fleeing religious persecution and were searching for a place where
they could freely exercise their faiths. They had the courage to pledge
their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause. As a number of my
colleagues have stated, the First Amendment to our Constitution starts
with these words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
I used to teach my American Government students that, clearly, this was
not freedom to worship--just the freedom to go on Sunday or Saturday or
whatever day of the week that you worshiped--but a freedom to exercise
religion in the way they see proper.
As First Lady Michelle Obama stated at a conference of the African
Methodist Episcopal Church, our faith journey isn't just about showing
up on Sunday; it is about what we do Monday through Saturday as well.
That is what Americans believe, and we must protect the freedom to
exercise our religious beliefs every day of the week. Many millions
have had the courage to fight, and many have died to protect our Nation
in this constitutional right. We all have a duty to our fellow
Americans and to the world to reclaim a true religious liberty in our
Nation because this goes beyond our borders. America has been a beacon
of liberty for people around the world for more than two centuries. As
people blessed with liberty, we have a special obligation to protect it
and to proclaim it for all the world to see. Especially today, as we
see around the world attacks on religious freedom, we must stand up
here in America.
I want to thank all of my colleagues for standing up here today and
for continuing to work in Congress to protect our religious freedom,
and I want to pray for wisdom for our Supreme Court Justices tomorrow
as they consider this very critical, fundamental case. We all must
rededicate ourselves and continue to fight for religious freedom in our
Nation, without which freedom we would be giving up on a fundamental
principle that underlies this greatest of nations.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Representative Lipinski.
It is so true that we are and have been the beacon of liberty for
this world, and this Court decision tomorrow has implications for not
only our country and its citizens but for those around the world. I,
too, was a teacher, and I appreciate that, how we taught our students
what the basic rights were, but this decision will impact their
futures, too. If government can force its citizens to go against their
basic, most fundamental, moral values and consciences, what else can it
do?

With that, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, thank you for
being here tonight. The floor is yours.
Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the gentlelady from Missouri for hosting
this Special Order hour this evening.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois talked about people who come
to this country in fleeing religious persecution. As the gentlelady may
be aware, my mother emigrated from Ukraine. She was, in fact, a
Ukrainian Greek Catholic. As the gentlelady probably knows of the
history, when the Soviet Union took over Ukraine, they persecuted the
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, burning them to the ground. It is
ironic that we are discussing this here--and that the Supreme Court
will be taking up this issue--as we are seeing what is going on with
religious persecution in Ukraine this week and last week, where the
church in Dora, for instance--the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church--
burned to the ground because, you see, the Russian Government didn't
agree with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church's beliefs.

[[Page H2606]]

{time} 2130

So what do they do? They burn churches to the ground.
It is interesting. We have to learn the lesson, though, because they
tried that. After World War II, the Soviet Union tried to destroy
churches that way, but they learned the lesson that the church is not
the building. The church is the group of believers who share common,
deeply held religious beliefs. That is why when the Soviet Union fell,
the churches that they thought they had burned to the ground rose up.
I would suggest that what is going on in Oklahoma City with Hobby
Lobby and in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with Conestoga Wood Products is a
church burning without a match. In fact, it is even more insidious
because you can't see something. You can't see the ashes. But in fact,
if the government has its way with these two employers, they will
attempt to persecute them for their religious beliefs and attempt to
destroy them. That is not the way it is in America.
As the gentleman from Illinois said, there are plenty of places in
the world where that may be true, but we do have a First Amendment. We
have a First Amendment that doesn't protect church buildings, it
protects religious believers in whatever walk of life they are in,
whatever they are doing, from the government imposing their belief
system, whether it is the case of a belief of a religious body or a
belief that you shouldn't provide life-destroying drugs. Because that
is what is at issue in these cases.
And I would hope that the Supreme Court realizes that this country
does have a First Amendment and that its job, its duty, our duty is to
protect the religious beliefs of every individual, including those
owners of Conestoga Wood Products and Hobby Lobby, who deserve the
right and freedom in America to believe their religious beliefs and not
have the government impose theirs.
So I thank the gentlelady from Missouri.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Well said. Thank you for sharing your story.
I now have a friend from Kansas, Representative Tim Huelskamp.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is a pleasure and honor
to join you tonight. I will keep my comments short.
You have heard the words here tonight. You have heard the words
``religion tax.'' You have heard the words ``religious litmus test.''
You certainly heard the words ``religious liberty.'' Of course, we also
heard that the principles of the First Amendment have to do with
religious liberty and religious freedom.
I was on the floor the day after the Supreme Court decision on the
President's health care law, and I would like to issue a challenge to
what is generally considered the swing vote of this current court, the
Chief Justice himself.
When I spoke about this issue, court challenges were already coming
forward on this HHS mandate, but knowing that the Chief Justice is a
Roman Catholic, I issue a strong challenge to the Chief Justice.
Given the history of the Catholic Church in this country, it has been
one of severe discrimination at times. I would ask the Chief Justice--
the deciding vote--to consider his core convictions. I believe he bears
a particular burden to protect the religious liberties of employers and
their employees from the excesses of his very own constitutional
creation.
The court asked to be in the middle of this position. They asked for
the government to have the right to tell businesses what to do, whether
for profit or nonprofit or businesses or non-businesses as well.
What is at stake here is not the choice of businesses alone. What is
at stake here is not necessarily what the government can tell selected
entities. At stake is our Constitution and our rights and freedoms as
Americans.
We were founded on the issue of religious freedom and liberty from
our very beginning. Tomorrow, I stand with the businesses, the non-
businesses, and the private entities as well.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentleman. Well said.
We have been here, and we are not done yet. My time is about done,
but we are going to continue on here because we believe in standing up
for the Constitution. We believe in the First Amendment: religious
liberty. We believe in our country and our future and our children's
future. We want to preserve those freedoms that others have sacrificed
for.
So I want to thank all my colleagues who have come here tonight and
have shared their wisdom and their insights into this. Let us pray
tomorrow that the Supreme Court hears the words that we have spoken and
rules on the side of freedom.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________