the bourjois and bourjois z. which then comes back into english that comes from the word. and also many americans names or british names also, hillsborough, the boroughs of new york, pittsburgh, all of those borough sounding come from that and the first representative of assembly is the british american colonies, the -- house of burgesses has deep roots in this is a place where citizens come together to debate. what these represent is a movement from status to contract to henry sumner maine who said the movement of the progress of society is from status where your position in society is determined by your birth. you were born in aristocrat, you are born into this.

that is what your parents were. his parents and their parents and that is what your children will be. that is a society of status. a society of contract would create relationships with other persons. and is worth emphasizing -- i already went over that -- that the charters of the cities are social contracts. you will sometimes run into philosophers who will tell you when they talk about social contract, of course this is merely hypothetical question that arouses to think more systematically about our justice but there are no social contracts and there never have been any. i have heard that so many times. its historically ignorant. history is full of social contracts in which people agree to live together according to certain principles and these are fundamental to the establishment of the communes of europe and civil society institutions. in many cases people would

gather together on one day, all the citizens would hold hands and recite publicly an oath to live by the law, to harm no one, to follow the common laws of the city and to come to its defense. it's a social contract, taken in public in front of everyone which is a good way by the way to avoid free rider problems. it's the whole that problem, we say let's all come together. the truce of god movement organized by the church at about the same time about a general diminution in random violence, an honor-based violence in europe by having the parish priests go out, organize the people in the parish and say, let's come together. let's all agree not to engage in homicidal mayhem. okay, sometimes but not on faith-based, not -- faith stays and not on sunday. could we all agree to that?

and all of you who don't agree, that is cool. you stand over there. we would like to know who you are. that is a very powerful incentive. if everyone isn't on it maybe i will curb my homicidal mayhem as well. and this does bring about a general diminution in this kind of honor-based mayhem and violence. so there are robust social contracts throughout history. there are also exclusive written charters of privileges and immunities that find the rulers, the magna carta one of the most famous ones, article xxxix, no freeman shall be taken in prisons or have your state taken from you. in any way destroyed and except by the lawful judgment of your peers or by the law of the land. this is the origin of two

important elements, the united states constitution can be traced back to this. trial by jury, number one and due process of law. fundamental legal principles and the american colonists, founders sided magna carta, magna carta, magna carta. this is not only british however. some people think the english were unique in this regard. this is happening all across europe. in hungary in 1222 had very similar elements and even the right of resistance, the right to resist the king if the king violates the fundamental rule and the privilege which put many restrictions on the king's power in exchange for his succession to the throne. let me switch over to another thing happening at about the same time and here we have theology and moral philosophy. this is the idea of rights, that

their rights governed system. not merely acts of law or powers of law but the idea of rights. one of the great lawyer popes in a decision about the crusade asked the question whether you can take from nonbelievers, infidels, their political jurisdictions or their lives just because they are nonbelievers. he said no. dominion, possession. dominion means mastery of yourself. latin for house, dominus is the manager of the house, very powerful figure of the roman law, master of the house. one who is dominion is master of his own person. possession and jurisdiction came along and the infidels legally and without sin for these things are made not only for the faithful but for every rational creature. as has been said. that principle we know was perhaps established but not in

principle, the parable of crimes. they took place on both sides of the crusade. an enormous amount of wanton violence and indeed crusader armies, one of the greatest cities attacked by the crusaders was not antioch or baghdad. it was constantinople as. the greatest christian city nearby and there was a mood to attack someone. but this principle is then universalized. two great figures in the classical liberal tradition, francisco tory a spanish churchmen who wrote a very important book on the rise of the indian, the indigenous population of the americas, and the spaniards had come here to discover these puzzling creatures. they walked around and they looked look like us and they open their mouths and they say bar, r., bar. what are they?

and of course one thing that happened was they began to be enslaved and in some cases coercively converted until victoria denounced it as a parable of crime. inasmuch as he is a person every indian has free will and consequently is the master of his actions come his dominion. every man has the right to his own life and physical and mental integrity. another great -- also associated is the forerunner of libertarian thinking, who devoted his life to defending the indians against this brutal, horrific enslavement. he has come to the americas as a young adventurer alleged to have seen christopher columbus sailed off to america when he was a boy. and imagine the excitement to go to this new world. what he saw there shocked him, and he was converted by a traveling priest, who explained

what was happening here. the brutality, the exploitation, the cruelty visited on these people and he wrote a book called the devastation of the indians, a horrific re. he talks about human beings hunted from horseback for sport, spirit and tremendous things, spanish lords would go out and speier some of these people, bring them back and in their bodies hacked to pieces and sold as food for dogs in the butcher shop. he said, this cannot be right. and he dedicated his life to defending the indians and in 1550, in a great debate with someone who argued the country position that god's love manifested itself so strongly and so beautifully he created an entire continent full of creatures locking will and desire, waiting for the spaniards to fulfill them by giving them purpose.

namely do this, do that, do the other thing for me. their purpose was to be enslaved by the spaniards. he crushed them in the debate and we have the whole society of the debate. he rode it and published it. you can get it in the english translation and he hammered through the argument. he effectively wins the debate. it's not a mistake that one of his followers, who became the bishop of southern mexico and guatemala, defended the indians against this brutal enslavement and exploitation and occupies it. that region has a much higher indigenous population than other places where they were wiped out, and there is a wonderful university in the guatemala. we work with them very closely. it's a great great university and they have a lot of -- on their faculty. let's move forward again to the

constitutional revolt. one of the the great heroic faces and truly heroic are the dutch. the dutch in their revolt against the spanish overlords. philip, ii receives the netherlands from his father emperor charles v when he came of age. and today if you do really well in high school or graduate college and might get a motorcycle or something. he got the netherlands. he was out to modernize them because the dutch were backwards. they have these little parliaments. they were backward and they kept insisting they had to add consent before you could tax them. how crazy was that? they brought up the old documents and charters over time. we will modernize the. we are going to impose a new pants tax, 10% law for attacks in the dutch revolted and on their battles like they put a

penny. is a very robust obscene gesture to the king to put a penny on your battle flag and stood up for their rights. they defeat the spanish after a very long protracted battle. really the greatest empire in europe at the time. and they create the first modern middle-class society on the society a society that initiates religious toleration. the people at said it's not possible to have people of different religions living in the same country. you can't do that. no one will know how to pray. unless the king tells you. and they experiment and they say whoa, it turns out people can pray without being told to by the king. and you can have all these different religious groups living side-by-side. benedict spinoza's beautiful statement of his life in amsterdam. is a gorgeous statement of why he loved amsterdam. everyone is equal before the law

and no one asked which her religion was when they were going to do business with you or if you came before the court. that was why amsterdam was such a great city. and this creates a very powerful model of constitutionally limited government, accountable government, religious toleration, low taxes, relative freedom of trade. again i don't want to over romanticize it. it was not perfect, absolutely just and free society but establish a something remarkable and the middle-class society that invents all kinds of things we take for granted today like having a home, having furniture of your own that you get to pick out. it's for your own home. this is available to ordinary people, not only the great lords in the castles, huge innovation. across the channel, the english are starting to get this absolutist disease after 1603 when james vi of scotland becomes james i of england.

he says we are going to modernize you. all kinds of taxes and we are not interested in your consent. i'm above the law. the english say, i don't think so. and the struggle against it and one of the great figures here sir edward cook. the law is supreme, not merely the will of the king. subsequent to this, you get the english civil war, the first real libertarians who are full-throated, honest to god libertarians. they come to be known as the levelers. they wanted to level everyone before the law. they were sometimes confused for a variety of reasons with communist. so there is a little bit of a confusion there. the reason is there was another group or were communists he said no, no, we are the true levelers. and this has led to some intellectual confusion.

the ones called the levelers were very strong libertarians. they believed in the right to property, the right to freedom of trade, absolute freedom of religion. they believed women had equal rights. there were women levelers that enraged and inflame their opponents. they were so radical, so extreme in their libertarianism, i mean cutting-edge stuff, they thought even irish people had rights. [laughter] and refused to invade ireland when oliver cromwell ordered the army and these units had many levelers who were active in the army, an all-volunteer army replacing various kinds of armies. he said invade ireland and they said no, we will not do it. you not -- cannot force us to commit an act. if you go to burford in england, the church there there's a beautiful temple of liberty and you can see the the words that

they carried out. they were executed and they said, you cannot make this commit an injustice. we will not do it. so they were shot instead. on the baptismal font you can see scratched and antony sadly prisoner and the day that he was imprisoned in the church. john wilburn one of the other great leveler leaders, his wife elizabeth also an active leveler and his statement here when he dies in her arms, i shall leave this testimony behind me that i died for the loss of liberty of this nation and we owe it to him the right to trial by jury and the abolition of a secret trial. he refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court. he said absolutely not. these are very tough, very difficult argumentative people and we owe them a great deal. john locke and the radical

whig's carried out much of the leveler program to focus on property and the wider sense, life, liberty and justice in the state. locke had many leveler writings in his library. he does not quote them, not surprisingly. many of them were executed. we don't normally go quoting people who were hanged for their views but he did have many leveler pamphlets and the language is remarkably parallel. could also note locke did not pick knowledge the authorship of the two treatises in his lifetime. recommending some of the best books written, political science but he did not explicitly acknowledge that he wasthe author. i will skip ahead to a few other really in porton figures. trudeau who is a great finance minister in france. he was admitted because of the machinations of marie

antoinette. he wanted to reform the french kingdom and eliminate many of the crazy taxes, the horrific impositions on people, the cruelty of the mercantile system, people roque and on the rack for not having improved kinds of goods in the marketplace. he abolished forced labor. and i am not a big fan of taxes, but i think taxes for compulsory labor was an advance in human labor. they would say, pay tax money and we will hire people who are not whipped and beaten to build a road. wind -- all over some normally i'm not happy with taxes but it was a step forward for liberty the subsequent taxes for compulsory labor. and he was a good friend of the american colonists when they declare their independence. his famous letter, reduced to the smallest number the affairs that forced the government so

