[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1706-S1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPORT FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY, INTEGRITY, DEMOCRACY, AND ECONOMIC 
     STABILITY OF UKRAINE ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I enjoyed very much the remarks of the 
Senator from Florida. He is very much concerned about this, very much 
plugged into the situation of what is happening in Ukraine, but I would 
like to make a couple of comments about that from a slightly different 
perspective, one that is from my current position as the ranking member 
on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I would like to look at just one part of this proposal; that is, the 
money that would be coming out of the military to take care of a 
problem the military should not have to take care of at a time when 
things are very serious. The IMF has all the authority it needs to meet 
all of Ukraine's borrowing needs--that is the $35 billion--with its 
existing commitments from the global community. The IMF does not need 
additional U.S. funds to help Ukraine. It does not make sense to double 
the size of the IMF by ratifying a 2010 agreement, paying for it with 
money that could be used by DOD to address the shortfalls which I am 
going to talk about.
  By the way, there is another option out there because the House has a 
bill. Chairman Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is marking 
up a bill today as we are speaking that I believe addresses our 
response to Ukraine in a more responsible way. The House bill is likely 
to provide $68 billion in Ukraine aid that does not expand the IMF and 
removes it from the bans on LNG. This does not contain IMF reform. It 
does not take money from the DOD. I think that is good.
  The Senator from Florida commented that we wouldn't be in the 
position we are in right now with the Europeans afraid to come to the 
aid of Ukraine if it weren't for the fact they are reliant upon Russia 
for their ability to produce LNG. We in this country have had a real 
boom in getting in the tight formations of the LNG. Right now we need 
to be exporting more of it to get the price up so it can be produced 
for ourselves in this country. No better way than to start exporting 
this to countries such as Ukraine. If we are doing this, the Western 
European countries would not be reliant upon Russia for that ability.
  I think we have an opportunity there to do something with this bill, 
and hopefully we will be able to satisfy the needs of Ukraine and at 
the same time not provide further damage to our military.
  I recognize that out of the $315 million pricetag in total aid for 
the package, it rightly cuts $150 million from the State Department. 
That is true. That is where it should come from. But it also then takes 
an equal amount--

[[Page S1707]]

$150 million--away from the Department of Defense to double the size of 
IMF in order to give authority that isn't actually required for the IMF 
to adequately loan to Ukraine, and should not be included as part of 
this bill.
  The unnecessary proposed $157 million of defense rescission to pay 
for this aid has already been used by OMB, the Office of Management and 
Budget, and by the DOD, Department of Defense, to build the current 
defense budget. These funds have already been spent and we cannot get 
any more out of the military right now. If Defense is forced to pay for 
this aid, then the services will likely have to reduce their readiness 
accounts.
  Readiness accounts mean lives because we talk about risk. If we are 
not ready, to the degree we are not ready, we incur more risk, and risk 
is translated into lives. Our national security funding can't be 
treated like an ATM. Mr. President, $157 million can be used to support 
critical defense readiness needs, such as an Army brigade combat team 
for 6 months, 1,000 Marine embassy security personnel for 1\1/2\ years, 
about 2 months of the O&M for a second carrier air wing or almost two 
F-16 squadrons for 1 year.
  What has happened to the military, if only people out there would 
understand, and they do not--there are a lot of Republicans and 
Democrats both out there not talking about this, the most serious 
problem we are facing in this country--is what the Obama administration 
has done to our military.
  I remember so well 5 years ago going to Afghanistan so I could 
respond to the President's budget, which was at that time talking about 
what he was going to be doing to the military. I knew he would begin 5 
years ago to start disarming America, and what did he do. He did away 
with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; he did away with our 
carrier capability, the C-17; did away with our future combat system; 
and he did away with our ground-based interceptor in Poland. Of course, 
we are desperately looking for something to protect the Eastern part of 
the United States as a result of that. That was all in the first year, 
the first step in disarming America.
  Since that time, the President in his budget has taken out of the 
military some $487 billion. If he goes through with his sequestration, 
it will be another one-half billion dollars.
  People don't realize where this all started. They will say: Wait a 
minute. It is just entitlements. Entitlements are a problem, because 60 
percent of the total budget goes to entitlements. But keep in mind, 
there is also discretionary spending which is nondefense discretionary 
spending. When this President took office, the first thing done was to 
take $800 billion for a stimulus, none of which was used for the 
military. That obligated us on nondefense discretionary spending for 
the rest of the time at the expense of defense. So now we are in a 
situation which is so serious in this country that even our military 
leaders have come out and made statements. People have to understand 
how critical this situation is and how we have disarmed this country.
  Secretary Hagel 2 weeks ago said:

       American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space 
     can no longer be taken for granted.

