religious freedom act in 1993 created cause of action. you can't go in and have an unreasonable incursion on the faith beliefs of people under the first amendment, no matter how good you think the cause might be, it's not good enough to violate that fundamental principle. and senator ayotte has had lots of contact from our side. i think many of us have. you know, if you were in a -- if you were -- last week, if you were in a military service, you might have heard one of these letters read. and i just saw the line that had to be taken out of the letter, apparently, that the army wouldn't otherwise -- was standing in front of but was read in the other services was the line that said we cannot, we will not comply with this unjust law. when the government begins to tell people to do things that

violate their faith principles, the government has gone too far, and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, what is the parliament situation? the presiding officer: the majority controls the time until 6:00, and senators are limited to speak for up to ten minutes. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, madam president. i claim ten minutes of the democratic majority time, and i come to the floor to speak about women's health, and i come to speak about the issue of prevention, and i come to talk about the fundamental -- i want fundamentally everybody to remember what we debated and what we did in the health care bill. for the first time in a long time, our nation is talking about women's health.

boy, am i glad to hear that. it's most of all been going on on the morning talk shows and in our front pages of our newspapers, but unfortunately too much of the conversation isn't really about women's health. it's politics disguised as women's health. now, what should we be talking about when it comes to women? we should be talking about what are the top killers of women. cancer, that dreaded, dreaded, dreaded c word of breast cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, or the highest killers of -- are the highest killers of women. lung cancer, cervical cancer and breast cancer. then there are the silent killers of women -- undetected diabetes and then the consequences of heart and vascular disease. and what did we talk about in the health care bill to deal with that? we talked about the fact that we

needed preventative services, that we believed in early detection, we believed in screening for early detection so that we could identify those consequences that would negatively impact women in terms of their health care. one of the things that we know is that for many women don't have health insurance at all. 17 million are uninsured. women are most likely to neglect their treatment because of cost. women of child-bearing age are also even more at risk because they are in those jobs that tend to be starting out and they don't, don't pay for health insurance. but we tackled a lot of this in the health care bill. i'm so proud of one of the first things that we did. we ended gender discrimination in health care. the punitive practices of insurance companies

discriminated against women by charging more for women of the same age and the same health status as men, but we came together and we united and we passed part of the affordable health care act. we ended gender discrimination. then we saw that simply being a woman was being treated as a preexisting condition. i held a hearing that was bone chilling about this. when we listened to how women were discriminated against and aspects that had happened to them were viewed as a preexisting condition. in eight states, if you were a victim of domestic violence, you couldn't get health insurance. another bone-chilling story, which was breathtaking, a woman testified at our hearing that because she had a c-section, her

insurance company told her they would drop her from their insurance plan unless she got a sterilization. that was in the hearing. she had a letter from her insurance company. we were aghast, both sides of the aisle, regardless of how you feel about some of these reproductive issues. nobody felt that in america that should happen. so the people on the committee led by me say we can't just have that, so we have ended discrimination against women in getting health care on the basis of preexisting conditions. but we wanted to go farther, and one of the things we looked at was the issue of prevention. and this is a subject of great debate. our very first amendment on the senate floor during the health care debate was one to have preventative health care

benefits. i offered an amendment. the gentlelady from alaska, senator murkowski, offered a counteramendment. her amendment was terrific. she had every preventative service that i would have ever thought of. c.b.o. scored it, though, at something like $50 million. the c.b.o. score sunk the murkowski amendment, but the mikulski amendment prevailed in which we said we'll leave it to the institute of medicine to determine what would be some of these amendments for women. so guess what we have. in our preventative health amendment, which is now the subject of such debate, such controversy, and unfortunately such misinformation, our amendment said this -- first of all, if you are over 50, you get a free yearly mammogram, one of our highest risk age groups. second, you also if you're over

40, you get an annual well woman preventative care visit. this then goes to the screenings that then go to the highest risk for the highest diseases we have, early detection and early screening. for young women who are pregnant, we guaranteed that they could be screened for diabetes, but also in our prevention amendment, we provided for maternity services. we provided for maternity services so those women could get proper prenatal care. working with their doctor, we could ensure the health of the mother and the survivability and the ability to carry her pregnancy to term. we looked out for those maternity benefits. i.o.m. also said that part of prevention, we should add contraceptive coverage. that was a recommendation, not

of senator barr, not of senator jeanne shaheen. this was a recommendation of the institute of medicine. and why did they say that? first of all, there are over 15% or 20% of women who need to take birth control in order to deal with the medical issues around their menstrual cycles. this isn't the place to go into the biology of being a woman, but this has -- for many, this is for people long before young women, adolescents, experiencing some significant hormonal problems that are not sexually active, and for people who -- it's not always about being sexually active. so this whole thing about the preventative amendment was all about birth control is so exaggerated, so overblown, so

out of context with what we wanted to do, i'm shocked and i'm -- i'm just shocked. and we looked at our bill, in addition to my amendment, we included preventative services for men and women, those services that affected us both. colorectal screening for adults over 50. that also includes prostrate screening for men. it has high blood pressure and diabetes screening. there is also the ability to do alcohol misuse screening, which in many instances is an undetected and silent killer, not only of lives but of families. so you see our major thrust -- one of our major this rusts was prevention. one, maternity benefits so that a mother could be safe and well herself and be able to carry her pregnancy to term in a way that

ensured the health of both the mother and the child, when the child is born. the fact that we had these other screenings, the mammograms, the prostate cancer, the diabetes, the things that are the killers of us all. some of these will close the health disparity gap because so many of our african-american men face terrible problems with health -- with high blood pressure that lead to terrible consequences of stroke. diabetes again rampant in our country but particularly rampant among people of color. so that's what we were doing. so i find it troubling that instead of focusing on our preventative health services, we're focusing on birth control. birth control was never the focus of health care reform. it was a recommendation to be included in the benefit that came from the institute of medicine. now, there is another confusion

out there about mandating churches against doing something against their will. i want to draw the distinction about what the bill does between mandating the provision of service and providing insurance coverage. the bill does include insurance coverage, but there is no place in the bill that mandates a religious organization provide something against their principle, that's providing the service. so if you are st. mary's hospital, you do not have to give out birth control in your women's health clinic. if you are notre dame university or georgetown university or another -- or a catholic woman's college, you do not have to give

out birth control in your student health clinic. what the obama-sebelius regs say is there has to be insurance coverage to those, particularly to those who are non-catholic. and for all of us who go to these wonderful institutions and benefit from their services, they are nondiscriminatory in who they hire. you don't have to be catholic to teach at a catholic college. you don't have to be catholic to work at a catholic hospital. you don't have to attend -- you don't have to be catholic. so these institutions hire people of a variety of religious preferences. so i don't want to get into a debate on the first amendment, but i do welcome a debate on what the health care bill did and what it intended. the health care bill, i felt, was one of the greatest social

justice initiatives that i participated in in the senate. it was going to work in an organized and an effective way to make sure that we were on the road, that every american had access to affordable care. and then we removed the barriers to that which were not only financial but often these discriminatory practices, these punitive practices that often were directed against women and the preexisting condition or in gender discrimination and the way they set their pricing. and the other thing was the best care was preventative care, and one of the tools well known in the public health field were these screen tests that we worked to provide and also we turn to the eminent and distinguished people in learned societies, in this case the institute of medicine to tell

us, not based on politics, but to tell us based on science what should be these benefits, and they added contraceptive coverage. so that's the history. i hope it clears up the misinformation, but we did work to move our citizens to greater health care, remove the financial and other societal barriers to getting health care in our society and a fantastic emphasis on prevention. we have gotten off to the wrong debate, and we -- and the wrong discussion. let's get back to talking about how we improve the health care of women and how we can keep moving one of our preventative aspects that not only help women but help the men who so love us and support us, and we want to return the favor by making sure they get their screening, too. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator -- senior senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm pleased to be able to join my colleague from maryland to try and point out how this issue is being manipulated. almost two years ago, congress, this institution, voted to end discrimination against women by health insurance plans. we voted to make it easier for women to seek referrals to see the health specialists they need and voted to give women greater access to affordable preventive health care services, including contraception. these are important historic he, historic advances for women's health and they should not fall victim to ideological policies. over the last several weeks, we've seen women all across this country stand up in huge numbers to support women's health. that grassroots support will be