each state should take charge. very wise advice. had the americans founded a country that was predicated on the people basic rights, the declaration of independence is one of the most important documents over the last 2000 years. all men are created equal. they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these, and they teach courses in this, every single word matters, among these, these are, suggest you have more life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. in doing so, they weren't just conjuring up some things out of their head. the famous letter from thomas jefferson to henry lee about the writing of the declaration and recognized about 50 years later. he said it would not define new principles or new arguments and never before thought of or things that have never been said before but the place before mankind the common sense of the

subject, in terms so plain and firm that the commander -- we are compelled to take. neither aiming at originality of sentiment or copied from any particular previous writing. is intended to be an expression of the american mind and to give to that expression a proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. he acknowledges they are building on this previous entire history. this was the common sense of the subject. it was articulated so beautifully and politically in the declaration of independence. and finally let me conclude with a few comments. many people confuse the american revolution with the war for independence. but the people who were involved side is two different things. john adams in his letter to thomas jefferson, what do we mean by the revolution, the war? that was no part of the revolution. we have already had the

consequence of it. the revolution was in the minds of the people and this was from 17521775 in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed. that pamphlets, newspapers ought to be consulted during that period vas by which public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colony. so the revolution was the process by which the public opinion was enlightened. not the war which was merely a consequence of that. those principles were then articulated even further in the strike at the root of one of the most horrible institutions of the american continent which was chattel slavery. frederick douglass, one of the great libertarians of history, challenged people and he said what does the declaration of independence main? it means people like me, it makes a promise, all men are created equal and yet this has

been withheld from us. an extremely powerful presentation. he was a great libertarian and by the way a brand-new book that just came out by a participant at cato university from some years ago, who dedicated his doctoral dissertation in research to the political thought of frederick douglass and he came to cato university and we heard lectures on frederick douglass. now we have the best book ever written on frederick douglass it came out last month. i am reading it now. so he's a very important figure who took these libertarian ideas and wanted equal rights for every human being. liberal since then her libertarians struggle for free trade and international peace and a few of the great heroes who fought valiantly to strain the ability of states to wage war. they thought that free trade was the key and they helped to usher in really a new civilization based on trade, conquest and

plunder. let me wrap up with something that perhaps is less optimistic and this is again this question of the history always going in some direction in darkness. the tide turns. later, the early 20th century, liberalism is replaced by collective -- nationalism, racism, imperialism, fascism, communism. to push out liberalism. el god can published in 1900 the nation, the time of very a very libertarian publication, said nationalism in the sense of national reed is supplanted liberalism. an old foe under a new name. and then this chilling passage. the old fallacy of divine right has once more asserted his ruinous power and before it is repudiated there must be

international struggle on the terrific scale. so he understood and a few other liberals at the time, mainly old people, new with the 20th century was going to be. burner -- murder, bloodshed on a scale never ever seen before. some of these figures who had been exterminated, millions and millions of lives. i think you know all of them come up whole pot is on there. he did not kill as many people as the others but it was a higher percentage of the population over which he had control. the 20th century was steeped in blood. there were people who struggled against it, maintained our ideas these young people were beheaded

i'm sorry. for telling the truth in germany. the members of the -- astana sing -- astonishing figures. the suffering he underwent to tell the truth about the soviet union and the horrific murders that were taking place under these regimes. fortunately though, there was a rebirth of liberalism. these are some of the heroic figures who began to recover these principles, the karimi says, isabel patterson, hayek, ayn rand, milton friedman, the raton republic, ludwig earhart the finance minister in germany who recovered this libertarian tradition and were able to protect liberty as a

consequence. these are truly heroic figures and we owe so much. but i should point out that eternal vigilance is something we have to always remember and i will bring up here. we never want a serious crisis to go to waste. what i mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. we should remember that the mayor of chicago, the former leading adviser to president obama and before that a member of congress warning us very clearly on television that every crisis is an opportunity for them to reassert absolute power over the rest of us. that is why we have the cato institute. [applause] [applause] i will take just two questions because having gone over about 4800 years of history, i have

spoken for a while so we have two quick questions if anyone wants to pose anything before we go to a break. >> towards the beginning you talk about property and the concept of rights. >> can you speak of a little bit more? >> touchtone touched on property and the concept of rights earlier and you mentioned the rocky mountains and various rights of use and potentially you were alluding to the idea of externality and a very specific way of viewing the reciprocal nature of externalities, but there has been recent scholarship especially from natural law theories about he had it wrong. he is viewing property rights in persona as opposed to ayn rand and i was wondering what you think about that going forward because it does distinguish as opposed to the way we set up the legal rights if we are saying that you have a natural right, then you have a right to go in

and invade it. >> if i could very quickly because of the complicated legal question or legal philosophical question. take the case of a railroad going through and emitting sparks. did they have the right to emit sparks on people who might get brushfires and have an obligation to put up a fence to stop it or is it the case you have a right not to have sparks put on you? onto your land. we can imagine all kinds of other cases where there are some external impacts. it's not clear where the right falls. and i think he is right on this. i don't think we can just deduce except for cases of your bodily integrity but for other kinds of complex rights, industrial processes and land and so one. it should not obviate whether i should build a fence to keep out the cows or you should build a fence to keep the cows in. this is not an obvious question.

and what he focuses on was how important it is that there be some determination, subsequent to which people can negotiate in the position that maximizes the value. so having well-defined and legally secure property rights is the key. people will then negotiate to whatever solution that they want, so-called coase theorem but i don't think that we can just into it or think of it is a matter of deductive enterprise where the rights should follow. if you see different legal systems that fall this way and one the other doesn't really matter but that is fundamentally his point. it's at that like whether we drive on the right side or the left side. doesn't matter so long as everyone does the same thing in the road system and they will be able to coordinate one set. next question very quick. speeches as a matter of opinion,

of all the liberty movements that you mention throughout history, which do you think has been the most important in the whole movement and in shaping liberty as it's understood today? >> that is an unanswerable question. i will mention, i think that john lott is one of the most important figures for understanding almost everything about liberty. i am not saying i agree with him on everything by no means but he really did think about his question about social order, about justice, about rights, about cooperation and so on in a systematic way and he tried in the two treaties, the first treaties were mainly a representation of absolutism particularly a argument for absolutism offered by sir robert filner which is that god gave the world to an englishman, gave it to his eldest son who gave it

to his eldest son and so on. that was the current king of england who has absolute free power and locke as you can imagine beats this argument to death. the second treaties focus on his positive theory of the legitimate authority of government, what its authorized to do and what its limits are. i think it's an exceptionally rich book so i would highly recommend reading that very carefully and then going back and looking at some of the other debates and arguments of the time. is an extremely significant. not. the last thing i would mention is there are some people who don't get enough attention in the struggle of liberty and number one, and i will close with this, it's the dutch. the real heroes of the movement for liberty who helped to create the modern world. so, why do we conclude with a round of applause for the dutch. [applause]

>> we will be back here at 3:45. ..

our international religious freedom report, and here to present that to you and answer your questions is our ambassador at large for international religious freedom, suzan johnson cook. ambassador. >> thank you. good morning. good afternoon in now. today we are releasing the 2011 international religious freedom report. which for the first uncovers the calendar year, i use this new technology to improve searchability. this congressionally mandated report reviews the status of religious freedom in 199 countries and territories.

throughout the year, our office of international religious freedom, embassies and consulates work with governments and civil society to produce a report that is comprehensive, detailed and accurate. later today, secretary clinton will give remarks on the importance of international religious freedom, and it's fundamental human rights. but let me just reiterate now that religious freedom is a universal human rights, and is essential for a stable, peaceful, and thriving society. as president obama has said, we stand with all who are denied the ability to choose, express, or live their faith freely, and we remain dedicated to protecting this universal human rights and the vital role it plays in ensuring peace and stability for all nations. freedom of religion is not just an american right, but the right of all people. it goes hand-in-hand with freedom of expression, freedom of speech and assembly, and when

religious freedom is restricted, all these rights are at risk. for this reason, religious freedom is often a bellwether for other human rights. it's the canary in a coal mine. unfortunately, and too many places, these rights are not respected. this report details increasing intolerance against a range of religious communities. as you read it, several themes will strike you. you will read about the 800 of the secretary has designated last august as countries of particular concern or see pcs as will refer to them including places such as north korea, with the general religious freedom does not exist, and iran, religious freedom deteriorated from an already horrible situation. and you will see that in countries around the world anti-semitism is on the fly, evidenced by attacks on adults and children, and the desecration of cemeteries. let me share with you some other

troubling trend. in a number of countries, individuals were detained or imprisoned because of their religious beliefs. in iran, one man faces a death sentence just for his faith. the government continues to detained over 100, including the seven leaders who sentences for espionage for israel insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the system have been we extended to the original 20 year penalty. in other countries, increasing using, increasingly they're using apostrophes and a set loss to curb religious freedom. in saudi arabia, blasphemy against the wahhabi, the interpretation of sunni islam, continues to be punishable by death. this february, a young blogger was arrested for questioning his faith on twitter, and he still remains in jail without charge.