  Is this America? We have taken this for granted since World War II, 
and all of a sudden--because of what has happened through this 
administration to the military in the last 5 years--we can no longer do 
this.
  General Amos, head of the Marines, agrees with me on increased risk:

       We will have fewer forces arriving less-trained, arriving 
     later to the fight. . . . This is a formula for more American 
     casualties.

  We just said when the risk increases, then our very brave troops die.
  Under Secretary Frank Kendall of this administration, on January 3, 
said:

       We're cutting our budget substantially while some of the 
     people we worry about are going in the opposite direction. 
     We've had 20 years since the end of the cold war [and sort] 
     of a presumption in the United States that we are 
     technologically superior militarily.

  That is not the case now.
  The top military person, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
General Dempsey, was appointed to the position by President Obama. He 
said to our committee, the Armed Services Committee, that we are 
putting our military on a path where the ``force is so degraded and so 
unready'' that it would be ``immoral to use the force.''
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Immoral to use the force. 
This is supposed to be America. We are supposed to be a superior 
country. What has happened to us?
  Admiral Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the second 
highest position, stated:

       [t]here could be for the first time in my career instances 
     where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have 
     to say that we cannot.

  Unfortunately, this is something which not many people are aware of 
in terms of what we are doing.
  Yes, we want to do what we can for Ukraine, and we believe the State 
Department certainly has an obligation. But the other half of the 
amount, the $157 million, cannot come from the military because we are 
so unready today.
  When we are considering this, we have to consider we have a real 
serious problem with our military. Unfortunately, people are not aware 
of this, and a lot of politicians don't talk about it because they are 
uncomfortable talking about it.


                        Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today in the Supreme Court something very 
significant is happening.
  I am from Oklahoma. David Green and his wife, of Oklahoma City, 
started a business called Hobby Lobby by making picture frames in their 
garage. It wasn't that long ago. I can remember them doing that. They 
were able to open their first store which was about 300 square feet.
  With the profits they made in their little garage operation, David 
Green's faith, practice, and his day-to-day business decisions led him 
and his family to build a successful nationwide company. Over the 
years, their business has grown to 602 stores. With plans to expand, 
Hobby Lobby has an annual revenue upward of $2.5 billion, and David has 
had success despite running his business in a very countercultural way.
  For instance, all of the retail stores close at 8 p.m. each night and 
all day on Sunday so employees can spend time with their families. This 
is appreciated by the company's some 16,000 employees who are paid 
above the minimum wage. Hobby Lobby's generous employee benefit plan 
includes an onsite clinic with no copay at Hobby Lobby headquarters and 
eligibility to enroll in medical, dental, and prescription drug plans, 
along with long-term disability, life insurance, and a 401(k) plan with 
a generous company match. This is something they have done since long 
before ObamaCare came along.
  At one point Hobby Lobby was challenged by a competitor who said they 
would bury the company with their money; so the firm opened their doors 
on Sunday, ultimately earning the company some $150 million in revenue 
each week over and above what the competitor previously had been able 
to raise. Eventually David Green said he was challenged by God to trust 
in Him with his business to go back to his policy of closing on 
Sundays. He did, and his business has prospered. David's Christian 
faith runs deeper than his desire to have a profitable, successful 
company. But he is getting both. When he was faced with the decision to 
make money or obey God, he chose to obey God, whatever the 
consequences.
  More recently he was faced with a new test. It didn't come from a 
competitor. It came from the U.S. Government.
  Part of ObamaCare requires employers not only to provide health 
insurance to their employees but also to provide free access to the 
pills which terminate pregnancies. David, as I and many others, 
believes that life begins at conception. I believe that; David believes 
that. We are free to believe that. Offering an option to end that life 
would be a violation of our moral compass as defined by his faith and 
our faith.
  Here is a guy who feels so strongly in his belief, and as his actions 
have shown, he would rather pay the $1.3 million a day in fines from 
the Obama administration than comply with the law--in other words, 
killing an unborn child.
  Today the Obama administration is claiming this privately-owned 
business is waging a war on women for not

