[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1359-1361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 MAP-21

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished Republican colleague. The Senate just voted 85 to 11 to 
invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to the surface transportation 
bill, a bipartisan bill the sponsors of which, Senator Boxer and 
Senator Inhofe--an unlikely pair--have joined together to move forward 
on, a piece of legislation that is extremely important to this country, 
a bill that will save or create 2 million jobs.
  There are four parts of this bill within the jurisdiction of four 
Senate committees. The Environment and Public Works Committee is what 
we are on now. I have sought to amend that with a provision that is 
coming from the Banking Committee. We have one coming from the Finance 
Committee--that has been approved on a bipartisan basis, and we will 
move after we do those two to the Commerce section. We have not dealt 
with the Finance Committee provision or the Commerce Committee.
  I appreciate that the Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess 
up a good piece of legislation. We have had that happen now for the 
last 3 years. We saw it in spades last year. Here is a bipartisan bill 
to create and save jobs. No one disputes the importance of this 
legislation. Every State in the Union is desperate for these dollars. 
We are not borrowing money to do it; it is all paid for. Whether it is 
the State of West Virginia, the State of Missouri, or the State of 
Nevada, all the departments of transportation are waiting to find out 
what is going to happen at the end of March. That is fast approaching. 
We need to get this done.
  Then I hope we can deal with other matters and not get bogged down on 
this legislation. Let's do the Banking part of this bill. Let's do the 
Finance part of this bill. Let's do the Commerce part of this bill.
  But to show how the Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up 
a good piece of legislation, listen to this: They are talking about 
first amendment rights, the Constitution. I appreciate that. But that 
is so senseless. This debate that is going on dealing with this issue, 
dealing with contraception, is a rule that has not been made final yet. 
There is no final rule. Let's wait until there is at least a rule we 
can talk about. There is not a final rule. That is all you read about 
in the newspapers, why there are discussions going on as we speak. 
There is not a rule. Everybody should calm down. Let's see what 
transpires.
  Until there is a final rule on this, let's deal with the issue before 
us. That is saving jobs for our country. People can come and talk about 
the Constitution, the first amendment--I have never seen anything like 
this before, but I have never seen anything like this before, either. 
There is no final rule. Why don't we calm down and see what the final 
rule is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am, of course disappointed not being able 
to offer this amendment today, but it is an amendment we talked about 
for some time. It was a bipartisan amendment. It was a bipartisan piece 
of legislation. Senator Nelson from Nebraska and I wish to offer it and 
wish to offer it as soon as possible.
  I have the highest regard for both of our leaders, both the majority 
leader

[[Page 1360]]