in pakistan, authorities continue to invoke these abusive laws were hundreds of muslims and non-muslims were convicted of blasphemy. i cfpb, a christian, remains in prison awaiting appeal of the 2010 death sentence for blasphemy. some of those who publicly criticize the blasphemy laws have already paid in their lives. minister of ministry affairs, have already paid with their lives. in nearly half of the world's countries, governments are accused religious minorities or did not intervene in cases of societal abuse. in egypt, the former regime routinely discriminated against religious minority, particularly coptic christians and others, and fail to curb rising violence against coptic christians and their places of worship. these patterns have continued

during the post revolutionary transition. last october, security forces attacked demonstrators in front of the egyptian radio and television station in cairo. 25 people were killed and hundreds were injured, most of whom were coptic christians. and to date, no government official has been held accountable in this attack. in burma, long simmering tensions, recently erupted in watch but violence against marginalized community, and and other countries governments misuse laws to restrict freedom of religion, expression and assembly. china restricted the practice of many groups, including unregistered christian churches, uighur muslims, tibetan muslims, tibet and buddhas, and petitioners. the self and malaysian of over 40 tibetans to protest chinese policies continue to demonstrate their desperation. russia and uzbekistan in voter

national ticket as a pretext for restricting the rights of some peaceful religious groups. other governments use registration law to restrict the rights of religious communities. a number of countries, including belarus, hungary and central asia have laws that make legal legislation for religious communities difficult, which often meant unregistered groups were ineligible for state financial support or tax benefits, and were unable to own property. in belarus, and some central asian country, unregistered groups were also frequent unable to gather for worship, a practice the religion at all, and this type of favoritism by governments can empower societal abuse of religious minority. and several countries, governments limited the rights to wear or not to wear religious attire. this decision should be a personal choice. and increasingly some european countries enacted or drafted legislation to ban a tire that

covers the face, and these bands particularly affected muslim women. and in other regions and countries force women to cover themselves entirely. saudi arabia, iran, sudan and somalia, for example, enforced modesty codes, dress codes for women. and these challenges are daunting, and sometimes it's easy to focus on the egregiously bad and the quietly good. but nevertheless, change is possible. as ambassador at large to international religious freedom, i've been privileged to meet with government officials and people from around the world. the ideas they care about new ways to come together and build hope for a better future are exciting and inspirational. for example, the state department has launched the 2012 hours against a campaign to promote restrict regardless of religion, culture, gender, disability or sexual orientation. using social media, this can be

mobilized young people to volunteer time. and we are partnering with and how exciting it is to be part of the summe olympics, and also be partnering with the paralympics in london. citizens everywhere part of this campaign. and efforts like these change the story of hate and intolerance into one of acceptance and peace. it takes all of us, government, faith communities, civil society, working together to ensure that all people have the right to believe or not to believe. each of us has a role to play in promoting religious freedom were its most vulnerable. so i've talked about several trends in 2011. but when i read the report, i think about the people. i think about the men and women whom i've met in the vietnam, in neisseria, uzbekistan, morocco,

turkey. those i sat with on the day of peace with the vatican. people, men, women, youth, who are trying to practice their faith and raise their children and their families really. most of all, i think about the people whose freedom has been taken away and whose lives still might be at risk. 1000 days plus in cars rated. some whose names we cannot call. i think about the tibetans of self am elated, more than three dozen, and to these into the many others in danger, and to defend of those who've lost their loved one, because of their faith, we dedicate this report. and we dedicate ourselves to continuing the fight for international religious freedom. let me take this opportunity to

wish our warmest wishes and regards to muslims around the world as they observe this month of ramadan. it is now my pleasure to receive your questions. thank you. >> i realize this report goes back to 2011, and so women have the launch of the arab spring, do you have hope that in 2012, do you see things are changing as the arab spring movement progresses in these countries because this is a great question. you want to make a somewhat was 2011, the arab spring continues, places like egypt, there so check still in transition even though they just had elections of the president. they are president has declared he is going to be more inclusive in this candidate is declared to be a coptic christian, there'll be secular citizens, and so we're looking at as they form new constitutions but it's a

wonderful opportunity include religious opportunities and religious freedom. so we're looking for them to hold accountable those who are perpetrating these of violent acts. we're looking to them to protect religious minorities in all citizens, and adhere to the universal human rights. and we are looking to them to where they can reform or repeal or change laws that discriminate to do that. so that's my answer to question. there is transitions as they are important were looking to them to honor to do what they said they would do. >> i was looking at the executive summary, and i was wondering if you could expand our little more on the comment on cuba, on the one hand you're saying there's been an improvement in respect, in a respecting religious freedom, but on the other hand, you're saying there's still significant restrictions, so how do you reconcile ethos to statements? can you elaborate on what's going on now? i realize pope's visit was a bishop and i am wondering if maybe were gearing up to the

visit and that's why the improvements were there. can you elaborate? >> again, the report is about 2011 but currently there are places where the government restricts religion and their places that there are dramatic openings to the u.s. government is encouraging those religious groups to be able to travel there and to be will have an opportunity, post the pope's visit, to be able to engage with communities of faith or. so it's a both ends the situation and we're hopeful they will continue to open the door and work on their religious freedom issues. >> i'm with south korea agency. these reports -- but north korea had leadership change at the end of last year. do you see any sign of change in situations in north korea and what you -- and what our expectations for north korea? >> north korea consents to be a country on arlen specter

situation is deplorable. where we can with multilateral relationships and we try to urge the government to improve their situation. but it is still a deplorable and it is not a real strong religious freedom, no, going for. they're not focused on religious freedom at all. so we're asking them to really work on all of their universal human rights, including religious freedom. >> the report is in 2011. i want to question about religion and religious freedom there and whether you are seeing the reduction in it, in the last six to eight months. >> that's a great question. russia continues to miss use the extremism laws, and that's something we're focusing on continually on the whole of government approach, we are urging the government certainly to not misuse those laws and certainly adhere against the universal human rights declaration and the international covenant on civil and political rights. so they still have the issue of

the misuse of extremism laws. we will continue to monitor the situation. we are certain concerned about the people who are affected but we will continue to monitor the situation and press the government. >> a question on iran. you said, and the report says, that religious freedom deteriorated further from an already egregious situation, at least in the executive summary, some of the issues that you mentioned, the 20 year sentences for the seven, and the continued incarceration of christian pastor, you know, in a sense that doesn't suggest that it's even worse than it was before. what else is significantly worse? >> it's also a country of -- as it continues to be stagnant and hasn't improved we're concerned certainly with haqqani. on july 8, which was just 1000

-- the state department issued a statement for his release to iran. we worked multilaterally with iran. are sanctions that have been impose on them. 14 organizations, religious freedom organizations of four individuals have had sanctions imposed on the. so we continue again to assess the situation and we repeatedly tried to monitor that situation. >> it says it has deteriorated further from already egregious situation. but you just said it was stagnant, neither better nor worse. >> deteriorated from 2011 actually, but the situation is bad. i me, it's not really improved his relationship but it's not -- or other religious minorities that are being detained. and so we're looking at that situation very closely but it continues to be a country of particular concern, and sanctions are used.

>> at a congressional hearing last week, representative chris smith said the united states should be taking a stronger approach on human rights and religious freedom with china. and mentioned sanctions which can be imposed. taken the situation has deteriorated further from religious freedom in china, as it has for the buttons and christians, what soda pressures at the state department considering against china to see? >> thank you for your question. just this past week the chinese human rights dialogue was held here and i participated in that and a raise the religious freedom issue. is a complicated situation where there are many conversations going on. but we raise the freedom religious issue not just about the house churches but the uighurs, the tibetan, when you more than three dozen that decided desperation that the people are and. so we continue to press with the

government or there are also a unregistered churches beyond the house churches that don't have a chance to spread their faith and belief. so we continue to press the government in terms of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. and also gives universal human rights. that's a continuing conversation and we will not let up. >> could you just tell us what kind of response you got in those meetings and you raised the issues during the strategic dialogue speak with will, there was discussion. because discussion will continue. as department is ready to release terms of what the results of those discussions were, i will be doing that. thank you. >> what do you consider what is happening in serious? >> in syria, there's a tough situation but we are seeing much in the media as you see each day. we're looking to oppose the assad industry. were looking for a government that we enclose of all minorities of all minorities and

citizens. we are looking for post-assad inclusive version. >> and what about cbc? are they still the same in this report? >> in 2011 i refer you to the port is where they are, yes. [inaudible] spent there really has not been, i mean, interest achieving. until there's a post-assad regime we will not be able, we will not be able to say how they have moved for. 2011 and 2010 pretty much deteriorated. the trains were deteriorating. >> i think he meant that countries that are cpc in 2011, the same countries. did you add or subtract at? >> in terms of designation? they are the same countries that were there, the same countries spent on egypt, obviously the

situation with the coptic christians was a factor in secretary clinton's visit to egypt and i'm wondering what assurances you've been given from president morrissey that he is going, because in the report obviously the interim government did not, in fact, took actions against coptic christians. so what assurances have you been given by president morrissey that is going to look at this situation? and to what extent could you use aid as a lever to make sure that the government -- >> that's a great question. secretary clinton was racially the. she -- including the coptic christians to meet with a. i also along with assistant secretary posner met with coptic christians both here more than 15, from 15 meeting so we're very concerned about the coptic christians committee. president morsi a city will include include coptic christians sector citizens so we

are looking for him to follow through on what his hummus once. >> i apologize but we don't have time for one more year spent another question about china, because earlier this year in the state department particular report on countries, it included about -- [inaudible] in this year's report for the first time. i'm wondering in your religious freedom report did you also cover this issue? and how do we take matters, take steps to push china? >> as i said, yeah, as i said previously, we are concerned not only with the tibetans and with the uighurs, we are also concerned with falun gong as well. the house church, unregistered faith groups. so we are concerned of all people of faith of opportunity express their faith so we certainly have raised it.