needed again and again to stave off ideological attacks on women's health care. over the past year, house republicans have repeatedly attempted to both eliminate funding for title 10 family planning and to defund planned parenthood. thankfully, we've been able to block these attempts in the senate. 97% of the reproductive health services provided by planned parenthood in new hampshire and across the country are preventive care, and as we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and safe lives -- saves lives. we are reminded of the important role planned parenthood plays in preventive health when the susan k. komen foundation decided to end its contracts with the provider. it's up fair to politicize women's health in the way we saw played out in the media last

week. women from across the country let their voices be heard. the 750,000 women who received breast cancer screenings at planned parenthood clinics with support from the komen foundation deserve better. they didn't ask to be thrown into the political fire. they merely sought detention and treatment against a life-threatening disease. i'm pleased that komen reversed that decision. i also commend the president for standing up for women's health and reaffirming the recommendation of the institute of medicine to protect access to affordable birth control for all women. the decision requiring health plans to cover contraception with no co-pays or deductibles will improve the lives of millions of women and their families. birth control pills can cost up to $600 billion a year -- up to

$600 a year. study have shown that it costs employers as much as 17% more to exclude contraceptive coverage and health plans than to provide such coverage. birth control is also a fundamental health care issue. doctors and public health experts agree that increased access to birth control prevents unintended pretty good neans -- pregnancies. it is directly linked to declines in infant and ma terptd mortality and a reduction in ovarian cancer. it is linked to overall good health outcomes. permanent and temporary contraception is critical for family planning purposes but many women, a full 14%, use birth control for medical and health reasons, including helping to reduce the risk of some cancers, treatment for end owe

endometriosis, serious infections and cysts. now, let's be clear. in talking about the benefits of birth control, i'm not telling women they must use it. the decision on whether or not to pursue contraception is an individual choice that each woman must make for herself with her family. no part of the affordable care act or the president's ruling regarding insurance coverage forces any women -- any woman to use contraception. however, birth control will now be affordable and accessible for any woman who in consultation with her doctor decides that she needs or wants to use it. the policy represents one of the greatest advances for women's health in decades. sadly, there's an aggressive and misleading campaign to deny this benefit to women.

a conscience clause exists that exempts religious institutions like churches from having to carry insurance that covers contraception. 335,000 churches and their employees in this country are exempt. now, many have argued that that conscience clause should be expanded to include religiously affiliated hospitals and universities in the name of religious liberty. the millions of women who work in a catholic hospital or university from the overnight nurse to the classroom aide or cafeteria worker who choose to use birth control should have the same access as their counterparts at other institutions. that is their decision. it is not their employer's. there are religions that believe divorce is a sin. should these institutions be exempt from our labor laws and be allowed to discriminate based

on marital status? of course not. and this is no different. a recent survey showed 71% of american voters, including 77% of catholic women voters, support the requirement to make birth control available to all. they understand that religious freedom means that all women, catholic or non-catholic, should have the opportunity to make their own decisions when it comes to birth control. i applaud the president for his decision and for putting women's health above politics. now, we know that ideological attacks on women's health care will continue. but i thank my colleagues who are here today for speaking out against those who want to turn the clock back on women, who want to limit access and availability of women's health services. we are watching and we are going to continue to be watching.

thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: last week we saw something amazing happening in communities across the country. when the news got out that the susan g. komen foundation had had cut off funding for breast cancer screenings at planned parenthood, women in this country were outraged. they didn't understand the decision, they didn't agree with it and they did something about it. they picked up their phones, they talked to their friends, they emailed, they tweeted,

they called their elected officials, they made their voices loud and clear and they got results. on friday of last week, komen did the right thing and announced they had reversed their initial decision and i really want to commend them for that because their mission and their great work the fight against breast cancer is just too important to get mixed up in partisan politics. but, mr. president, although that reversal was a great victory for so many women and men across the country, let's be clear -- our fight for women's health care didn't end there. there are still many who continue to push partisan politics ahead of women's health, and we need to make sure the grassroots support and energy that successfully came together to right that wrong last week continues to stand firm against each and every attack that comes our way. because, mr. president, we do know those attacks are coming.

republicans in the house of representatives have been waging a war on women's health since the moment they came into power. after campaigning across the country a year and a half ago on a platform of jobs and the economy, the first three bills that they introduced were direct attacks on women's health in america. the very first one, h.r. 1, would have totally eliminated title 10 funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention. it included an amendment that would have completely defunded planned parenthood and cut off support for the millions of women in this country who count on it. another one of their opening rounds of bills would have permitly codified the hyde amendment and the d.c. abortion ban and the original version of their bill didn't even include an exception for the health of the mother. and finally, they introduced a bill right away that would have rolled back every single one of the gains we made for women in

the health care reform bill. their bill would have removed the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that protect women from losing their homes or their life savings if they get sick. it would have ended the ban on lifetime limits on coverage. it would have allowed insurance companies to once again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums or even denying women care because of the so-called preexisting conditions. conditions like being pregnant. and, mr. president, it would have rolled back the guarantee that insurance companies cover contraceptives which will save the overwhelming majority of women who use them hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year. now, we know that insuring access to effective birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, to reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall

health outcomes for women and far fewer unintended pretty good neans and -- pregnancies and abortions which is a goal that we all share. and, mr. president, contraceptive coverage shouldn't be a controversial issue. it is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand how important it is for women and families. and i also want to note that the affordable contraceptive policy we put in place preserves the freedoms of conscience and religion for every american. churches and other religious institutions are exempt and no doctor would ever have to dispense contraceptives if that's at odds with his or her religious views. but it also protects the rights of the millions of americans who do use contraceptives, who believe that family planning is the right choice for them personally, and who don't deserve to have politics or an extreme minority's ideology prevent them from getting the coverage that they deserve. so i'm very glad, joining with all of my colleagues, that we

beat back that effort by the house republicans, and i truly want to commend president obama for moving forward with this sound policy for women across america. because, mr. president, what this is really about, is what it needs to be about, women and their health care needs. not partisan politics, not point scoring. house republicans and their allies have demonstrated they will stop at nothing to politicize this issue. last year, they even threatened to shut down the federal government in a failed attempt to defund an organization that provides critical health services for millions of women in this country. and now they're trying to cut off contraceptive coverage for women across america. well, they can keep trying to push their extreme agenda but they should know, we are going to fight back just as hard. right here in the senate as we clearly saw this past week with the voices of millions of people across america who feel very

strongly that politics should never come between a woman and her health care. men and women who will be watching what is happening here in d.c. and who i'm confident stand ready to act again. so i'm proud to be here with my colleagues today. i'm proud of the victory of last week and i'm determined to remain vigilant and keep up the fight for women, for men, and their families. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i am all of a sudden very proud to be here with my colleagues. i think senator murray was eloquent, senator shaheen, senator mikulski, and i'm here to put it in my own words. and that is here they go again. sadly, politics has once again entered into women's health care. this time see an attempt to deprive women of a critical

benefit, access to contraception, through their health insurance plans. just last week what did we see? a move to punish women by taking away their free breast cancer screenings, all because of right-wing politics. before that, as senator murray eloquently indicated, we saw a republican move to defund family planning because of politics. my republican colleagues almost shut down the government over family planning, and now if they have their way, millions of women could lose their contraceptive coverage, which could expose them to declining health outcomes and their babies to declining health outcomes and could cost them about $600 a year. let's step back and look at where we are. some months ago, the institute