and minority leader, and understand they have a job to do, but this 
highway bill is clearly going to take some time. This is a 4-page 
amendment that I would be glad to see voted on on Monday. It has been 
widely studied all week, this week. I would have been glad to see it 
voted on when I filed the bill in August. There was not a rule then 
either, but both Mr. Nelson and I, Senator Rubio, Senator Ayotte, and 
others were anticipating that we were going to begin to see exactly the 
kinds of things this discussion this week has brought about.
  This is about the first amendment. It is about religious beliefs. It 
is not about any one issue. In fact, this amendment specifically does 
not mention a specific issue. It refers to the issue of conscience. In 
the amendment itself the reference is made to the letter that in 1809 
Thomas Jefferson sent to the New London Methodist, where he says: of 
all the principles in the Constitution, the one that we perhaps hold 
most dear, if I could paraphrase it a little bit, is the right of 
conscience and that no government should be able to come in and impose 
itself between the people and their faith-based principles.
  In health care we have never had this before. Why didn't we need this 
amendment or why didn't we need the bill that was filed in August 5 
years ago or 1 year ago or 2 years ago or 3 years ago? Because only 
with the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act did we have the 
government in a position, for the first time ever, to begin to give 
specific mandates to health care providers.
  This bill would simply say those health care providers do not have to 
follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles, faith 
principles that are part of a health care delivery system. That could 
be through any number of different faith groups, and I have talked to a 
lot of them. Frankly, some of those faith group views of health care do 
not agree with my views or my faith's views of health care. But that is 
not the point here. This is not about whether I agree with what that 
faith group wants to do. It is whether they are allowed to do it; 
whether the representative of that view of health care and how it 
affects people is able to say to their government: No, this is 
something that is protected by the Constitution. It is protected by the 
first amendment. You cannot require me to provide a service--through a 
faith-based institution--that I do not agree with or you cannot require 
me as a health care provider to provide a service that I do not agree 
with because of my faith.
  It doesn't mean you cannot get it somewhere else if it is something 
that can legally be done. It just means people of faith or institutions 
of faith do not have to do it. That is why in almost every Catholic 
church in America, the last two weekends, a letter has been read from 
the bishop or the archbishop that said this is unacceptable, it should 
not be complied with.
  That is why the Chaplain to the Army, the Chief Archbishop to the 
Army, Bishop Broglio, sent out a letter to be read at Catholic mass at 
Army posts all over the country. Initially that letter was not going to 
be read because it did not agree with the tenets the government was 
pursuing at the time--which is the violation that people would see most 
offensive, I think, that the government would actually begin to say to 
people of faith you cannot even talk about it. You cannot even have 
that letter read on a military post, from the person who is responsible 
to the chaplains and the Catholic chaplains in the military.
  Maybe it is a faith view of how to deliver health care that somebody 
in the Christian Science community has or somebody in the Seventh Day 
Adventist community has or the Southern Baptist community or whatever 
that might be. The specific thing is not the issue here. The issue here 
is can government require a faith-based institution to go beyond the 
tenets of its faith.
  I know the Democratic leader, the majority leader, said there is not 
even a rule yet. The White House said--the administration said there 
would be a rule. And to make it even more offensive, they said: And, by 
the way, here is what the rule is going to be and we are going to give 
you a year to figure out how to adjust your views to accommodate the 
rule.
  I would have been less offended if they said here is the rule and we 
understand it is in violation of your views but here is what is going 
to be the rule and you will have to comply with it. The idea they could 
change your views, your religious views, your religious beliefs, in a 
year or a lifetime because some Federal regulator says you need to is 
unbelievably offensive in our country based on the principles that we 
hold most dear in the Constitution itself.
  So this amendment, which is bipartisan in nature and I think easily 
understood because it is so fundamental to who we are, is an amendment 
that could be quickly debated, it could be quickly voted on. The Senate 
of the United States could express its view. I believe that view would 
be one supportive of institutions of faith.
  By the way, also, the administration saying we gave an exemption for 
the church itself--No. 1, I do not know how long that exemption would 
last. And, No. 2, I think that shows a lack of understanding of the 
work of the church or the work of the synagogue or the work of the 
mosque or the work of people of coming together. If the only thing that 
matters in their work is what happens within the four walls of the 
church or whoever works in the four walls of the church every day, 
these institutions are not what I believe they are.
  The great schools, the great hospitals, the great community-providing 
institutions of America have, so many of them for so long, been based 
on faith principles. This amendment would say for health care, those 
faith principles would still be the overriding principle. For health 
care, if someone does not agree with the direction of the government, 
they do not have to perform that service. They do not have to provide 
that specific kind of insurance to their employees.
  Remember, the underlying bill here, the underlying rule that has been 
announced, even though it may not have been officially issued, is one 
that talks about people who have chosen to go to work for, to get a 
paycheck for, to work at the direction of a faith-based community. Then 
to tell that community what your insurance has to look like--that is 
just one of the many steps. If the government can do that, what can't 
the government do? If the government can do that, where does the 
government stop? If the government can do that--when you say this is 
something I don't believe in so I don't want to be part of this 
particular health care issue, this health care moment, this health care 
episode--whatever you want to call it, you say, oh, well, you have to 
do it because the government says you have to do it and the first 
amendment does not matter, the protection of conscience doesn't matter, 
the Jefferson letter to New London Methodist doesn't matter.
  Until the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, this was never an issue and nothing would happen if this amendment 
was approved and became the law of the land. Nothing would be different 
tomorrow than it was a year ago, because a year ago people were not 
doing this. Five years ago nobody would have even thought it was 
possible, that the Federal Government would tell a faith-based hospital 
what their insurance plan exactly had to look like, the plan that they 
offered their employees or would tell faith-based health care providers 
what they could do and what they could not do or would say if you are 
not going to do everything the government will pay for, we will not pay 
you to do anything the government pays for.
  This is an issue many people in the country feel strongly about, many 
people in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, feel strongly 
about. We can let this go on and create the anxiety it creates for the 
faith community or we can bring this amendment up, debate it--and, 
frankly, I think it is pretty well understood--debate it, vote on it, 
and let the country know that we

[[Page 1361]]

still support the Constitution of the United States.
  While I am disappointed I did not get to offer this amendment today, 
I will be back and I am going to do my best to get this amendment 
offered at the earliest possible time, and I would be glad to see the 
Senate join me, and the majority join me, in saying let's get this 
important issue off the minds of the American people and let them know 
the Constitution still matters and religious liberty is still the first 
amendment to the Constitution in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 2091 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________