thank you spent but beside raising the questions will you take any concrete measures, measurements to help improve the situation there? >> as we move forward, that governments not only focus on falun gong but also all the others i stated previously, and so we're looking for all religious minorities and all people of all faiths to be able to have the opportunity to express the. religious freedom is for people to believe or not to believe so we want people to have that opportunity, including falun gong. >> i apologize wouldn't have a chance to get everybody. as you know the secretary will speak on this issue and can also take questions later today at the carnegie endowment. if you think you want to address to her, you can ask there. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the u.s. senate is set to gavel in in just under 10 minutes to begin the day. lawmakers will continue working

on a bill dealing with cybersecurity issues. senators will take a break between 12:30-2:15 eastern to attend their we tea party caucus lunches. for more about the congressional agenda, we spoke with a reporter covering capitol hill. >> steven is looking at her of the "washington times." thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> most of the house we expect they will work on taxes and extension of bush-era tax cuts but while republicans are digging into this not as they had into the five weeks august break? >> this is part of what president obama's called on congress to take care of these tax cuts and give certainty to the economy and to businesses and taxpayers, and so the senate actually acted right before it left for, right before last week, and now the house is under pressure to basically follow suit and do what it is going to do but they are likely to actually reject the senate version, which was written by democrats, and instead has a version that was written by republicans that looks like a lot like a version for democrats rejected last week or so we're

likely to a stalemate, and others speakers legislation proposal to overhaul a tax that. how does this bill figure into the tax debate this week what is this a total throw it out and start it all over, or how extensive is at? >> it lays out a framework. it's not as a, it doesn't actually give, it doesn't ask for to the tax reform. what it does is it sets a process by the end of april of next year here's how will do a process for a full recap of the tax could. there's something said or written in the. it is a house republican version. are some things in their that the senate democrats are unlikely to accept such as an actual limit on the total amount of taxation the government can take, and things like that, but by and large i guess i would view it as a signal that the house is serious about saying hey, we need to get to a broad overhaul, all sides tend to agree. we're going to begin laying out a specific marker for how we do that. it basically would give him over.

this bill will probably not pass but if it did pass, it would write into law certain procedures that would get them over a lot of procedural junket that always pops up. >> taxes are not within lawmakers are squeezing into going into the brick. members are pursuing a one year extension of farm programs. which would include drought relief. wasn't likelihood the senate would agree to this approach be? that they got the right question. the likelihood, right now is probably pretty low. you know, if senators are hoping that this, they have a hostile any senate bill in order to get to conference. the senate is hoping that this is essentially a marker that will get them to conference. the senate can take the bill, the broad bill that already passed, a five year bill which overalls this pro can. they will take that bill into conference and they're hoping the house with a match of this one year extension of the current law and that they can to get into conference and then try to hash out agreement to the full five year agreement.

republicans in the house right now the are not talking that way. they are signaling no, we just want to get through another year right now and we'll come back to this next year. they hope they will have bigger numbers next and they will to right to bill more to their liking. they have been unable to write a bill in the chamber right now which is why they are talking about just a one year extension, sort of punting until next year, something both sides in congress have been pretty good on over the last year and a half or so. >> both james also working on a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded. current funding ends on subcommittee of. what are they discussing and why they taking this up now? >> what they are discussing is the length of time that continuing resolution should work. we just talked about putting things until mixture and this is, that's exactly the question facing them is we have been continuing resolution, your viewers are very somewhere with this from all the time we spent on before. we done this again and again and again. what you talk about right now, the question is always you do a short-term one come as you said, funding runs out the end of

september, due to a short-term want to get them through to the middle of november when a lame duck congress can come back, or to just give up the here and push it into next year? of the key question now is how long the continuing resolution will go. there's movement among house republicans in particular conservatives to push for a six-month continuing resolution, push it into next you. those republicans just like the former hope they're bigger numbers in congress for nature and can come back and get even tighter spending cuts for next year it and the real question is what senate democrats do, do they justify, let's push until next year and let the voters decide which direction to go, or do they want to push to try to get a few of these bils done at the end of this year. >> quickly and finally this week, the sin is focused on cyber and dashing cybersecurity. what's the likely senators can finish the bill this week's be? it's a really good question. i think there are a couple of -- a couple of fundamental questions are trying to decide if the fight between business

groups and privacy groups come and so there some senators who think the bills underlying bill should be scrapped. there seems to be a consensus that something should be done. to basically that's your attention, is what they're doing right now good enough to grab at least 50 senators or so unprepared the real questions what sort of amendments are allowed to be debated. may be a candidate come anytime you have a big legislative bill in the senate, it opens up a chance for all sorts of other amendments because there are so few chances to offer amendments usually pick the real questions are was those business groups do in the privacy groups twotwo, where are they lobbying on the bill and what sort of other amendments get that or debates happen on the floor and how messy that makes things. >> stephen dinan is with the "washington times." thanks again for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in this money. senators will work on cybersecurity legislation as they head into the august break.

at 12:30 p.m. these are lawmakers will break for their weekly party caucus lunch. they will return at 2:15 p.m. eastern for further debate. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. creator god, who has nurtured us throughout the seasons of our sojourn, give to the members of this body the love, strength and wisdom to do your will. keep them walking in the paths

-- keep them from walking in the paths of unrighteousness and let them feel your abiding presence in times of joy and sadness. lord, empower them to hold fast to the good will that unites them, making them instruments of your purposes to bring peace in our days, peace to our souls, peace to our families, peace to our country, and peace among nations. may they be moved by your majesty and motivated by the magnitude of the responsibilities you have entrusted to them. we pray in your mighty name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 31, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to -- i'm sorry. i don't mean to do that. we're already on s. 3414, which is the cybersecurity bill. the time until 2:15 is for debate only. the time until 12:30 today will

be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the majority will control the first hour, the republicans the second hour. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. mr. president, i would just alert everyone to this: i would hope those people led by senators lieberman and senator collins will work to come up with a finite list of amendments so we can move on to the cybersecurity bill. i've spoken to the republican leader yesterday and i'm being really patient trying to get a list of amendments we can agree on. i hope that can be done soon. it is very important that we make a determination whether we're going to be able to get a bill. there's not a lot of time left to tread water, so to speak. this important piece of legislation -- all one needs to do is look at what's going on in india today. now, there's no cyber problem over there that i'm aware of,

but they've had one-half of the country of india without electricity today. transportation has been such down. financial networks in india, which are significant, are down. and it's really a chaotic place. 600 million people in india are without electricity. and as we have been told time and time again, the most important issue we have facing this country today for security is cyber. we've been told that by the joint chiefs of staff, by the head of the c.i.a., we've been told that by democrats and republicans. it's an issue that is important, and we've been told that it's something we can prevent. if we don't do this bill, it's not a question if there will be a cyber attack that will be really devastating to our country, it's only a question of when. and it can be stopped of the and i would hope the chamber of commerce would get some sense.

there was a big meeting they had at the chamber yesterday. they were moving forward about all that was bad on the bill. the problem is, they were dealing with the wrong bill. so i would hope that we could get something done on this. it is extremely important we d there will be a senators-only briefing today at 5:00 in the visitors center in the classified room. i'm told there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the titles for the second time. the clerk: s. 345, a bill to require the secretary of veterans fairs to establish a veterans job corps and for other purposes. h.r. 4078, an act to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6%. mr. reid: i am to be both of these -- i would object to both

of these matters at this time. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm going to spend a few minutes talking about the affordable care act. i wonder how many people on the republican side today are going to talk about obamacare? if they do, they should be in a very, very positive state. we know that, as a result of this bill, this affordable care act, people are getting and see will get -- everyone will soon -- a rebate. one of the things we did, led by senator franken and others, is that 80% of the money that is paid for premiums has to go to patient care. and if it isn't, then the amount that doesn't has to be refunded to the patients. that's in the process now. in the month of august, all those moneys will come back in significant amount to americans

who, in effect, have programmed -- they're part of programs that spend too much time on salaries for bosses. also, we're going to talk a little bit today about what this does, this affordable care act, for women in america today. as i said, i'm going to speak very briefly on this, but we're going to have people come today as soon as i finish and as soon as the republican leader finishes to talk about the good things in this bill for women. and i will just touch on them very briefly. there's no question that this bill, signed by president obama, is landmark. it is a landmark piece of legislation. it signaled an end to insurance company discrimination among many, but especially against those who are ill, against those are preexisting conditions, and especially, mr. president, against women. as a result of this bill we passed, being a woman is no longer a preexisting disability in eric in. for many, many years, djourns

companies have charged american women higher premiums. why in because they're women. and for years american women have unfairly borne the burden of high costs of contraception as well. even women with private insurance often wind up spending hundreds of dollars each year more for birth control. today women of reproductive age spend two-thirds more out of their own pockets for health care costs than men largely due to the high cost of birth control. but starting tomorrow, no insurance plans must cover contraception. how much, mr. president? no additional pay at a under health reform, about 47 million women will have additional access to those resources without cost-shank many on the other side have downplayed these benefits or fought to repeal

them altogether. hard to comprehend but true. forcing american women to -- every year -- every year millions of women in the united states put off doctors' visits because they can't afford the co-pays. millions more skip pills or shots to save money. and it's no mystery why the united states is one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations. half of all pregnancies are unplanned. and of those unintended pregnancies, about half wind up in abortion. increasing access to contraception is the most effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies and to reduce the number of abortions. but the high cost is often a barrier. that's why in 1997 olympia snowe and i began a bipartisan effort to prevent unintended pregnancies by expanding access

to contraception. it hasn't been an easy path. it wasn't then. but we did make a start. as part of this effort, we helped pass a law ensuring federal employees access to contraception. it was a big, big issue. that was 15 years ago or more. it was an issue that was very important but a we started that. olympia snowe was terrific to work with. when this benefit took place in 1999, premiums did not go up a single dime because neither health care -- or did the health care costs, not a penny. it was reward knowing that a pro-life democrat and a pro-life republican were able to confront the issue with a practical eye rather than a political eye. it is unfortunate that over the last is a years an idea that started as a common-ground proposal as become so polarizing here in congress.

the controversy is quite strange when you consider that almost 99% of women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives and many have struggled to afford it. mr. president, 99%. the affordable care act will ensure insurance companies treat women fairly and treat birth control like any other preventive service. prior to senator snowe and i doing this, you know, mr. president, anything that a man wanted, they got. viagra, fine, we'll take care of that. anything a man wanted, they got. but not a woman. but the law doesn't just guarantee women's access to contraception. it ensures their access to many other lifesaving procedures as well. thanks to the health care bill, affordable care act, insurance companies have already required -- are already required to cover

preventive care like mammograms. mr. president, a person that is able to have a mammogram, it is lifesaving. most people in the senate know that my wife has battled breast cancer. she had a mammogram in december, and in august discovered a lump in her breast, and think what would have happened if she had waited a year because she couldn't afford that mammogram. frankly, the thought of it is very hard for me to comprehend because even though she had that mammogram in december, she found she was in stage 3 of breast cancer and it has been very difficult. but what if she had waited an extra year? many people wait a lot longer than an extra year.