[[Page S1708]]

agreeing to provide these treatments for its employees free of charge--
never mind that he has been offering his employees health insurance 
since long before the government mandated it.
  So we have the faith of an individual and what he is willing to do 
for his faith: He is willing to stand up to this abusive government. If 
we restrict those of faith from applying their conscience to the world 
around, then we quench the progress of freedom.
  The Obama administration is attempting to write a new moral code if 
it is going to tell people like David Green he no longer has the 
freedom to apply his faith and convictions to how he operates his 
private business.
  The case before the Supreme Court today is about maintaining freedom, 
which starts by preserving the fundamental freedom of religion under 
the First Amendment--whether it is practiced in a temple or a public 
square. Hobby Lobby is not alone, but it is a leader in this battle. 
More than 100 institutions have filed similar claims. Four universities 
in my State of Oklahoma have also filed a lawsuit along the same lines.
  So here we have a situation--and it is hard to believe this can 
happen in America--where there is a man who has built up and is 
actively employing 16,000 people who otherwise might not be employed. 
He is providing income, selling products. He is a self-made man who 
started out in his garage. He has built up a giant operation all 
throughout America and has made a great contribution. Along comes the 
Obama administration and ObamaCare which says: We are going to fine you 
$1.3 million a day if you don't offer these abortions.
  This is actually being considered right now in the U.S. Supreme 
Court. I think God is on our side and I think we are going to have a 
good outcome. But imagine, one man taking the risk of $1.3 million a 
day in fines just to stand behind his faith and behind the 16,000 
people who work for him to make sure that good happens.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak about the same topic as 
my good friend from Oklahoma.
  I was at the Supreme Court listening to the arguments on this case, 
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, and another case involving a Pennsylvania 
company which I wish to speak about as well.
  Of course, this case, as the Senator from Oklahoma has pointed out, 
starts with the Affordable Care Act and what many people and I believe 
the Supreme Court will decide is a blatant violation in religious 
freedom in the way that act would be applied.
  There is nothing in the act that deals with the rule which sets those 
big fines up or establishes how those fines would be collected--or, in 
fact, nothing in the act which specifies specific things that have to 
be in the so-called model plan. That all is up to the administration, 
all up to the Department of HHS--unless the Court or the Congress does 
what needs to be done here, which is to say there are certain 
boundaries you can't cross.
  The so-called Affordable Health Care Act--which seems to be providing 
neither better health care nor better affordability--was signed into 
law 4 years ago this week. In that 4 years we have seen disastrous 
effects of the health care act. One of those is the workplace effect 
where more and more people work less and less.
  Why do they work less and less? Because for the first time ever the 
government has said businesses and people had an obligation to provide 
insurance for somebody who worked more than 30 hours. Prior to that 
law, many people with insurance worked less than 30 hours. It may not 
have been insurance which the President of the United States would have 
specified they had, but it was insurance which appeared to be working 
for them. But once the government says: Here is what you have to do, 
the government ironically also appears to be saying: Here is what you 
don't have to do.
  So we know the workplace effects are bad. We know this is one of the 
principal reasons given for people working part time without benefits 
instead of working either full time or part time with benefits. We see 
the cut in Medicare and the impact it has on seniors. We see the 
increasing amount of money you have to spend before your insurance 
kicks in for so many people. We know this law is not working for 
American families or American individuals. Now we see a case where the 
law doesn't work for the Constitution.
  Specifically, the law forces businesses such as Hobby Lobby--
mentioned by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe--to offer health 
insurance for employees which covers services that violate their 
religious belief. This is a company which has always prided itself in 
its ability to offer health care coverage better than its employees 
might be able to get other places. This is a company which starts its 
nonseasonal employees at a rate about twice minimum wage, its lowest 
paid employee. This is not a company which is in any way trying to take 
advantage of its employees. This is a company which in every indication 
through the existence of the company is they want to act in a certain 
way which is comfortable with its faith.
  The penalties? If you don't do what the government says, the 
penalties are $36,500 per employee per year. In the case of this 
company, which has locations all over the country and a significant 
number of employees, that is more than $450 million a year. If you 
don't provide insurance at all, one of the points made by the 
government lawyers today, your option would be you would only pay a 
$2,000 penalty. So $2,000 a year if you don't offer insurance at all; 
$36,500 a year per employee if you don't offer exactly the insurance 
the all-knowing government has decided you need to have.
  What a foolish position for the Federal Government to be in: Your 
penalty, if you are this big company but privately held, closely held 
by a family--this happens to be a big and successful company but not a 
publicly-traded company. It happens to be a company that chose to 
incorporate but incorporated within the ability of the family to do so 
in a closely-held way. If you don't pay--if you don't do what the 
government says, your penalty would be less than the insurance you are 
providing by quite a bit--if you don't provide insurance at all. If you 
don't do exactly what the government says, it is probably the amount of 
money that puts your company out of business.