of medicine, which is a number of leading scientific and health experts, made a decision. they advised the moings on -- obama administration on what health benefits should be included specifically for women in new health insurance plans. that's what this whole to-do is all about. this organization that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with health care made a very clear recommendation to the obama administration. they said there's a number of preventive benefits that should be included for free for women of this country. screening for gestational diabetes, h.i.v. screening, cervical cancer prevention, annual well women visits, and access to contraception. and now just as these women,

our women of this nation are ready for these preventive services, services they need, services most of them want, my republican friends from presidential candidates romy ni -- romney to newt gingrich and senate and house republican leaders, i heard senator mcconnell threaten legislation to take away these benefits, to speaker boehner, to individual republicans in both houses, they're gearing up to repeal one of these benefits, access to birth control. access to birth control. now, i believe women in this country deserve respect. some of them don't want access to birth control. they have a religion that dictates their views and they have every right to make that

decision. and others decide that they need to have access to birth control. so the obama administration says to the women of this great nation they believe there ought to be access. but i think it's very important. the institute of medicine said, no exception, they think access to contraception is so important to women's health, they didn't want anyone exception. but the obama administration made an exception for churches, for religious institutions. and under the obama administration's rule, 335,000 religious organizations will not have to offer birth control if they have a conscience reason not to do so. that is a compromise. remember, the health experts said no exception. the obama administration said,

well, i want to respect the religious institutions and so i will allow them, if their mission is religious and the people they serve are basically of one religion and the employees that they hire, they're a religious institution, they will not have to offer contraception in the health care benefits to their employees. but guess what? there's another part of this equation -- women. women. they have to have their religious beliefs respected, and that is why the president also said, if you run an organization that serves a diverse number of people from different religions and so on and different beliefs, let them have the right to make that decision if they want to obtain free birth control through their insurance. now, here's the thing.

mr. president, this outcry is astonishing to me since 28 states already assure access to birth control. i have never heard any of my colleagues -- maybe they did, maybe they did come on the floor and complain. but more than half of our women, over 28 states, more than half of women have access to birth control. so this isn't some new benefit. this is just making sure that all women except that very narrow band that work for strictly religious institutions have the right to have access to free birth control. and the outscrew unbelievabl une outcry is unbelievable, a political outcry making this a political issue when it is a medical issue. the president compromised. he said, you're strictly a religious institution, you don't

have to do this if you don't want to. now, here's the other thing. all organizations that have any religious issue have an extra year to determine if they're going to offer this or how they can do it. they may be able to find a way in that year to get women access and at the same time not violate their conscience, they have an extra year to do that. but, oh, no, we're going to see legislation -- i can assure you, we're going to see legislation to overturn this, legislation that even goes further than th this, and it's going to be a battle here on the floor of the senate, i'm afraid. i'm not afraid of the fight. i welcome it. because let's be clear. virtually all women have used birth control at some point in their lives. let me repeat this. virtually all women have used birth control at some point in

their lives, including 98% of catholic women. that's the fact. and 71% of american voters, including 77% of catholic women voters, support the administration's policy. so if my colleagues decide they're going to take this issue on in the face of overwhelming support for this policy by the american people, i say we're ready, we're ready to make the case. access to birth control is directly linked to maternal and infant health. this isn't some theoretical right. it's a right that is necessary. health experts tell us that women with unintended pregnancies are less likely to get prenatal care in the first trimester and in some cases they never get it. and, mr. president, if there is

one thing that should unite us, it's healthy babies, healthy outcomes from healthy pregnancies, and that's what we're talking about. so i want to talk about something else we don't hear enough of and i want to compliment senator gillibrand on this because she's the one who brought this issue to my attention. a full 14% of women who use birth-control pills -- that's over 1.5 million women -- use them to treat serious medical conditions, mr. president, not to prevent pregnancies. what are those conditions? debilitating monthly pain, irregular cycles, conditions likened meet yoaselike -- like . serious conditions. i just learned of a young woman at georgetown, georgetown university did not offer this

free insurance policy regarding birth control. her doctor told her she had a serious medical condition and she needed to use birth control pills. it had nothing to do with pregnancies or anything else or preventing pregnancies. it was serious medical conditi condition. and the diagnosis was -- i may not say it right -- "polycystic ovary syndrome." now, what happened is, she was told you must go on birth control pills but we at georgetown, we won't pay for that benefit. she had to go out and do it. it was more than $100 a month and she couldn't afford it. within months, she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically, and, in addition, she lost an ovary. so please don't stand here and tell us that women don't need access to birth control pills or

contraception because we have story after story after story. and let me tell you something else, mr. president. some folks may not know, and that is that on many occasions when a woman wants to become pregnant and has irregular cycles and can't, she will be put on the birth control pill. and a british scientific study came out and showed that after five years on birth control pills, women who had this problem were able to become pregnant and become mothers. so this isn't some simple pat statement. this is about making sure that the women of this country, the young women, the middle-aged, women of childbearing age and older women who have other conditions get the medicines that they need. and, by the way, get them for free. $600 a year for many middle-class and working poor women is just out of reach.

out of reach. so i say to my republican friends who came to the floor previous to our statements, don't punish women again, don't try to. under the administration plan, churches are respected and women are respected. all sides are respected. no one is forced to use birth control. it is up to the woman. 28 states, more than 50% of the women already have this benefit. why are you bringing politics into this? my republican friends want to turn back the clock on birth control. some of us remember the days when birth control was illegal. well, i have news for them, this is the 21st century. wake up. look at your calendar. it's the 21st century and women ought to be respected and

women ought to be trusted and their families ought to be trusted and respected, and we are not going quietly into the night on this one. we will be here. we will fight back. we will fight for women and their families and health care, and we will fight to keep politics out of the equation. thank you very much. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i come to the floor now as a father and a grandfather. bonnie and i have five daughters and grandparents of eight granddaughters. nothing in our family and nothing in families across this country have anything more

critical in their minds than the health of their children, their daughters and our families. women in this rich country have a right to expect affordable, quality health care. but those rights are under attack here. and the attack is coming from what i call the male-agarchy. several years ago i initiated the name "male-agarchy" right here on this senate floor. a male-agarcyh is made up of men in congress who always decide what they want to do for women, even taking away their rights. and these days, the male-agarchy has declared war on women's health. we saw it when the republicans in the house tried to defund planned parenthood. and now we're seeing it again

this week in the republican efforts to take away affordable birth control, basic health care for women in our country. under an historic provision of the health care reform law, health insurance companies will be required to cover conception with no additional co-pays or fees. this landmark requirement is scheduled to go into effect this summer. but as women cheer this new law, the male-agarchy is looking to take it away. here in the senate, there's a republican bill to rid -- get rid of these benefits for women. imagine. this body, principally made up of males, wants to take away

benefits for women. the top presidential candidate on the republican side is mitt romney. he just said one of the first things he'll do -- i heard it, everybody heard it; it was loudly broadcast, vividly broadcast on television -- he will do as the first thing, if elected, is overturn these new policies, making birth control more affordable. imagine. that's his promise. that's why he wants to be elected. i hope the american public is listening carefully to what's being said. mr. president, affordable birth control shouldn't be controversial. i thought we put this question to rest long ago. back in 1965 the supreme court overturned the state of connecticut's ban on

contraception. and today 99% of women either use birth control or have used it at some point during their lives. it has become a critical component of health care for women in our country. but as so many women know, birth control is also significantly expensive. one-third of all women have struggled to pay for it. and even if you have health insurance, it's a struggle. co-pays for birth control can be as much as $50 a month. $50 a month adds up to $600 a year. and now the other side wants to take this benefit away. president obama and many of us in congress believe that's fundamentally unfair. mr. president, everyone needs to speak up against this attack on women's health just as they did

last week when the komen foundation, a foundation that was founded carrying the name of a young woman, susan komen, who died of breast cancer. when that foundation allowed a partisan agenda to cancel its mission to fight breast cancer. imagine that. this organization, named for a woman, a young woman who died, and now they want to cut off these examinations for women to see whether or not breast cancer is ahead for them. komen tried to cut funding to planned parenthood, a trusted provider of lifesaving breast cancer exams for hundreds of thousands of women in our country. across america women were offended, hurt, and angry, so they spoke up and spoke out against komen's narrow-minded decision.