colonoscopies -- so -- i was talking to one of my friends in the senate. you know, these colonoscopies save lives. he's going to have his done in -- they do it every five years. it takes about ten years for the polyps to develop cancer. but they all develop cancer if you don't have them taken out. people need to have these done. blood pressure checks, child immunization without cost-shank that's part of what's in this bill. it used to be a bill. now it is a law. starting tomorrow -- again, wednesday of this week -- women will no longer have to reach in their pockets to pay for wel wellness checkups. they can do screening for diabetes, h.p.v. testing,

diabetes screening, all in the law today starting to. all women will have access to all forms of f.d.a.-approved contraception without having to shell out more money on top of their premiums. any insurance company discrimination will help millions more women afford the care they need when they need t it will restore basic fairness to the health care system. sometimes the practical thing to do is the right thing to do. that's what the legislation that we worked so hard to pass is all about. it's about doing the right thing for everyone. but today we're going to focus on women. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i have listened carefully to the majority leader's speech about what most americans refer to as obamacare. i think given the fact that our friends on the other side are going to focus on that bill this

particular week, it might be a good idea to have a vote on it on the pending bill. it would be my intent to offer an amendment that i know my friend does not support, but nevertheless many americans would like to know here, since we have spent a good deal of time positionings over the last few months on various and sordid issues, i think it would be appropriate to have a vote on the repeal of mcobamacare. i think it would be good to offer that amendment during the pendency of the bill on cybersecurity bu which we beliee be opening to amendments. i wonder if my friend thinks that might be something both sides would agree would be a good idea? mr. reid: mr. president, i wonder if the court reporter can state the big smile on my face. show that. can you imagine how ridiculous my friend, the republican leader's statement is? listen to what he said. we're talking about

cybersecurity. we talked about the dangers in cybersecurity if we don't do something about it. and he's now telling me that he wants a vote to repeal all the stuff that i just talked about, on cybersecurity? mr. president, that is very difficult to comprehend. i think we should understand that i don't think a woman getting contraception has a thing to do with shutting down the power grids in america or the financial services in america or our water systems or our sewer systems. that's what cybersecurity is all about. not whether a woman can have contraception or whether she can have a wellness check to find out she's got cancer from not having had a mammogram. mr. durbin: would the majority leader yield for a question? mr. reid: i'd be happy to yield. mr. durbin: do i remember that the very first amendment on the transportation bill was offered by senator blunt of missouri on family planning? is there a family planning amendment available on every

bill now that will be offered by the republican side? i know the house republicans have had 33 votes to repeal obamacare. are we going to try to match them with similar efforts in the senate? mr. reid: my response to my friend is this. i try to be very calm about things in life generally, especially things here on the floor. but i can't remain very calm about this. mr. president, i have 16 grandchildren. they are evenly divided between boys and girls. i want my granddaughters to be treated so that if they want to go get some contra -- have some contraceptive device in school, new york university, berkeley -- i'm bragging about that they got in those schools -- they should have the ability to do that.

i think as i -- i just can't imagine what we're talking about here on the senate floor. cybersecurity, one of the most important -- it's the most important issue, i've already said, dealing with if you want to talk to general petraeus, he'll tell you what it is. you want to talk to general demsey, he'll tell you what the important issue is. the number-one issue today is whether we're going to have bad people attack our country and shut it down. now we're here being asked if we're going to have a vote on cybersecurity, as to whether my grandchildren can have contraception. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i guess the answer is no. my friends are going to spend a week lauding the advantages as they see it of an immensely unpopular bill that was passed a couple of years ago on a straight party-line vote: obamacare. yet in a week in which apparently they are going to laud the various provision of it, they're not willing to have a vote in support of it.

so i gather that's a vote we will not have. i will request the opportunity to do that again; anticipate listening to my good friend, the majority leader, such a request would likely be blocked. on another matter, mr. president, four years after the great recession -- mr. reid: if the senator would yield for a question? mr. mcconnell: i believe i have the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader has the floor. mr. mcconnell: four years after the great recession began, millions of americans are still looking for work. millions more have dropped out of the workforce altogether and uncertainty about our nation's future continues to spread. the stories of disappointment and of loss haven't diminished. they have in fact multiplied. what's worse, a president who was elected on a pledge he'd turn all those things around is still pointing the finger at his predecessor. three and a half years after he took office, he's acting like he

just showed up. look, mr. president, i think most americans are smart enough to know that he's made things worse. he's hammered small businesses with a barrage of new regulations, with dozens more in the pipeline. he expects them to plan for the future without even knowing what their tax and health care liabilities will be. last week he even spearheaded a legislative effort to take even more of what nearly a million of these small businesses earn, and then he told republicans that if we don't go along with it, he'll raise taxes on everybody else. that was the message last week. either give me what i want, raise taxes on a million of our most successful small businesses, or we'll let everybody's taxes go up at the end of the week. in other words, he used small businesses as little more than a bargaining chip. the week before that he told

business owners they're not really responsible for what they build. listen to that. business owners, the president said, you're not really responsible for what you built. no amount of white house spin or manufactured outrage can change what the president said in roanoke, and no amount of finger pointing can change the fact that his policies have actually made things worse. but what's most upsetting to a lot of us is the fact that the administration pretends its policies would help the economy or create jobs when it knows that they won't. he knows these policies are not going to create any jobs. what's most upsetting is the deception that lies at the heart of so many of the sales jobs from health care to the stimulus. americans wanted the president to focus on jobs, and he focused on a health care bill that we not learn not only includes a

tax on the middle class, but which will lead to hundreds, hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs. now, the president claims he's fighting for the middle class. but three and a half years into his presidency, their wages are still stagnant. while their dependency on government assistance actually continues to rise. wages are stagnant, dependence on government assistance continues to rise. in some cases the president doesn't even bother with the sales jobs. he just keeps his plans a secret. that's what we're now seeing with the defense cuts he's demanded during last year's budget negotiations. literally for weeks republicans asked the president to tell the american people how he plans to carry out these cuts. he refused. mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: as i was saying, for weeks the

president -- republicans asked the president to tell the american people how he phrapbgs to carry out -- how he plans to carry out these cuts. he simply refused to do so. so last week congress passed legislation requiring him to do so. in fact, it cleared the senate, i believe, unanimously. then yesterday there was this, an assistant secretary down at the department of labor is now telling people they're under no legal obligation to let employees know if they will lose their jobs as a result of these cuts. we've got an assistant secretary of labor yesterday said employers are under no legal obligation to tell their employees they may lose their jobs as a result of these cuts. in other words, the president is trying to keep those folks in the dark about whether they can expect to lose their jobs or not. why? well, i think it's pretty obvious. to insulate himself from the political fallout that will result.

the president doesn't want people reading about pink slips in the weeks before his election. so the white house is telling people to keep the effects of these cuts secret -- don't tell anybody, he says, keep it a secret -- until of course after the election. once again, the president who holds himself out as a great defender of the middle class and the goals of organized labor is putting his own political goals ahead of hardworking americans who will be affected by these policies. rather than let those who will be affected by the cuts know about it, he'll make everybody nervous. for three and a half years -- three and a half long years this president has pushed an ideological agenda without regard for the consequences it would have on the very middle class americans he purports to

defend. the president may not want to admit it, but the economic mess we're in is his legacy. his legacy. and after three and a half years of finger pointing -- three and a half years of finger pointing, he owes it to the american people to be straight about it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, you know, every senator has to decide what they are going to do that day when they wake up in the morning. and for some in this chamber, they wake up every day thinking about how they're going to stop president obama, how they're going to stop his agenda, and how they're going to do everything they can to stop him from having a second term. if you're going to spend your time that way --

the presiding officer: could the senator please suspend so i may announce the morning business? the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 470, s. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyberand communications infrastructure of the united states. ms. mikulski: so, mr. president, there are those who wake up every day thinking about how they want to stop president obama and stop his agenda. well, you can wake up every day thinking about how you want to stop america from moving forward. that's not how i spend my day. i try to look at two things every day: the needs of my people, their day-to-day needs for a job, for an opportunity, for health care, and how that translates into national policy. and then i try to look at the long-range needs of our country. that's why i'm excited about

being on the intelligence committee where i'm working on protecting america from the attacks, the cyber attacks that are happening toefrd our country, the -- every day to our country, the stealing of identity, the stealing of trade secrets. and i want to move america forward. and i work very hard to do that. one of the areas that i'm most proud of that i've worked with the men and women in this chamber, many across both sides of the aisle was on the whole area of women's health care. many want to talk about repealing obama health care. well, i don't want to repeal it. they talk about replacing it. they never have an idea. so let me tell you one of the areas that we fought for. one of the things that we knew as we embarked upon the health care debate is that we wanted to save lives and we wanted to save money. and one of the areas that we wanted to do both was to look at how utilizing the new scientific

breakthroughs in prevention, particularly early detection and screening, we could identify those diseases when early intervention will save that life and also save the money against escalating disease that ultimately costs more and can even cost a life. and nowhere was it more glaring than in the issue of women's health care. my hearings reveal that women were charged more for their health care and got less than men of equal age in health care status. we found that we had barriers to health care because everything about being a woman was treated as a preexisting condition. if you had a c-section for the delivery of your baby, that was counted. in eight states they even counted domestic violence as a preexisting condition. and then what we saw during this

debate was the fact that they even wanted to take our mammograms away from us. well, that was just a moment too far. so during the health care debate, while everybody was being a bean counter, i wanted american women to know they could count on the senate and the women and men of the senate to stand up for them. so we came to the floor. we suited up, and we fought for a preventive health care amendment that not only passed, but goes into effect tomorrow on august 1. and it will be a new day for women of all ages who will be able to get health care coverage for preventive health care at no additional cost, no co-pays, no deductibles and no discrimination where they're charged more and get less. that's what obamacare is. if you want to repeal that, then bring it on, we're ready to fight. we want to fight for that annual

health care checkup that will involve mammograms, pap testing, pelvic exams. we want to be able to do that screening for that dreaded "c" word around colon rectal cancer and lung cancer. we want to make sure that if you think that you're possibly a victim, a doctor suspects domestic violence we can screen and counsel. we want women to be able to have a access, to be able to know early on what are those illnesses that they are facing. august 1 means that our long-fought battle will actually go into effect. and where does it go into effect? with it's already in effect on the federal law books. now it will go into effect in doctors' offices. women will have access to the health care that their doctor says they need, not what an

insurance company says they need or what some right-winger wants to take away from them. i'm pretty mad about this. we were mad ten years ago when they wanted to take our mammograms away from us, and we're going to be pretty mad if they try to take our health care away from us. but what we're happy about, what we're happy about, is that for over more than 50 million american women tomorrow, it'll be a new day. they'll be able to walk into their doctors' offices and they'll say, good morning, can i help you? when was the last time you had a mammogram? and they said, well, i never had one because i couldn't afford t they say, oh, we can sign you right up for that. tell me about your family history. is it true that your father had colon cancer? well, listen, we worry about that about you. you could be in a high risk.

