Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act --Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have always been a very strong proponent of family planning programs and of measures to promote and protect women's health. Like many Americans, however, I was very concerned in January when the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation to require religious universities, hospitals, charities, and other faith-based organizations to pay for health insurance that covers contraceptives and sterilizations regardless of the organization's religious beliefs. I believe such a mandate poses a threat to our religious freedom and presents the Catholic Church and other faith-based organizations with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating Federal regulations.

In February President Obama announced what he termed an ``accommodation'' that would require insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, to provide these services. But as I read the details of that ``accommodation,'' it became very clear to me that many parts of the plan remained unclear. A key issue, for example, revolves around self-insured religious-based organizations. There are many Catholic hospitals and universities that are self-insured and thus act as both the employer and the insurer, and a very important issue is how the rule would treat these self-insured faith-based organizations. But the rule was totally unclear. It simply said that the ``Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.''

In an attempt to clarify this critical issue, I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius asking for specific clarification on how faith-based organizations that are self-insured and thus act as both the insurer and the employer would have their rights of conscience protected. This was not a complicated question. It was a very straightforward question, and frankly, the answer to the question was going to determine my vote on this very important amendment.

Sadly, the administration once again skirted the answer. In her response, Secretary Sebelius simply said the President ``is committed to rulemaking to ensure access to these important preventive services in fully insured and self-insured group health plans while further accommodating religious organizations' beliefs.''

What does that mean, Mr. President?

I ask unanimous consent that both my letter to Secretary Sebelius and her reply be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this was very frustrating to me. I asked a key question, and I could not get a straight answer. It also demonstrates many of the problems associated with employer mandates.

I believe the sponsor of this amendment is completely sincere. I want to make that clear. But this issue has become yet another sad example of election-year politics. I believe a good compromise could have been reached and should have been worked out. For example, in Maine, State law requiring contraception coverage includes a specific exemption for religious employers, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. Surely we could have reached a similar accommodation. Unfortunately, what we are left with is another example of the political pandering that has so tested Americans' patience.

Since I could not and did not receive a straightforward answer to my question about protecting self-insured faith-based organizations, I feel that I have to vote for Senator Blunt's amendment, with the hope that its scope will be further narrowed and refined as the legislative process proceeds.

Critics of the Blunt amendment have charged that employers could use it as an excuse to deny coverage for services simply as a means to reduce their insurance costs. As Senator Blunt, however, has pointed out, the amendment includes specific language to require that the overall cost of the coverage remains the same even though an employer excludes certain services because of their religious beliefs. As a consequence, under this amendment, employers would have no incentive to exclude coverage of items or services simply because of financial considerations.

Mr. President, while I plan to support the amendment, I do so with serious reservations because I think the amendment does have its flaws. But when the administration cannot even assure me that self-insured faith-based organizations' religious freedoms are protected, I feel I have no choice.

I hope that the Senate will now be able to move forward to address the many important and pressing issues facing our Nation such as job creation, energy and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source