people were outraged, and justifiably so. mr. president, i was proud to bring together more than two dozen of our senate colleagues to join the fight. we persuaded komen to see the error of their ways, and they reversed their decision a few days later. now the komen organization and planned parenthood are getting back to do what they do best: protecting women's health. let's be clear, it would have been wrong to take away resources that could save their lives, just like it's wrong to deny the women the right to affordable contraception. i call on my republican colleagues, dispanned that male-agarchy view. join us and stand up for women in our country. politics don't believe, don't belong in our doctors' offices,

our examining rooms or our medical clinics. politics should never be used to block women's rights to get the care that they need for healthier lives. and i ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, consider what you're doing before you vote to take away those rights. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am honored to rise today after my distinguished colleagues have spoken on this issue so powerfully and eloquently. i do so reluctantly because i rise in the face of a tepbg

assault -- of a continuing assault on women's health care in this country. an assault on women's health care that is unworthy of our political system, because individual decisions by women should be made by them. they are a matter of their conscience and their choice. politics has no place in health care decisions. this assault is waged by a group on the radical right. it's an ideologically based attack into personal health care decisions of women and their families, and they're wasting taxpayer dollars to do it. the ideological base stand on women's health care over these years is nothing less than unconscionable and unbelievable. i've only been in this body for a short time, but one of the first votes that i cast was on

h.r. 1, which wasn't about growing jobs or strengthening our economy. it was known best for completely eliminating the funding of responsible family planning programs. now the fact is that family planning can prevent unintended high-risk pregnancies, reduce abortion rates, reduce abortion rates. and they are cost effective. they provide $4 of return for every $1 that is spent on family planning invested in those programs. but there are some on the radical right who would rather have the people of our nation pay $11 billion a year in unplanned pregnancies rather than receive a nearly threefold return on investment for family planning services. this debate is about more than

dollars and cents and more than cost. it is about protecting the right of every woman to receive good-quality preventive care and equal access to preventive health care benefits from the provider they trust. and these decisions should be made between the provider that a woman trusts and herself. in 2010, congress took a great step forward that my colleague, senator mikulski, has described so powerfully. a decision to require that health care plans cover a core packet of preventive health services, moving our country dramatically and historically toward a trend of overall lifetime health. the institute of medicine, an

unbiased scientific organization, was tasked with evaluating the most important preventive services to include in the best health outcomes for women, seeking those best health outcomes for every woman in america. this scientific organization named birth control as one of those core benefits. birth control -- and let's be very clear, we are talking about birth control. the pill that 99% of women use as part of their daily preventive health care at some point in their lives. 99% of women use it. that very same benefit, coverage for it is guaranteed by 28 states around the nation. they already require health care plans to cover it.

and more than half the women of our nation live in those states. now, the radical right would seek to take away that guarantee, that coverage, that basic health care outcome. take away that right, repeal it, restrict it, remove it as an option for women. that is unacceptable. women spent an average of $500 per year for birth control, a cost that men will never have to incur. and that is why the institute of medicine recommended that birth control be included as part of the package of preventive services without co-pays, because cost should not be a barrier to those 99% of women in the united states who use birth control.

and yet, the radical right has decided that the politics of taking birth control away from women is more important, and they've used every tool in their arsenal creating misunderstanding to try to take this right away from women, including misrepresenting what the administration has decided to do. one of these mistruths that they are spreading is that churches will be required to offer birth control. not so. another is that institutions affiliated with churches will be required to provide those services. not true. what any institution is required to cover is in fact the coverage, not necessarily provide the service. and that is a key distinction.

the majority of americans agree that employers would be required to provide their -- that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. the majority of americans believe that is true. nearly two-thirds of young americans of child-bearing age agree that employer health care coverage should include birth control at no cost. in short, this decision should be a matter of conscience, a matter of choice for individual women. politicians should not be permitted to exploit it as some are doing now. i stand for women making choices about their own health care. and i stand against politicians

telling them what they should do. this issue before this body and this nation is one of the critical issues of this time, and politics has no place in these health care decisions. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended

until 7:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: we're in morning business, correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. we are in morning business. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. products that are labeled "made in china" can be found in our cars and our closets and our cupboards. so, too, are the ingredients in the foods we eat often, the medicine we take, the candy our children enjoy, the toys they play with. but how many times do we hear in the last few years of illness and death from contaminated

foods or drugs or toys that are made in china? in toledo, ohio, patients died after taking contaminated heparin to treat their heart conditions. drug manufacturers have acknowledged that they turn to countries like china to buy ingredients to put into pharmaceuticals. u.s. companies often move production to china, buy ingredients there, put these drugs together, sell them back into the united states with ingredients that may not pass some of the safety inspections that they should. one company acknowledged that 17 -- that 17% of its active ingredients in manufacturing are outsourced, often to countries with weaker drug safety standards. when high lead levels were discovered in toys several years ago, i urged stronger oversight to help keep our children safe. four years ago, i asked dr. dr. jeffrey weidenhammer of

ashton university in north central ohio to test -- he had already begun testing with his students. we asked him to do it again, to test the lead level in halloween toys, including the cups and the buckets that ohio children would be eating out of and decorations families would be using that children often put into their mouths during the holidays. he tested products in the fall of 2008 -- 2007 for halloween, in the spring for easter toys of 2008. he identified 12 of 97 products were contaminated with high quantities, much, much higher than what's considered safe by our government, high lead -- lead contents on this lead-based point -- paint on our toys. among them, candy buckets, drinking cups, fake teeth and other halloween props. in easter, it was eggs and baskets and other things. it included products bought at leading national retailers. at the same time, it was clear that our trading system

patterned in many ways and with businesses following this business plan of shutting down production in places like rhode island where the presiding officer represents and ohio, shutting down production in our country and moving it to china, selling products -- manufacturing there and selling products here. that trade system has failed basic consumer and public safety standards. there is nothing free about trade that puts children in the hospital for playing with a toy or eating candy or brushing their teeth. that's why congress passed the consumer product safety improvement act. the act sent a simple message to the consumer product safety commission. it's charged with protecting consumers, protect american children, protect families, protect companies from unsafe and possibly fatal products. that job has gotten a lot harder to protect the american public on food products, on toys, on

pharmaceuticals and in a moment on pet food, which i will discuss, because the business plan for so many companies has been shut down production in canton, ohio, and move it to china, shut down production in toledo or dayton or ohio and move it to china, in order to save money, in order to cut worker safety costs, in order to evade environmental and consumer regulations sometimes. the new law that we passed meant that hundreds of thousands of toys and food and other imports from china and elsewhere can be recalled when they are unsafe. the key is inspection of these products, and the key is making the companies that outsource the jobs to china in order to save money, making them liable. we don't want more court cases, more litigation, but if these companies are going to move production to china, they need to take responsibility for the lead, if there is lead on the toys, that the toys have been painted with lead-based paint.