we're going to take a look at that and make sure you're okay. and for young women, we're going to make sure you have other kinds of counseling and services you need in order to have a productive family life. this is what this health care bill is all about. it's about people. it's about access. it's about preventing dreaded diseases. people will come to this floor and they'll pound their chest and complain about the president. we want to pound the table and make sure that women have gotten the health care they need and also tomorrow we're going to be very excited when we keep the doors of doctors' offices hope to the women of america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: first to my colleague from california for letting me go first, my thanks, ahead of her. i have a finance committee meeting, to both my colleague

from maryland and my colleague from california, whose voices are so clear and clarion, i love to listen to the senator from maryland. she speaks right to people. she has it. she gets it. and, you know what? if we could get every american in a giant football stadium and listen to senators mikulski and boxer on health care, 80% would be for it. and so i want to salute them and salute particularly senator mikulski for putting both the event earlier today and these speeches together. now, i heard the minority leader speak, and it meant two things. first, it meant that the republican party doesn't want to do cybersecurity. it means that -- it means that the greatest threat to our nation, probably even greater than terrorism if you speak to some of our military and intelligence experts, will not be dealt with, because we know what he's doing. he is a putting -- he's asking foreign reasonable demand

unrelated -- he's asking for an unreasonable demand unrelated to cybersecurity, knowing that that will stop us from moving forward. it is a sad day. we have some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle talking about, we must not abandon defense. well, one of the strongest things our defense of our nation needs is a strong cybersecurity bill. and because special interests -- chamber ochamber of commerce ans -- don't want it, even though every military and intelligence leader have said how vital it is, the tea leaves show us that the other party is going to block us from going forward. it is unfortunate and sad. and then, second, the way he chose to block cybersecurity couldn't be worse in terms of substance and in terms of timing. today, july 31, the minority leader wants to put on the floor the repeal of so many things that are going to happen

tomorrow to women and to men across america that benefits them. so his timing couldn't be worse. the very day before, we're going to see huge benefits forbe -- the very day before we're going to see huge benefits for the american people, he wants to repeal. why don't we let people see the good parts of health care before we repeal it. we're not going to repeal it. so i want to talk about this day -- or tomorrow, actually, where so many portions of affordable care act go into effect. 3 million women in my home state will benefit, from buffalo to montak. women will receive free basic care for themselves and their children. they will know -- so many women and men don't get preventive services because it is expensive to them. these services are free, but not only will they make those people

healthier, the number-one goal, but they will reduce the costs of health care because every expert -- democrat, independent, republican, moderate, liberal, conservative -- says if you don't more prevention, you're going to save more money. and tomorrow so many of those preventive services go into effect. more women will go in for annual preventive care visits to screen for cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer. more women will have access to contraception and its additional health benefits like protection against osteoporosis. new mothers will have access to support and supplies for breast feeding. more women will be screened for domestic sexual violence, sexually transmitted ink fections and h.i.v. -- infections and h.i.v. and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when we

say there is a war against women and they get their backs up, they want to repeal this and put nothing in its place. no preventive services, no access to contraception, none of the things i've mentioned. yes, it is a war on women. because if they really cared about women and they didn't like obamacare, they would still have a proposal on the floor to keep these fine pieces of the legislation going forward, so they're not cut off tomorrow, which is what they intend to do. but, of course, thank god, it will not happen. the change that we are making helps every woman who said, i would but i can't afford it. it's just too expensive. they will finally get health care. removing the co-pays is a greater thing. cutting the cost of preventive care is something that we long, long wished to do in america and can happen tomorrow. and what about all the other benefits thabenefits that affecd

women alike? 5.2 seniors, men and women, in the doughnut hole who save $3 $3.billion on prescription drugs. and what about the idea that when your insurance company charges you too much of the money goes to profits and salaries and trips and advertising and not enough goes to health care, starting tomorrow you can get a rebate. we know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to them that'that's anage ma to make insurance cops gives a rebate. we want to move forward on the cybersecurity bill. we regret that the minority leader is putting blocks in its way. we want benefits to million of women and men to go forward, as was intended, as was voted for, as is the law of the land. we'll not let them deter us from bringing people those benefits. i yield the floor.

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i want to thank the senator from new york for putting this into context for america. what has happened here this morning is instead of celebrating with us -- because tomorrow, august 1, an entire list of preventive services for women goes into effect because of obamacare -- yes, our health care law -- the republican leader says he wants to repeal awful those benefits. -- he wants to repeal all of those benefits. mr. president, not only does the republican leader in behalf of the republican minority want to repeal the benefits that go into effect tomorrow for women, he wants to repeal the entire health care bill. he wants to have an amendment to the cybersecurity bill, which is

so critical to our national security. he wants to put an amendment on there to repeal a law that the united states supreme court found was constitutional and whose benefits are beginning to take hold in this country. benefits that mean that right now people are receiving refund checks in the mail because their insurance company overcharged them, and under obamacare, you can't do that. and hundreds of millions of dollars are going out to our people. the republicans want, i assume, to force those people to send back their refunds because they want to repeal obamacare. look at the list of preventive health benefits that are already in effect because of the legislation.

already, because of health reform -- and i see senator harkin here, who shepherded this through as our dear friend ted kennedy became sicker and sicker with brain cancer, and i'll never forget how senator harkin stepped up to the plate, senator dodd stepped up to the play, senator mikulski stepped up to the plate, and they were the lieutenants who got it done, and the republicans want to take it away. i can only imagine how senator harkin feels, having been in that fight. but i'm here to say, i'm your supporter. i know what you did. and i know that my people in california, the largest state in the union, are getting breast cancer screenings now with no co-pays. they're getting cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis a and b vaccines, measles and mumps

vaccines, colorectal cancer screenings, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, blood pressure screening, obesity screening, tobacco cessation, autism screening -- how important is that? in my state they say there is an epidemic of autism. hearing screening for newborns, sickle cell screening for newborns, flouride supplements, tuberculosis testing for children, depression screening -- how important is that? osteoporosis screening. i watched as my mother just was in agony from osteoporosis, and there are things you can do now to avoid it. but you need the screening. you need to know whether those bones are losing that density. flu vaccines for children and elderly, and this list goes into effect tomorrow. so let's take a look at the list that goes into effect tomorrow. the list that my republican friends want to repeal today.

tomorrow women will get access to all of these things without co-pays or coinsurance. contraception, well-woman visits, s.t.d. screening and counseling, breast feeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, gestational diabetes screening, h.i.v. screening, and h.p.v. testing. i am stunned that on the eve of the broadest increase in benefits in my lifetime, the republicans want to repeal these benefits from women. this is a continuation on their part of the war on women. and they can get up and stand on their head and deny it and everything else. how else can you explain why on the eve of the day that the women are going to get all these

benefits they want to now cancel obamacare? and stop all this from happening. and if you think it doesn't matter, let me say to you, mr. president, i know you know -- you know it matters whether women get free contraception to cut back on unintended pregnancies and abortion, and well-woman visits and breast feeding support and how about domestic violence screening -- so critical. some women are in these terrible relationships and they go to the doctor and they say, well, i don't want to talk about it. doctors will be taught how to spot domestic violence, and there can be an intervention that will save lives. so here we stand. we have this list of benefits -- women's preventive health benefits -- going to go into effect to. we are here to celebrate that. and instead of our republican colleagues coming on the floor

and joining us and saying how wonderful this is -- and, by the way, at the end of the day, this saves money. we all know that. we all know it saves money. we all know it saves money when you have screening and counseling for s.t.d.'s and you head off on illness. we all know it saves money. and the health care bill saves money. and it reduces the deficit because of this investment in prevention. so, i can't think of a more ridiculous situation than after a bill has become law for how many years now, senator harkin? is it a couple of years that we passed it? two years? it went to the supreme court. it's upheld. and now just as we're about to see these great benefits for women go into place, the republican leader says let's repeal obamacare today. let's have an amendment on the

cybersecurity bill, he said, to repeal the entire health care law. the house voted 33 times at least to repeal it. so i'm wondering what is with this idea of repeal? do you really want to take away these benefits from women, from children, from men, from families? yeah, i guess you do. i guess you stand for going back to the old days when people could hear from their insurance company that they were cut off. when insurance companies could spend 70% on themselves and their own perks and c.e.o.'s getting hundreds of millions of dollars. and you, the patient, getting hardly anything. they want to go back. they want to take away the refunds. they want to take away the funding that our seniors are getting, as they deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. and we fix that in this bill.

