[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.

                          ____________________