they need to take responsibility for the pharmaceutical ingredients, sometimes dangerous ingredients that somebody has somehow put in these pharmaceuticals when production comes from china. they need to be careful about food safety. they need to be careful about treats for pets that have been contaminated. that act has been a success. last year, dr. weidenhammer conducted another test and found no products with painted halloween items -- no -- found no problems, found no lead-based paint contamination. but there is a gap in our trade system that threatens public health and public safety. we passed a law to close that gap. public safety benefits. companies are still able to make and sell their products in this free market. one year ago, congress passed, the president signed into law the bipartisan food safety modernization act. the law provides the f.d.a. with the tools needed to better protect our food supply to recall tainted or adult rated

food and to respond more effectively to food-borne illness outbreaks. it empowered the f.d.a. with new authority to establish a traceability system. that is, if when a product comes to your table, whether it's food in this case, a pharmaceutical, whether it's a toy, we -- the company that sells that product needs to be able to trace back all the ingredients, all the components. where they came from, how are they produced, under what conditions are they produced. it empowered -- it's that type of public safety infrastructure that's so important. yet, as we have seen with food and toys and drugs imported from china, now we're seeing it with pet food. yesterday, i met with kevin thaxton in the cleveland area whose wife candace wrote to me after one of their dogs, a pug, i believe a 9-year-old pug died from kidney failure. they thought it was the pug simply getting older. i had a pug once. pugs don't usually live much

beyond ten years. they then found as they got another dog, got sick immediately, they figured out it was likely from eating chinese-made chicken jerky treats. at the time they didn't make the connection, until the second dog, they didn't make the sex between the pet food and the pet illness. with the other puppy, the second puppy had a life-threatening illness after eating the same product. another ohioan, terry supranek joined us in our meeting two days ago. she lost her 9-year-old fox terrier last year. she did not realize that the tainted chicken jerky treat could be responsible for the dog's death until she saw the other story on the evening news. these two families and the 62% of u.s. households who own a pet shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the food they gave their -- give their pets. it's an example of a trade issue transforming into a safety issue. now, again, to explain, so many companies in the u.s. as part of

their business plan decide in order to save money, in order to evade consumer protection laws and food safety laws and worker safety laws and environmental laws, for whatever reason, they move their production to china with significantly cheaper labor. they shut down columbus or cincinnati, ohio, they move to china to manufacture these products they sell back into the u.s. probably unpress -- unprecedented in economic or world histories where companies shut down one place, move overseas, produce the same items, sell them back into the home market. we know with that whole trade regimen, that whole business plan of shutting down production, moving overseas, selling back in, there are significant health and safety problems. again, there are problems with lead-based paint, there are problems with other consumer items, safety. there is problems with food safety. there is problems with pharmaceutical contamination ingredients. and now there are problems with pet foods. the food and drug administration

has logged more than 350 reports of pet illnesses thought to be connected to chicken jerky treats made in china. although the f.d.a. has already issued a warning about illness, they have not yet for sure identified a contaminant. the treats remain on market shelves in stores across the country. i would never on this senate floor suggest people buy something or boycott something else. i would suggest, though, that people look at the product when they buy something for their pet and they look where it's made and make the adjustment based on that. i'm calling on the f.d.a. to accelerate its investigation of the imported pet food, especially food imported from china where the possibility of food contamination is higher. that's the f.d.a.'s job. earlier this week, i sent a letter to dr. hamburg, the f.d.a. commissioner, urging her agency to act swiftly to make sure that products found to be helpful are pulled from retail outlets. i have asked the f.d.a. to approve its notification system so pet owners know about items

under investigation for pet food safety breaches. the f.d.a. should promptly pursue efforts to find the contaminant in these pet treats and ensure they are pulled from store shelves to prevent any unnecessary pet deaths. contaminated toys, hard to trace medical ingredients, now pet food have all forced americans to turn to the government to ensure the safety of the products we import. now, it's a problem with trade law that we have set this up to happen far too often. it's an example of when government works when we stepped in on lead-based paint and kept these products off the market and made sure that products coming in now are safer because we passed the consumer protection revision. it shows the government stepping in in the right way can make a difference in the lives, saving the lives of children, protecting people's pets, protecting pharmaceuticals, making sure that pharmaceutical safety is guaranteed as much as possible. we have been down this road before. there is nothing free about

trade that undermines basic health law, health rules. there is nothing free about trade that weaken safety rules. the very rules that help keep good -- food safe to eat, water safe to drink. action should be taken to protect american pet owners from tainted products that can harm their pets. it's been a long time victory for the american people that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we take, the toys we buy for our children, the treats we buy for our pets, we have done a good job in this country in the last several decades of the government partnering with businesses to make sure these products are generally safe for our families, for ourselves, for our children, for our pets. now because of these holes in our trade laws, these trade laws that encourage companies to go overseas and produce products, sell them back here clearly has undermined so much of what we have done, accomplished

bipartisanly for so manyiers to make -- for the health and safety of the american public. it shows the role of government can be important. it shows that we do know how to do this to protect our families. mr. president, i urge the f.d.a. to step in here on this issue and help american families. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i watched many of the statements made by so many of our women senators who came to the floor in the past hour to talk about this issue of women's preventive health services. i was unable to get to the floor at the time, but i wanted to be here now because, mr. president, there, unfortunately, is a lot of confusion going on about what the affordable care act does and

does not do with respect to women's preventative health services. as chairman of the health, labor, and pensions subcommittee and as someone who is very much involved in crafting this legislation, especially the preventative services part of that legislation, i hope to explain the facts and debunk the myths and the misinformation that have recently arisen on this issue. first, women, nurses, teachers, professors, homemakers, attorneys, everyone from all walks of life, all women in america, now have the right to preventative health care services. beginning this august, the affordable care act gairp tees that -- guarantees that insured women will have access to expert recommended preventative health care services. these basic services include

well women visits, mammograms, prenatal care, cervical cancer screenings and contraception. these critical services will be offered without any out-of-pocket costs such as co-pays or deductibles. it's the latter, the ability of women to have a insurance plan that covers contra contraceptivt has led to this recent controversy and outpouring, this outburst of political accusations. here let me emphasize people of strong faith and good conscience have very different views when it comes to these, madam president, i understand that. i have great admiration for the many contributions that religious institutions make to our country. catholic charities provide vital assistance to low-income americans. religious universities teach and prepare thousands of young people to be outstanding citizens and productive members of our society.

in fact, i attended law school at catholic university right up the street here. i also attended catholic elementary schools and catholic high school. and catholic hospitals are instrumental in providing first-class health care to so many of our fellow citizens. i've spoken many times about the care that mercy hospital in des moines, a catholic hospital, gave to my father when he was elderly and in bad health because of black lung disease and he had no money. and they provided care for him at no cost. so i have very deep feelings about the generosity and the care that these religious hospitals provide. it is for this reason i would he oppose any measure that threatens the fundamental religious liberties of these institutions. i believe, however, that the president properly balanced the

essential health care needs of women with the rights of religious institutions. let me clarify what this rule does and most importantly, does not do. since folks like governor romney are misleading the american people, perhaps intentionally distorting the facts, using the issue for decree gogry. -- demagoguery. first, churches and other houses of worship are specifically exempt from the requirement that they carry insurance plans that provide contraception. second, no individual health care provider, neither religious nor secular, will be forced to prescribe contraception. the president and his administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. moreover, other religiously affiliated organizations that employ people of different faiths like catholic colleges and hospitals can qualify for a

one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law. let me point out no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception. no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception. under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without having to pay a co-pay or deductible. but no one will be forced to buy or to use contraception. let's make that clear. drugs that cause abortion like ru-486, the morning-after pill, are covered by this policy. let me repeat that. drugs that cause abortion like ru-486, the morning-after pill, are not covered by this policy. and nothing about this policy changes the president's firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on federal funding

for abortions. no federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions. again, let me quote, let me quote what governor romney said. -- quote -- "-- here's what governor romney said in colorado just yesterday. "just this last last week this same administration said that in churches and the institutions they run such as schools and let's say adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning-after pills, in other words, abortive pills and the like at no cost, mr. romney said. think what that does to people in faiths without sharing those views. this is a violation of conscience, end quote. mr. romney, this does not cover morning-after pills. and the adoption agencies and

the hospitals do not have to provide free of charge contraceptives. all they have to do is to make available through the broad insurance coverage they have to women who choose to use abortion -- to use contraceptive services, they can get those without any co-pays or deductibles. but this does not cover the morning-after pill. yet i keep hearing. i heard it this morning, i was working out this morning watching cnn and somebody else came on there talking about the catholic church is opposed to abortions. they shouldn't be -- shouldn't be forced to fund abortions. this has nothing to do with that. all it says is that if you have a broad-based insurance policy and you're not a religious institution or a church, and you are let's say a hospital and you have insurance that covers a broad array of people, we've

said that that insurance must cover a broad variety of preventive services. mammograms, cervical cancer screening, well women visits, all of that, and contraception. and contraception. a preventative service. so mr. romney is going around saying these things but it's not true. it's simply not true. he's either misinformed or he is purposefully trying the to mislead the american people, neither of which is acceptable. as i said, churches and other houses of worship are specifically exempt from the requirement that they carry insurance plans that provide contraception. secondly, no individual health care provider, neither religious nor secular, will be forced to prescribe contraception. no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception against her own conscience.

