Moving Ahead For Progress In The 21st Century Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with sadness and reluctance because we are actually debating an extraordinarily worthwhile, even historic bill that would not only improve our infrastructure--our roads and bridges and highways in the State of Connecticut and throughout the country--but also provide jobs, enable more economic growth, and promote the effort to put Connecticut and our country back to work. My reluctance is we are debating an amendment that distracts from that essential task, the work that the Nation elected us to do, to make our priority creating jobs and promoting economic growth.

We are debating an amendment that seems fundamentally flawed. I am respectful, as is everyone in this body, of the moral convictions and religious beliefs that others may hold. I believe this amendment is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It is unacceptably flawed in the way it is written because it essentially gives every employer--anytime, anywhere, with respect to any medical condition, any form of treatment--the right to deny that essential health care and those services based on his or her undefined religious beliefs or moral convictions--quoting from the language itself, ``religious beliefs'' or ``moral convictions''--without any defining limits.

Insurance companies can even deny a person coverage for mental health treatment or cancer screening or HIV and AIDS screening simply because that employer or insurance company may believe the causes of those conditions somehow violate his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions. This amendment would threaten access to a number of clinical preventive services such as diabetes screening, vaccinations or cancer screenings, essential preventive services that have been proved to reduce health care costs and save lives. Those services should be guaranteed to every American without cost.

In my home State of Connecticut, one of the smallest States in the country, approximately 270,000 women would lose access to preventive care if this amendment is agreed to. Around the country some 20 million women would lose that kind of access to preventive care. That is a result that simply is unacceptable. The amendment goes too far. It would endanger the lives of millions of Americans, would completely undermine the progress--and we have made progress--in providing crucial health care services to millions of individuals.

I oppose this amendment because of its practical implications, because of its apparent unconstitutionality, and because it flies in the face of sound public policy. At a time when we are considering a bill, the transportation measure that deservedly has broad, widespread, bipartisan support in this Chamber and across the country, we are again polarized, Republican against Democrat, regrettably divided and potentially gridlocked because of an amendment that has nothing to do with transportation or putting America back to work. That should be our task. It is my priority. It should be the priority of this Chamber at this historic moment when we are reviving a still struggling economy, when people are hurting, striving to find work, and when we should be doing everything in our power to put America and Connecticut back to work and enable economic growth.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source