Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to express my gratitude to the Senator from Missouri for his leadership on this issue.

This used to be a topic that was a bipartisan issue dating back to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

But just so people can refresh their memories, there have been a number of allusions made to the language of the Constitution. But let me just read the first amendment to the Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, the fundamental law of the land that cannot be abridged or changed by a mere act of Congress, which is what we are concerned about; that the President's health care bill, the Affordable Care Act, so-called, purports to change the Constitution, which it cannot do. When there is a conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, that law falls as unconstitutional.

But the first amendment to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .....

Let me repeat that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .....

That is what we are talking about is the free exercise of religion. I agree with Senator Risch that one of the biggest problems with this legislation, the President's health care bill, the so-called affordable care act, which we have came to learn is not so affordable, is that it forces each individual in this country to buy a government-approved product according to the dictates of Congress. That is one of the issues the Supreme Court will be ruling on, whether that is even within the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause.

But Senator Risch makes a very good point; that is, the basic problem with this legislation generally is it is too big, it is too expensive, and it is too intrusive on the individual choices and freedoms of American citizens.

As I said, it used to be that religious freedom was a bipartisan issue. That is why I am so concerned this has turned into a purely partisan issue. It is very obvious to me that some of our colleagues on the floor believe they can make political hay by scaring people, by misleading people; that this is somehow about denying women access to contraception when that is not the issue.

This is about protecting our sacred constitutional freedoms. When I said religious freedom used to be a bipartisan issue, I was referring to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I think it is interesting to see who the sponsors were and people who were some of the principal proponents of the bill. That demonstrates it was bipartisan.

The lead sponsor in the House was Senator Chuck Schumer, now a Member of the Senate. Cosponsors included then-Representative Maria Cantwell, now in the Senate; then-Representative Ben Cardin, who is presiding today; and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In the Senate it had 60 cosponsors. Ted Kennedy was the lead sponsor. We have heard Senator Brown from Massachusetts saying the position he is taking on this issue of religious freedom is exactly the same position Senator Kennedy took during his lifetime. But 60 other Members of the Senate cosponsored this, including Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Murray, and Senator Reid, the majority leader of the Senate today.

It was signed into law by then-President Clinton, demonstrating that religious freedom was not a partisan issue, it was a bipartisan concern of Congress and the reason why this bipartisan legislation passed to protect religious freedom.

So similar to members of the Catholic Church who are concerned about being forced to provide coverage for surgical sterilization or drugs that induce abortions or other forms of contraception, members of the Muslim faith, if they are a woman, need not be concerned about restrictions on their ability or desire to wear a head scarf in public or in government buildings or dietary rules practiced by observant Jews or that Christians would not be somehow interfered with when it came to wearing religious symbols such as crosses or rosaries. This is not about those rules or those items of clothing or religious symbols, this is about religious freedom, over which Congress shall pass no law, under the words of our Constitution.

I am somewhat disappointed we now find ourselves--that the lines seem to have been drawn so sharply in a partisan way on an issue that used to enjoy such broad bipartisan support. It is my hope our colleagues will reconsider because it is not good for the country, it is not good for our Constitution, it is not good for the preservation of our liberties, for the very fundamental law of our land, the Bill of Rights, to become a partisan issue.

But if there is a fight, if there is a disagreement, I believe it is our responsibility to speak in defense of religious freedom and to remind our colleagues that Congress shall pass no law restricting religious freedom. That is what we are talking about.

I thank my colleague from Missouri for being the leader on this important amendment. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to voice the reasons for my support, and I hope our colleagues who are opposed to the amendment or have already publicly stated their opposition will reconsider.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source