all the rules the president announced ensure that all women no matter who their employer have the opportunity to provide the same vital services. everyone. in fact, there is nothing radical about such a policy. 50% of americans are currently live in 28 states that require insurance companies to cover contraception. imagine that. imagine that. several of these states like arizona, new york, oregon, california have had this law in effect for years. for years. saying that if you have insurance coverage, you have to provide contraceptive services. under that broad coverage of insurance. and these states have identical religious employer exemptions as the rule the president

announced. let me repeat. 28 states including states like arizona, new york, oregon, california, have identical religious employer exemptions as the same as the rule the president announced. now, i didn't hear mr. romney going after the governors of arizona or of new york or oregon or california. so this has now become a political, a political issue, and it shouldn't be. it shouldn't be. religious institutions continue to serve the public by providing competitive pleamp -- exemplary health and antipoverty services in these states and i'm hopeful nothing will change in the rest of the country. 28 states, half the people already live in those states that cover the same thing. mr. president, the health of women in this nation is far too

important to become a sound bite on the evening news, a headline in the morning paper, or political rhetoric, again, to divide us up. to divide us up. the president's policy and what we've done does not divide us. in fact, if anything it unifies the country. i don't think anyone thinks that we should pass a law banning contraceptives. we did in the old days, you know. there was a supreme court case about that as a matter of fact i read in law school when i was at catholic university law school. the supreme court said no, you can't, the state has no interest, no vital interest in telling women that they cannot

use contraceptive services and devices. that's an old case. now, again, if someone is consciencebound and they say -- that's fine. no one is being forced to do anything against their conscience. no one is being forced to do anything that we haven't already done in this country in 28 states. but now it's become political rhetoric. how else to explain mr. romney's total misinformation, to try to divide us up as a country again? time to put this aside. time to put aside these differences, these divisions, and focus on giving people access to the affordable health care they deserve. that's what the affordable care act does. and we shouldn't let political rhetoric, political gamesmanship, a political

campaign, again, try to tear us apart. try to mis230r people, to inflame passions, that somehow we have gone off on a different path, that we're doing something totally different than what we've done before. we're not. we're not. we're not. and to include in this the inflammatory rhetoric of abortion and all that that entails is doing a disservice to the women of this country. so i hope that the truth will out, that this misinformation will fall by the wayside, people will see this for the political rhetoric it is, and that we'll move forward with a health care system that does provide broad preventative services to every woman in america. that's what this is about. mr. president, i yield the floor.

and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move we move to calendar 311. the presiding officer: the clerk will report motion. the clerk: s. 1813, a bill to reauthorize the federal-aid highway and highway construction programs and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 311, s. 1813, a bill to reauthorize federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived and further that the

cloture motion to proceed to s. 1813 occur at on wednesday, february 9. i ask unanimous consent we move to calendar number 5 5, there be no intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate retsunami legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask concept we proceed to s. res. 369. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 369, congratulating the new york giants for will noting super bowl xlvi. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: those roman numerals can be hard. i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to

reconsider with no intervening action or debate and any statements placed in the record be as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there's a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2079, a bill to extend the pay limitation for members of congress and federal employees. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading in order to place the bill under calendar in provisions of rule 14 but then i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the bill will be read the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid reid: i ask unanimous s consent the senate adjourn in the:30, thursday, february. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day of the following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m., senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their

designees, with the majority controlling the first half, republicans controlling the final half. following that morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the surface transportation bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the next vote will be at 2:00 p.m. on thursday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. thursday, until 9:30 a.m. thursday,

earlier to a white house press secretary said president obama's will use of the supreme court ruling on citizens united have not changed this comes a day after the president's reelection campaign supported the super pak known as priority usa action. he also spoke about the elder law and same-sex marriage.

>> i did indeed. hello. >> you could use about there. >> a marshmallow gun? [laughter] i would like one of those. >> of laws, was that it? it was a great event. you know, it is -- i saw him right afterwards. he loves this event and he thinks it's so important and let's just say that his remarks were beyond what was on the printed page because he does feel so inspired by the kids and by the importance of the science education so when you gave advice to the editors about getting prominence to this event, he meant this sincerely

>> the afternoon. i hope you enjoyed the science fair even that the white house, the president sure did. before i take your questions i wanted to give you a readout of another moment of the president's day that the president enjoyed which was this morning president obama called for the new york giants' head coach tom coughlin to congratulate him and the rest of the new york football giants on their recent super bowl victory. the president said the team's victory was a testament to the coach coughlin's leadership and that his team demonstrated true grit and determination president obama told coach coughlin that he looks forward to greeting him and congratulating the team in person when they come and visit the white house probably in the patriots' fans. it was a fun game to watch.

>> on the president's position to the democratic super pak as you know he's on record as saying that his past through the elections the threat to democracy. now he is given a standing to exactly that kind of organizations so that the democratic pack convince the republican ones and this campaign says basically these are fools and if we want to compete we have to play by them, so i guess my point is what is the point of taking the principle stand and campaigning against somebody if then you switched course and abandoned it? >> first of all, the president's views of the influence of the citizens united decision haven't changed. he strongly opposed it. as you know, he made that clear in the state of the union address in 2010, which got a lot of attention and he holds those views today just as recently he discussed as you mentioned the

fact that he wished washington was doing more to reduce the money and politics. the fact is that he has been committed to working with congress to eliminate the corrosive influence of money in washington and he proposed new ideas along those lines in the state of the union address with regards to political reform in congress. his first day in office the president issued an executive order but some of the toughest ethics rules imposed on the executive branch. for the first time in history the white house began posting visitor records online and accessible searchable format for anyone to browse or download. as of december 2011 over 2 million records were posted on the website and this is the first administration to prohibit the exit of branch employees from accident is. the administration has done more than any in history to prevent undue influence over the government by lobbyists and the

money interest. the fact is i would refer, i will refer a lot of these questions that have to do with strategic campaign decisions to chicago with the president obviously agrees with this decision because of what the campaign has said is that the rules are what they are and as a campaign i've read the same that you have made, they cannot engage in this campaign, they cannot compete effectively if there are two sets of rules they play by a different set of rules. >> do you have any sympathy talking about the corrosive influence in the money and then encouraging the donors to get to grips? >> what be clear about a couple things. one, his views on of the problems associated with this decision have not changed and he has expressed them as a few days ago and will continue. number two, the president, vice president, first lady, dr. biden will not appear that these

events and the association. that is a decision was made by the campaign, by the president not to do that. those individuals in the campaign and with the white house who appear at the political campaign agents for the president's campaign will be available to appear in the super pak, but they will not solicit funds, and again i would refer you to the campaign for the strategic decision about why the rules are what they are unfortunately. the citizens united pertains and this president will be committed as long as he is an office to try to change that. just last year let's remember this is not a case of apples and apples and our approach to this

issue. the present dree strongly supported with democrats on capitol hill to disclose that which would have required something republicans used before when the post other campaigns measures the disclosure was the answer they said, but then when disclosure became the call of president obama and democrats republicans opposed it. the opposed the simple idea that the american of the people ought to know who donated to these political campaigns so the president still supports the passage of the act and measures that would change the dynamic creative buyer of citizens united even if that requires the constitutional amendment that is what would require he would support that. so, there is a huge difference between the approach the president takes and taken by the republican party by the would-be presidential nominee of the republican party.