  Hobby Lobby, with more than 500 arts and crafts stores around the 
country, is being joined in the case today. The cases were joined 
together by Conestoga Wood Specialties, a company that manufactures 
kitchen cabinets. Their case was presented at the same time. This 
company was founded by the Hahns family, a Mennonite family from 
Pennsylvania. It is a smaller company than Hobby Lobby, but a company 
that still upholds their own religious beliefs and has a tradition of 
upholding those religious beliefs in everything they do. These two 
companies of very different size do not object to all of the things in 
the list of things the government says you have to offer. In fact, in 
the area of contraception, they object to only 4 of the things that 
happen after conception, the things that would create an abortion in 
their view after conception. They both traditionally offered other 
kinds of contraception, but this crosses their religious boundary. So 
for these 4 things only the government would say you have to pay 
$36,500 per employee per year.
  There are at least 46 cases filed concerning for-profit companies 
that have the same kinds of religious objections. More than 10 of those 
lawsuits are in my State of Missouri. It is not just about one set of 
religious beliefs, but it is about protecting all Americans' First 
Amendment rights to pursue their faith-based principles and what they 
believe. These happen to be a Mennonite family and an evangelical 
Christian family. The largest Christian group in America, the Catholic 
Church, has a broader sense of what they think would violate their 
religious beliefs. But the point here is not what the government is 
specifically trying to force you to do; it is that the government under 
the laws that we have passed should not be able to force you to do 
things that violate your faith principles.
  There are many faith-based groups that have different views of how 
you deliver health services. I met with many of those groups over the 
course of the last 2 years since this rule came out. There are 84 
different briefs that have been filed with the Court on behalf of these 
two cases, suggesting as

[[Page S1709]]

friends of the Court that here is something you should think about and 
look at. On those 84 amicus briefs they are at least 3 to 1 in favor of 
the families that own these companies that want to be able to run their 
companies based on their faith-based principles.
  The numbers of people that are concerned about this are large, and 
they include a very diverse set of coalitions of people who care. One 
brief from a bipartisan group of 107 Members of Congress said you 
should uphold the law that Congress passed that protects people's 
freedom of religion--not to mention the Constitution itself--where 
freedom of religion is the first freedom mentioned and the first 
sentence in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is important in 
our history of who we are. Twenty-one states have joined this case on 
behalf of these companies. Doctors' and women's organizations have 
filed briefs advocating that the Court respect the religious rights of 
companies. Protestant and Catholic theologians have filed briefs, as 
have the Rabbinical Council of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, Crescent 
Foods, a halal food company, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
Saints, and the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities. All 
have a broad diversity of religious views, but they agree on one thing: 
This is a principal tenet of who we are.
  President Jefferson said in a letter he wrote to the New London 
Methodists in 1809 that of all the rights we hold, we should hold the 
right of conscience most dear. Once the government can start telling 
you what to believe and how you apply what you believe, we have given 
up the most fundamental of all freedoms.
  Congress has a long tradition of protecting religious liberty. The 
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure broad 
protection of religious liberty. The HHS regulations do not satisfy the 
high bar set by that act. That is a position that I hope the Court 
upholds. The mandate is an enormous government overreach, and it 
violates Americans' constitutional rights.
  While this mandate severely fines religious individuals, it exempts 
plenty of other nonreligious institutions. The administration has 
already exempted 100 million employees from the mandate for commercial 
or political reasons. People should also not be forced to give up their 
business to hold on to their faith or to give up their faith to hold on 
to their business. These family businesses are not publicly traded 
corporations.
  I am not a lawyer, but I am told on the best authority there is not 
one court case that diminishes the rights of these kinds of 
corporations. In fact, numerous Federal courts have upheld the ability 
of for-profit corporations to bring racial discrimination cases. So you 
could have a racial profile as a corporation, but you couldn't have a 
religious profile as a corporation. This is an untenable position for 
the government to take.
  The Supreme Court has heard this case today. I join my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers to urge the Court to 
preserve the fundamental religious freedoms that Americans have 
enjoyed, the Constitution demands, that laws passed overwhelmingly by 
the Congress and signed by the President in 1993 continue to be the 
standard that is applied to our right of conscience, our right of 
belief, of what we want to believe, must believe, and do believe.
  I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues to talk about this very 
same topic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank Senator Blunt. I did not get to hear all of 
Senator Inhofe's comments, but as an Oklahoman I think we couldn't have 
a finer company or a finer corporate citizen than the Green family, in 
terms of their chains of stores around the country and what they have 
done. The reason they are successful is because they actually care, 
nurture, and support every one of their employees.
  They work on principles that they truly believe in, and it has really 
been the key to their success. They are never open on the sabbath. They 
believe in paying somebody a livable wage. They are big in the 
community. As a matter of fact, they are one of the largest 
contributors to organizations that are funded in the charitable realm. 
They go down deep to actually help people. They come with pure motives.
  The Senator from Missouri mentioned what Thomas Jefferson said in 
1809:

       No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man 
     than that which protects the rights of conscience against the 
     enterprises of civil authority.

  I want you to listen to that for a minute. Jefferson, one of the 
authors of the rules of the Senate, one of the key Framers of the very 
Constitution that we live under, recognized that it is most important 
to protect this conscience of the Green family to do what they think, 
according to their faith, is the right thing to do.
  My colleague referenced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Why 
was that necessary? Because we saw civil government starting to impede 
into an arena that Thomas Jefferson warned about. That is why it was 
passed, that is why it was signed, and that is why it is the law of the 
land. This is going to be a seminal case, and it has nothing to do with 
birth control. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control. It always has and 
always will. It has to do with can we allow the civil government to 
impede to such a level, as my colleague from Missouri said, that the 
government can now tell you what your values are, what you have to 
think, and how you have to act, on the basis of what the government 
says your values are.
  As an obstetrician who has delivered more than 4,000 children, as 
somebody who has cared for every complication of pregnancy, as somebody 
who believes in the value of newly created human life, all the Greens 
are saying is: We really shouldn't have to pay our money to abort a 
baby when we find it unconscionable to take innocent human life. It 
doesn't mean that people that work for them cannot get an abortion. It 
just says they don't want to violate their own conscience by supplying 
it.
  The other issue that ought to be evident to everybody is that plan B 
is over the counter. It is not even part of your health care. You can 
go buy it. As a matter of fact, there is not even an age limit on it 
now. A 12-year-old can go buy it over the counter. So it is not about 
limiting abortion; it is about the conscience of a very successful 
company. The reason they are successful is they follow the teachings of 
their faith. Now we have government in a position where they are going 
to tell them what their faith is.
  Let me reiterate what Jefferson said:

       No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man 
     than that which protects the rights of conscience against the 
     enterprises of civil authority.

  These are deeply felt and held beliefs based on their faith.
  The other side of this is we see their deeply held beliefs and how 
they have rescued universities, how they have come to the aid of food 
pantries, how they have actually been active in the community. 
Everywhere they are involved they are out following the same deeply 
held beliefs of helping the poor and indigent, giving people an 
opportunity through a college education that they never would have had, 
giving people a day of rest.
  Their stores are not open late. Their employees get to go home. They 
could sell more products if they were open later. They could sell more 
product if they were open on Sunday. They choose not to because they 
think the principles under which they operate their business based on 
their faith have created an environment which allows everybody who 
works for them to succeed. If you go through their businesses, if you 
go through their warehouses, and if you go to their stores, what you 
see is a smile on almost everybody's face. Why? Because people enjoy 
working there, because they are treated as human beings. They are 
lifted up. They are given opportunity. They are given the very things 
that we all want for our neighbors and for ourselves.
  My hope is that the Constitution will be looked at as the Supreme 
Court considers this case and that the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act will be looked at as the Supreme Court considers this case.