so i have to say we make an investment in prevention, in keeping people healthy. we make sure being a woman isn't a preexisting condition. and the republicans today have relaunched their war against women. they're holding up the violence against women act that we passed over here in a bipartisan way. they won't take up the senate bill and pass it. why? they want to take away coverage of that bill from 30 million americans. they don't care about the immigrant population, obviously, the most vulnerable women there. they don't care about the college students apparently, because we get extra protections for them on college campuses. we protect the lgbt community. clearly they're not interested in that. and they're not interested in protecting the native american women. so while the speaker says i will

send conferees to a nonexisting conference on a violence against women act, he could simply pass the bill and make sure that everyone is protected. and instead of celebrating today, because women are getting all these wonderful benefits without a co-pay, they want to repeal all these benefits. they want to repeal this law. and i could just say truly i don't know what motivates them. i do not speak for them. but if they say it's to save money, that's simply not true because this bill saves money. this law saves money, because we're investing in prevention. so the only thing that i can think of is they want to hurt this president. the republican leader said his highest priority was making sure that president obama's a one-term president. so i guess if it means attacking the health care law to hurt this

president, he's willing to do it and hurt all my constituents who are getting these benefits and all of our constituents who are getting this benefit. hurting the american people. well, i say put politics aside. let's see the republicans come down here and celebrate the fact that finally our people are getting the health care they deserve and that they pay for. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, before i speak, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today. i thank senator boxer and senator harkin for their

leadership. just as i was proud back in december of 2009 to join senator mikulski in sponsoring the women's health amendment to the affordable care act. we are here today celebrating the fact that tomorrow, august 1, women will have access to important health services at no cost. and senator boxer showed very clearly what a number of those preventive services are. thanks to the provisions of the affordable care act that go into effect this week, women will have access to a wide range of preventive services from well women and prenatal visits to gestational diabetes screenings, and they will have access to those services without co-payments or deductibles. so finances will no longer stand in the way of women getting the preventive health they need.

this also has the potential to save our health care system money in the long run. the centers for disease control estimate that 75% of our health care spending is on people with chronic disease. so by taking these preventive measures, we can slow this growth and the associated cost of disease. now one of those preventive measures that i want to talk about this morning is screenings for gestational diabetes. as cochair of the senate diabetes caucus, i understand the importance of gestational diabetes screening and the impact it can have on both the mother and the baby. gestational diabetes affects almost 18% of all pregnancies in the united states, and unfortunately, the number of those cases is increasing. the consequence of gestational diabetes are real. not only are there significant health effects for the mother and baby during pregnancy, but

researchers have found that both the mother and baby may be at risk for developing type 2 diabetes later in life. by getting screened, both the mother and the child can be alerted to potential long-term health risks. i want to tell the story of one of my constituents, meg hahn, from penecook, new hampshire, because she's a great example of why this screening is so important. during her 28th week of pregnancy, meg hahn was diagnosed with gestational diabetes. the screening that she had alerted her to the potential related health issues, and they allowed her to get the necessary treatment. i'm happy to record that megan gave berth to a healthy baby girl, grace, she is now eight weeks old. and under the affordable care act, all pregnant women will now be able to receive the gestational diabetes screening for free. tomorrow also marks an important

milestone in women's health for another preventive service. women, beginning tomorrow, will have access to contraception at no cost. now, birth control is something that most women use, and it's something that the medical community believes is essential to the health of a woman and her family. and for some 1.5 million women, birth control pills are not used for contraception but for medical purposes, and they can reduce the risk of some cancers. with costs as high as $600 a year, birth control can be a serious economic concern for many women. being able to now receive birth control for no cost will bring financial relief to so many of those women. and, again, i have a story of a young woman from new hampshire who i think illustrates so clearly why these are such important provisions.

cary wolf from swansee, new hampshire, goes to dartmouth. she takes birth control for treating a health issue that affects her adrenal glands. while she has birth control she has to pay a full deductible and a monthly copay. as a student, trying to balance expenses, her prescription comes as a significant cost. when her new insurance plan comes into effect, cary is going to be able to get the full price of her birth control covered. that's great news in making sure she gets the health care she needs. as governor of new hampshire, i was proud to sign legislation that required insurance companies to provide contraception coverage to women with no religious exemptions.

at that time it was understood by people on both sides of the aisle of all religious faith that requiring contraceptive coverage was about women's health and it was a basic health care decision. yet, over the last several months opponents have continued to roll back contraceptive coverage at both the state and federal level. every woman should be able to make her own health care decisions, and she should not have to have her boss stand in the way. the provisions that go into effect tomorrow ensure that women can make these decisions. i thank senator mikulski and senator harkin for their leadership in women's health, and i joan them in celebrate -- and i join them in celebrating these important provisions that are going to make a huge difference for women's health, that are going to be good for women, for families and for everyone in this country. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. harkin: first of all, let mean commend the senator from new hampshire for her governor and as a united states senator in this whole area of health care for women especially. she's provided great leadership in this area, continues to provide that leadership. i just want to join with the senator from new hampshire in saying that we're not going to let these provisions that now are expanding coverage for so many women -- 47 million women in america. we're not going to let these roll back. we're just not. again, if the people of this country elect mr. romney to be president and they turn over the senate to the republicans, there it goes. it's gone. it's gone. i did not hear this this morning, but i understand the republican leader said this

morning -- i stand to be corrected, but as i understand, he said they wanted the first amendment that would be offered on the cybersecurity bill that i think is now before the senate, he wanted the first amendment to be a repeal of the atpoerbl -- affordable care act. what timing. what timing, i say to the republican leader. on the eve of when we are expanding preventive health care services for 47 million women in america, the republican leader gets up and says we want to vote to repeal this tomorrow. tomorrow. repeal it tomorrow. does that kind of give you some idea of how they feel about the women of america and the health care of our mothers, our sisters, our daughters? that's what they want. we've already voted 33 times to

repeal portions of the health care act. i think we voted twice in the senate in order to repeal the whole thing. they want to have another vote. but i think it's just more than passing curious that the republican leader wants to vote to repeal it on the very day when we're expanding health care coverage for the women of america. interesting. interesting. tomorrow is an important day for american women, thanks again to key provisions of the affordable care act. and i do want to commend senator mikulski for her great leadership in this area. senator dodd, senator bingaman, senator kennedy, when he came ill asked us to take the leadership on different provisions of the affordable care act in the help committee and to get it through. we had wonderful support from our colleagues here on the floor of the senate, in our committee.

and these provisions that we put in to move us from a sick-care system to a health care system. ivan said in america -- i've often said in america we don't have a health care system. we have a sick care system. if you get sick, you'll have care maybe in the emergency room if you're poor or maybe not at all, if you don't make it to the emergency room. but there's very little in our country to keep you healthy in the first place. and yet we know, we have good data and we know that preventive services up front saves you a lot of money and a lot of lives, a lot of pain and suffering later on. so in the affordable care act we put in a big provision on preventive services. and we said basically that what the preventive services task force of the center for disease control and prevention, what they listed as their "a" and "b," those that had the, if i

could use this term, best return on investment, or the biggest impact, that those would be free. there would be no co-pays, no deductibles. senator mikulski, she said, she reminded us of what is often but not too often taken into legislation, that women are different from men. so we asked the institute of medicine to come up with provisions that apply to the preventive health care of women. that's what goes into effect tomorrow. senator boxer very eloquently talked about that and had the chart showing all of the different things that would start tomorrow, all new plans that would cover women in this country. and, again, to keep women healthy in the first place -- preventive services to keep women healthy without co-pays

and without deductibles. and right on the eve of this wonderful expansion of health care coverage, of making sure that women are not second-class citizens when it comes to prevention and wellness, on the very eve of saying to women that no longer can insurance companies sort of say you are -- because you are a woman, you have a preexisting condition. the republican leader gets up and says he wants to have a vote on repealing the health care bill. talk about a slap in the face to the women of this country. well, i think -- i think women know what they're facing now coming up this fall. i just point out that tomorrow 519,000 -- actually, about 520,000 women in iowa will have

expanded coverage, preventive services. we fought hard to put these into law and webb we are not going to -- and we are not going to let them repeal it. what we have -- we have the votes. let's face it, we have the votes here in the? the -- let's face it. we have the votes here in the senate to stop it. i think it is indicative of where they want to take this country. we can stop it now, but if mr. romney is elected president -- and he says, on day one -- day one -- he wants to repeal -- what he's first sworn in he'll set up legislation to repeal t and if the senate is in republican hand hands and the he is in republican hands, you can kiss it goodbye. we won't be able to stop it then. it's hard to believe, but prior

to the affordable care act, essential services that were unique to women -- maternity care was not even included in health care plans. tomorrow, again, free preventive checkups, breast feeding support and supplies, gestation calal diabetes screenings -- how many women would know that the best thing for their babies is breast milk? breast milk is the preferred way of starting babies off. but sometimes these supplies can be expensive, especially if they're working and they're without objectioning at a low--- and they're working at a low-wage job, they may need these supplies but they can't afford it, so, therefore, they turn to other methods -- to formula for their babies.

i'm not saying formula is bad, but every pediatrician will tell you that breast feed something the best -- that breast feeding is the best. but women would be forced to choose a less best option if they didn't have these breast feeding supports and supplies. so let me take head-on if i can this idea of contraception. well, as the senator from new hampshire pointed out, this can be pretty expensive, up to $600 a year or more. now, i suppose for one of us here making -- what do we make here -- $172,000 a year and we have great health care coverage -- that's not a big deal. but you take a low-income women, a couple of kids, working a minimum-wage job, trying to scrape by just enough to get by, yeah, $600 a year is a lot of money. let me point out another facet of this.

somehow people think that -- seem to have this idea that, for example, birth control pills are only to prevent a pregnancy. there are many young women of child-bearing age in this country who take birth-control pills on the advice of their doctor, not to afford a pregnancy but because their monthly cycles are so painful that they can't even work. and so what are we saying now? a young woman has to get a prescription from a doctor and it's not for birth control methods but for other physical problems, you have to take that in and show that to your employer now? have to take that in and show it to your insurance carrier? make women second-class citizens again. nonsense. nonsense.