and i think that is a distinction that will be clear to voters who care about this issue. >> given how much he has opposed to the citizens' decision and now he's saying that he's given his approval to this and a thumbs-up? >> well i think -- i think you can define that, but this is a decision the was carefully considered by the fact that its february of 2012, and he's already seen in the republican party how much money is being raised by these organizations. hundreds of millions of dollars or so i read literally undisclosed, and i would point out that campaign officials, administration officials who appear before the super pak that supports democrats were the president will only appear before those supertax that disclose the donors. they will not appear before the

so-called that do not disclosed. so the disclosure remains an absolute priority of the president and his campaign. >> on the decision about the religious affiliated groups and contraceptions comedy unasked last week if there's a debate in the administration about reconsidering that the decision has been made, did absolutely remain the case for the reconsideration? >> it does. the president is committed to making sure that all women have access to the important preventive services. but i think it is important to remember what was clearly stated when this policy decision was announced, and that is that we would be working with those organizations and individuals who have concerns about the implementation of the rule and that's why the time period of the full year beginning in august was put into place because the president is very interested in finding the

appropriate balance between religious beliefs and convictions and he takes this very seriously and his commitment to making sure that women of all faiths have access to the important health care preventive services. so, that process will continue, and that point was overlooked in the initial coverage of the decision. >> what is the end of the date period? >> august 2013. it believes in 2012. >> to wrap up on this point there's a perception out there in some cases led some to think that the very implementation you talked about in the next year or so would lead to a different outcome. it did in the rule making there would be some outtakes to get away from this controversy. ultimately no matter how it is implemented the bottom line will remain the same in these organizations have to provide that.

>> the president's interest in making sure that on the one side of this balance is in making sure that all american women, all women here have access to the same preventive care services. he's also concerned about and understands the religious concerns that have been raised and take seriously the religious convictions that are behind the concerns that have been raised and we will work in this period to see if there is a way to try to find a way to make sure that the implementation of the policy or to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that delays some of those concerns. but there are ways to i think help resolve this issue that ensures that we provide that important preventive service, that health care coverage to all women. and that try is in a way that also tries to allay some of these concerns.

>> when did the president sign off on the decision to support priorities usa? >> i would refer you to the campaign. i don't know the answer to that. but i would refer you as i would on a lot of these to chicago. >> we've already asked. >> i think they would probably have the answer. >> what does he expect it to achieve? >> again i would refer you to the campaign about campaign tactics, strategy, how the resources are raised. and i would obviously, in that case, i suppose, be a question to ask of the outside organization. the fact of the matter is we've seen, as i just stated, and the enormous amount of money raised by these organizations, a significant portion of it totally undisclosed. and the campaign as i have read and you have red made the decision that they can't

unilaterally disarm or engage on a different set of rules as their opponents, so again these are discussions of analysis of this strategic campaign decision that i think chicago is the right place to to those questions. >> what is the difference between having the white house speaking out at an event like this and looking for money? >> we will comply with all of the rules involve low walls that govern this. it is a long-established rules of the administration officials can and do engage in private time and political like to see. this administration like others before has officials who engage in political the activity in a private time on behalf of the president's campaign and they will be able to do that now for the campaign has made the decision that they might be able to or will be able to appear

even for these of the organizations but they will not directly solicit funds or participate in raising funds to the stomach if you were appearing at a fund-raiser how was that not enlisting funds? >> i would refer you to the organizations or the campaign and the super pac that are making these decisions. >> i think there is a decision between asking for money and appearing and making the case for why the president should be reelected. >> let me ask one other topics. i don't have a comment on litigation in general, and this litigation with which we are not a party to beyond that, i can say that the president has long

opposed as you know divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny the rights and benefits of same-sex couples. >> in terms of the health care rule on birth control, this rule doesn't provide the service for all women. you said there is a carved out for the houses of worship. >> there's an exemption for churches and houses of worship and i think that the principle here is that churches and houses of worship it's an issue of hiring people of like faith versus the large institutions like universities and hospitals where with the region are in nurse or teacher zero professor of student or janitor somebody in the administration will have folks of all faiths to work for the large institutions and therefore the president believes the ought to be able to have

access, those women ought to be able to have access to this aim contraceptive services that other women will have access to. is the is there a middle ground somewhere where perhaps some of these religious organizations that have been out more catholic or jewish or baptist possible charities of the smaller size could receive the same exemption as the houses of worship? we are talking about people who think that some methods of birth control are a seven, and the obama administration is forcing them to be a party to that. some chemical let's be clear and first of all we understand the religious concerns here, that is why the balance was salt and the process going forward includes a transition period where the discussion will continue to see if there can be ways to be found to ensure that women get access

to this scriven of services and the services are covered as they will be for all the women and also takes into account these religious concerns but let's be clear the world as not require any individual or institution to provide contraception. requires coverage for women of different faiths or any faith. again, i'm not going to negotiate all the different possibilities of how this rule could be implemented in a way that might relieve some of those concerns. that's the transition. is for. >> switching topics to the u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan wright said that she was disgusted by the votes and the u.n. security council resolution and syria. does president obama share that

view when you use the word disgusted and why does the white house think russia and china voted against that resolution? >> we wouldn't presume to speak for either both of those governments. our view is it was the wrong decision to block that security council resolution. and in effect by giving that to give solace and help sustain the regime that is brutally murdering its own people. and a regime that of the way is not going to last. there will be a transition and it's a mistake for any country to put its eggs in that basket of telehealth because you're alienating the syrian people and many others in the region who

are on the side of putting pressure from the regime to get it to stop its behavior and step aside so that it transition can take place in syria and we're going to work with and continue to work with international allies and partners and other friends of syria, friends of the people to pressure the regime so that it seizes this for printable behavior >> i'm not going to put words in his mouth, but the ambassador was expressing our great disappointment with that position taken. we will continue to obviously have these discussions with all of our partners internationally of the united nations security council and elsewhere and we will continue to work with others sort of friends or syria of the people who hope to put

the pressure required on the regime. >> others said it might be time in the united states to arm the opposition. it's been a good one to speculate we are exploring the possibility of providing humanitarian aid to syrians to ratchet up the pressure and ratchet up the isolation on assad and his regime. we see a lot of indications of a lack of control of the country by the regime, of the interest on the senior officials in the military and the government in separating themselves from the regime, so we believe that pressure is having an impact. ultimately, it means to resolve in seizing the violence, stopping their brutality and

allowing for a transition supported by the syrian people. >> you talk about the humanitarian option and is there an option intangible currently working on that could be one of today but to also tell us what are the options right now. >> always said is we are certainly exploring possible humanitarian aid. we all know what a humanitarian aid is. for more details about the discussions that we are having with other friends of the syrian people i would refer you to this department as secretary clinton has discussed publicly. >> of the russian foreign minister is today in damascus what is their understanding? >> we are not sure what the

goals of the institute are. but the point we are making is that russia must realize that betting everything on assad is a recipe for failure not just for russia but for the stability of the region and syria's future and i would just reemphasize what i said in response to the earlier question. chris? >> to follow-up back in 2008 obama came out on the ballot calling it unnecessary. i'm wondering if you shown certainty that that is unconstitutional. >> again i'm not going to comment on the litigation, particularly as here where we are not a party to it. when the president's positions on these issues writ large he's long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny come excuse me, the rights and benefits of same-sex couples. but i don't have anything more for you on that particular decision.

