Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 47 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)

[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.

____________________