[[Page S1710]]

  The Affordable Care Act is not affordable; it is unaffordable. For 
Americans it has a $2 trillion cost over the next 10 years. It is a 
disaster in terms of how it has been implemented. It is going to be a 
disaster in terms of quality care and delayed care because of the 
increased deductibles that almost everybody is facing. We shouldn't let 
it be a disaster in terms of destroying businesses.
  We ought to embrace this family and their business for what they have 
done. They have taken advantage of the American enterprise system in a 
way that has built tremendous success, that has benefited not just the 
Green family but hundreds of thousands of people through their 
generosity, and their capability to empower people to get ahead.
  I am glad to see my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I would ask for an additional 5 minutes 
for the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President.
  I come to the floor today to talk about a very important case that 
the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on this morning that goes to the 
very core of our Nation's foundation--the future of religious freedom 
in the United States.
  As Americans we cherish our religious liberty. It lies at the heart 
of who we are as a people, and we know we must always guard against 
threats to our religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment of 
the Constitution. That is why I am joining my colleagues Senator Blunt 
and Senator Coburn on the floor today and speaking in support of the 
constitutional rights that all Americans have under the First 
Amendment, which guarantees the right of freedom of conscience and 
religious liberty.

  Here is what is at stake. Americans should not be forced to give up 
their religious freedom or their rights of conscience simply because 
they want to open a family business. American families should not be 
forced into choosing between their family business and complying with 
unlawful government mandates that infringe on the First Amendment to 
the Constitution, and that is why this case, which is being heard today 
by our Supreme Court, is so important to the American people.
  A provision of President Obama's health care law includes a mandate 
that threatens penalties on private organizations unless they 
involuntary agree to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. This 
is anathema to the First Amendment to our Constitution. If religious 
institutions and faith-based organizations are forced to comply with 
government mandates that violate the core principles of their faith, 
that is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it 
is contrary to what we stand for as Americans.
  I have heard from people in my State who are deeply concerned about 
this mandate and the issue that is being considered by the Supreme 
Court today. They are simply asking to have the same conscience rights 
they had before the President's health care law was passed--the same 
conscience rights that are enshrined in our Constitution that protect 
all Americans regardless of what our faith is and regardless of our 
background.
  This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role 
of our government. It is about who we are as Americans. If the 
government, through mandates, can take away our conscience rights, what 
does that say about other rights we have under our Constitution?
  This debate comes down to the legacy left behind by our Founding 
Fathers and over 200 years of American history. We have a choice 
between being responsible stewards of this legacy or allowing the 
Federal Government to interfere with religious life in an unprecedented 
way.
  Protecting religious freedom and conscience rights in the past has 
been a bipartisan issue. Congress has a long history of protecting 
religious liberty. I heard my colleague talk about the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act that was signed into law by President Clinton 
to ensure that the government should be held to a very high level of 
proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. 
That is what is at stake in the Supreme Court decision and the mandates 
that are being rendered by the health care law against private 
companies such as Hobby Lobby and others.
  This is what is at stake: Under the President's health care law, 
companies such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga--and we are proud to have a 
Hobby Lobby in the State of New Hampshire--that want to help and 
provide health care coverage for their employees could be forced to pay 
over $36,000 per employee unless they provide drugs and devices that 
violate their religious beliefs and conscience rights. Why should they 
be forced into this position? If the Federal Government is able to 
violate the First Amendment in this way, what is to stop other 
fundamental rights from being violated?
  Protecting religious freedom was once an issue that bound Americans 
together. I believe this effort, which is so fundamental to our 
national character, must bring us together once more.
  I look forward to seeing the Supreme Court's decision on this issue, 
but this is a case that never should have been filed. The Affordable 
Care Act, or ObamaCare, should have never violated the rights of 
conscience of these companies or of religious organizations, and it is 
time to turn this around. I look forward to the Supreme Court 
vindicating their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution, which should have been respected by this administration, 
but that is why we have a Supreme Court. I look forward to the Supreme 
Court decision, which I hope will uphold the First Amendment rights of 
the parties to this litigation and to all Americans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________