>> the president -- the effort here, the issue in question as marriage, so is that consistent with the president to support and not be against such measures? >> i don't have any information on that particular issue as regards to the president's views. i can tell you that decisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples are something this president has long opposed, and i think that the -- that's an important point to make. these are productive dillinger of efforts to deny benefits, and to be discriminatory. let me -- i will bounce back and forth. let me go to wendell. >> in october, 2010, the president said citizens united decision, because it enabled these groups to keep their

donors secret, was a threat to democracy itself. does he feel that by requiring his supporting suber pac to disclose the donors he basically removes the threat? >> the president's concern with the citizens united decision was broad and not just limited to that issue. it is an important point that you make that disclosure is important, and this president has been forcefully in favor of measures that would mandate disclosure despite unfortunately the uniform resistance by republicans in congress to those efforts. it is correct that as understand and we are reaching the boundaries of my understanding of how these new outfits operate the there is a distinction between those that are required to disclose the donors every month i believe and those that are not required to disclose at

all. campaign officials and administration officials who might appear before a super pac supporting the president will only appear before those who disclosed.

this president has taken that no president has taken before him. the principles that he adopts by not accepting any money from tax or lobbyists, which distinguishes him from any of his potential republican primary general election a prominent developer opponents, and his efforts toward -- to get congress to pass disclosure act and other measures that would enhance our transparency of the process. so, again, it is an unfortunate situation, the president

believes, that we find ourselves and where the rules are. the decision was made, an appointee to the campaign statements that i have seen and eocene about the fact that the rules being what they are, the campaign has made clear that they cannot unilaterally disarm in a circumstance like this. we are taking the approach, the campaign is taking the approach it is taking in the president is tick nipper said he is taking. >> the president's bid much a cottage in on the road ridiculing. he joked about the name, mom for motherhood. i mean, you really deprives the men now he has signaled his campaign that he would like his donors to contribute as well. you indicated an astronaut when the president made this decision , you said you could design -- define that and that clearly because you've made this figure charge of, as the president been putting out this decision? were you indicating his let this

so late in the game begins did not want that to do this? >> i think there -- >> finally relented and said they have so much money amelie to give obama principles. >> you can throat and a lot of editorial as asians worry can just take it. the fact of the matter is this president's views on citizen united have not been shrouded in secrecy. there were clearly expressed. hold on. >> what did you mean? >> i simply was asked. i can run but the phrasing of the question, what did he spend a lot of time thinking about this. i have not asked to that question, but i think you can understand from the views that he has expressed about citizens united and the impact of that decision on the process that he takes a dim view of it. but, it is also the case, and, again, plenty to the campaign

era where a lot of these questions are more apt to be addressed. as the campaign has said, the rules are what they are and the president will continue to change the rules. effective the matter is not only is there not a constituency among republicans in congress to overturn or take action against citizens united, there is not even a constituency among republicans in congress to allow the american people to know who the donors are. they blocked the disclosing. that is the reality, and he will continue to press for change and he will continue to press for change, even if it requires a constitutional amendment. >> a very simple question which is a president who has railed. the state of the union address and said multiple times in the campaign trail in 2010 the climate as much as is mined in the simple question is when did he make that decision. >> you're misrepresenting what i said, niacin you're in contact with the campaign. he has not changed his mind

about the rules. >> public support. >> he is not saying that the system is now healthy or good. he is saying he is make me decision that the rules are what they are and they will not -- they cannot play by different set of rules and republicans are planning. the situation, these groups -- >> give a signal. put out. when did the president signaled his campaign manager that it was a kid do that? >> i think the campaign announced today or yesterday. so. >> why -- >> if this is a wind up as commuters us of the moment the president made this decision cannot take that question as i in the kid of 15 minutes ago. yes. >> as the president is going to continue to push, the influence of these groups, was there more

the you could have done over the last two years to change the system? >> row, i think the president has pushed very hard for changes in the system. again, at the state of the union address just a few weeks ago he put forward proposals for political reform in congress that would help improve the system and reduce the influence of money and politics. he will continue to work toward that, but as i was just saying, a simple measure that would have demanded that donors disclose -- are disclosed, that the american people have the right to know who is making donations in the tens and hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars per person to these organizations, and no republican support in congress, virtually no republican support. that is an unfortunate dynamic, but it will stop this president

of continuing to try to find ways to deal with this problem. maybe his cycle will change people's views about the role of money in politics. because it is simply a fact that we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars in the system, much undisclosed or some undisclosed amend the president's use of that is not a good thing. >> administration officials who are appearing at fund-raisers, whether name beyond -- >> i would defer you. >> in 2008 the president pretty clearly told to stand down. what i am unclear about is, up until now he has not expressly told people not. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. i would refer you to the

campaign. most of you are part of the campaign prior. i understand. they probably would have made clear what the announcement was a day verses what it might be perceived to be. my understanding is that the only decision is that campaign officials and administration officials and a pair of four these organizations. but exceeded not repeat. >> not that i am more arrows. i just said that that i am aware of. >> i was going to respond. >> is is still the president's view that same-sex marriage should be decided by each

individual state? >> you know, however you might want to tease out the position on this -- >> the state's -- >> no announcements of any changes. >> that is the latest position. why would he not be supportive of california making the decision prexy opposes denying rights to civil >> any of the states that have banned from all sorts of steaks. >> i can at this moment stand here and analyzes one. you know his position where is stands now on the issue of same-sex marriage because of a really don't have a stab.

>> a fundamental inconsistency that he says it's up to the states to the side but he says their divisive and discriminatory. >> in talking about general efforts, now making an assessment on specific state to state laws. >> again, repeating. >> complete hypocrisy if he is saying is up to states to the side but he will back a state. >> are not going to comment on specific litigation for our state. the president has long opposed denying rights to same-sex couples, and his overall record is well-known and this one is very proud of. >> i want to try one more barrier how best it is rolling in from the president's view of sex marriage.

>> i don't have anything to add on that. yes in the house as you is chinese to of this decision and a half an hour ago. >> the speaker said the president's decision to support super pak is just another broken promise. the president is wrong to raise the corrupt. it is not just bad policy. it is also dumb strategy. can you react? >> questions of strategy and refer you to chicago. and the president's opposition to the citizens united decision is well-known

and their absolute support of the citizens united decision allows, you know, somebody to write a hundred million dollar check potentially and not disclose it. as you know, the decision to campaign, and the administration official or campaign official who appears before an organization like this will only appear before those disclosed by law, and that is an important distinction, but it is important to remember the the system as it is is not healthy. this president has spoken out against it and will continue to work to take action. >> has this open them up to criticism? >> criticism from all sides cause of the territory and politics. the president's views are very well-known on the citizens united decision that allowed

this circumstance, about. the strategic regions that the campaign made the decision error for you to chicago. >> one last. how can he be proactive against discriminatory efforts to the night people civil rights and not proactively be for equality. >> i appreciate -- no, i appreciate. i totally appreciate the question, but i am not here to announce a new position for the president. again, i refer you to the comments that the president made on this issue, and i don't have any changes to provide to you. >> thank you. i want to go back to contraception. [laughter]

>> a run, anyone? >> as just want to make sure i have this. it seems like you suggested that the white house has always been open to a compromise during this race, but maybe that was overlooked in the initial coverage of the ruling. is that reading? >> january 20th and this decision was announced the secretary said, we will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional time to discuss concerns. that is the point i'm making. the initial coverage of the decision, the fact that this transitional was put in place precisely to have these discussions with religious groups about their concerns. in many cases overlooked. the point is not about a change in policy would simply setting alight, and that announcement