i respect religious freedom as much as anyone, but despite the republican propaganda, this law does not mandate that any woman has to use contraception and it does not force employers to dispense it. what it does is it gives women affordable access to birth control for a variety of reasons should they or their doctor decide it is right for themselves and their families. as for religious organizations that object to contraception, the president has issued a very sensible compromise to accommodate their beliefs while ensuring that women have access to this critical service. i respect, as i've said, the views of all people on these divisive issues. i would oppose any measure that threatens the fundamental religious liberties of individuals or institutions. but i say this very clearly, the republicans on that side of the aisle are not motivated, i don't believe, by a genuine desire to

protect religious liberty. rather, they are determined to undo these and other benefits for women in the affordable care act. they've repeatedly introduced legislation, approved by the house appropriations committee, that allows anyone to opt out providing any services to which they have a religious or moral objection. well, you might say, well, that sounds reasonable on the face of t but think about this. any employer for any religious or moral objection can decide not provide any coverage. well, they can say, not only contraception, mammograms, prenatal screenings, all these other things, i have just have a moral objection to that based upon my religious belief. i mean, i respect christian scientists. i've always respected them and

their beliefs. but can they say then, well, we're not going to cover insurance for than employee who goes to see a doctor for alopathic medical care in we don't believe in that. that's not our belief. i believe the president has come up up with a reasonable compromise. so what the republicans would do, according to their leader this morning, they would rob 47 million women of these new preventive services. 47 million. and they would rob 1.1 million young women of the insurance they've already gained through the affordable care act's extension of dependent coverage. america's women are not going to be dragged backward. they're not going-to-are allow health insurance -- they're not going to are allow health insurance to go back to the policies that hurt them and their families prior to the

passage of the affordable care act. many women will now experience this firsthand the republicans can bring it up time and time and time again. they have sent a very clear signal to the women of america: whatever you've gained under the affordable care act, all these benefits, we're going to take them away from you if you put us in office. i think the women of america need to have some really deep soul-searching about who they want deciding their fate in the future after this next election. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: th the president from illinois -- the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: first let me thank my colleague from iowa for his statement, for his clarity and his sincerity and his leadership. we have the affordable health care act because of tom harkin

and chris dodd and barbara mikulski and others who worked hard to make sure it was here to help families all across america, particularly those in low-income situations. and like senator harkin, i was stunned this morning when the republican senate leader came to the floor and said the first thing we want to do is to repeal all of this health care preventive care that will be available across america, including the provisions that go into effect tomorrow protecting 47 million of our women and family members across the united states, 2 million in illinois, i might add, that will be helped by this. and they insist on bringing up on the pending bill on the floor this amendment to basically remove the protection for these women that is built into affordable health care. i have to say to nor harkin, we can't be too surprised at this. does the senator remember the very first amendment the

republicans offered on the transportation bill, a bill that we wanted to pass to build highways and airports? remember what senator blunt, the republican from missouri, offered as the first republican amendment to the transportation bill? it was on family planning. family planning and transportation? i guess some late-night comedians can make a connection here, but i don't get it. and now we have pending the cybersecurity bill to protect america from a cyber attack which could literally cost american lives, something we're told is the number-one defense threat to america, and senator mcconnell comes to the floor on behalf of the senate republicans and says, this bill will not go forward unless we can offer an amendment to repeal the health care reform act, repeal the protections that are in there for families and women across america. it is stunning that no matter what issue we go to, the

republican senators return to this issue of denying health care coverage and denying protection and preventive care to our families. but, in a way, senator, you touch on it. it is pretty easy for a senator to come to the floor and talk about somebody else's health care, because you and i know -- and senator mcconnell knows -- the health care we have as members of the united states senate, american families would die for the health care we have. we have the best health care insurance in the world. and we have it in a governmen government-administered plan that protects every senator and their family. we're lucky. we're in the federal employees' health benefit plan. and i believe that people across america should have the same opportunity or the same type of health care. i am still waiting, senator harkin, for the first republican senator to gets up on the floor

and denies government-administered health care and walks to the well and say, i am going to abandon my own health insurance as a senator. not one has done it. not a single one. so for the senators who come to the floor, their wives will still be protected by our health insurance, their daughters will still be protected. the question we have to ask is, the protection with ever as senators for our families, should it be available to others all across america? that's what this is about. tomorrow is a launch of an amazing development in health care protection for our families. i applaud it. to think -- my wife and i are still celebrating. our daughter gave birth to twins in november. we have twin grandchildren. they're eight-months old. we couldn't be happier. they got through great.

they were cared for. we're es so proud of our daughtr and her husband. pregnant women in danger of gestational diabetes that could threaten their lives or the lives of the babies they're carrying, to now have preventive screening to protect them. don't come to the floor and tell me you're pro-life and profamily and oppose that because if you want a healthy mom and a healthy baby, this screening that starts tomorrow for millions of american women will be a positive step forward toward uneventful births and healthy babies. think about the care and screening for cancer and for all of the problems that women face. i see senator murrion the floor here. -- i see senator murrion the floor here. i want to yield the floor to her in a moment. i want to close by saying this. all those who were on this campaign to repeal obamacare --

that was their slur on it; we accept it -- it is health care under president obama. one of the most important votes i ever cast those who want to repeal this so-called obamacare as senator mcconnell called for today on behalf of the republicans, would repeal a few basic things we shouldn't forget. every family in america with a child with a preexisting condition -- think of asthma, diabetes, the history of cancer -- under our law they cannot be denied health insurance coverage. we protect those kids, we protect their families. the senate republicans want to repeal it. seniors in america are getting a helping hand from the affordable health care act. the senate republicans want to repeal it. families across america with kids fresh out of college looking for jobs, who can't find them, or have a job without good health care can still be covered under their parents' policy

until the young person reaches the age of 26. that's what the affordable health care act does. the senate republicans want to repeal it. tomorrow when 47 million americans -- 47 million women in america now have preventive screening so that they can be healthy on an affordable basis and be mothers giving birth to healthy babies, that is in this new law, and the senate republicans want to repeal it. this isn't just a war against the pill. this isn't just a war against family planning. it is literally a war against women. and the statements of the senate republican leader on the floor today are proof positive that they have one focus, and that is to take away these protections which we built into the law. i'm happy to yield the floor to our leader on this issue, and my colleague from washington, senator murray. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mr. harkin: would the senator yield for a request? mrs. murray: i will.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that oliver o'connor and kevin bridges of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor today very excited about the great progress america's going to make tomorrow, august 1, for women across this country and to share the outrage that i just heard from the senator from illinois and others that before those even go into effect tomorrow, on the eve of this great opportunity for so many women, the republican leader has come to the floor and says we want to repeal it. the first amendment. on an issue not related at all -- cybersecurity. but to take those away before they even begin. because, mr. president, it is an exciting moment for women in this country, because two years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions

like pregnancy are being a victim of domestic violence. denied. two years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than their male counterparts. two years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care like mammograms or prenatal screenings that the senator from illinois talked about. two years ago insurance companies had all the leverage. two years ago too often women paid the price. that is why i'm so proud today to come to the floor with so many of our colleagues to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past two years and the new ways that women will benefit from health care reform starting tomorrow, august 1. you know, since the affordable care act became the law of the land, women have now been treated more fairly when it doms health care costs -- when it comes to health care costs and

options. deductibles and other expenses have been capped so a health care crisis won't cause a family to lose their home or their life savings. women can use the health care exchanges to pick quality plans that work for themselves and their families. and if they change jobs or have to move, which so many people have to do today, they can keep their coverage. and now starting tomorrow, august 1, additional types of maternity care are going to be covered. women will be armed with the proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy. starting tomorrow women will have access to domestic partner violence screening and counseling as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. and starting tomorrow women will finally have access to affordable birth control so we can lower rates in maternal and infant mortality and reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and

improve overall health outcomes and encourage far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions that is a goal that we all share. mr. president, i also want to note the affordable contraceptive policy we put in place preservation the rights of -- preserves the right of all americans while protecting the rights of millions of americans who do use contraceptives who believe that family planning is the right choice for them and who don't deserve to have politics or ideology prevent them from getting the coverage that they deserve and want. mr. president, starting tomorrow women are now fully in charge of their health care. not an insurance company. that's why i feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were while we can never stop working, of course, to make improvements -- which we all know are important -- we owe it to the women of america to make progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs. you know, mr. president, despite

the recent supreme court decision upholding this law, i know some of our republican colleagues are furiously working to undo all the gains that we have made in health care reform for women and families. we heard the minority leader this morning come to the floor and wants to offer an amendment on the next bill that's now coming up on cybersecurity to repeal all of these important protections for women that women are taking advantage of today and certainly something we all should want for our families and our daughters and for the women in this country. i know apparently that they think repealing the entire health care law is a political winner for them, but the truth is, mr. president, this law is a winner for women and for men and for children and for our health care system overall. so i'm proud to be out here with my colleagues today who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of

america, because politics and ideology should not matter twhe comes to making -- when it comes to making sure women across america get the care they need at a cost had -- that they can afford. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: good morning, mr. president. i thank the chair. mr. president, as the senate now turns its attention to the pending legislation whose aim is to enhance our nation's cyber defenses, i'd like to take a few moments to review where we are, because the bill we now have on the floor i think brings us closer than ever to an agreement on a way to better defend our country, our prosperity, our security against what is emerging as the most significant threat we face today. bigger than conventional attack by a foreign enemy, bigger even

than islamist terrorism; a threat that is very different than anything we faced before and so probably hard for most americans to conceptualize, but trust me, it's here. that's why it's so important that i think we've come closer than ever to an agreement, but we're not there yet. and i've come to the floor to say to my colleagues that those of us who sponsor the pending legislation -- senators feinstein, rockefeller, collins, and i -- are eager to continue to work with our colleagues toward a broad bipartisan solution to this national security, urgent national security threat, crisis. obviously to do that, we've got to begin processing amendments. and they've got to be what the majority leader has said: germane or relevant. the majority leader has said we'll have an open amendment process, and i thank him for

that. no filling of the tree here. but the amendments have got to be germane or relevant. we're dealing with a national security crisis unlike any we've faced before. a broad bipartisan group of us met with the leaders of our cyber defense agencies yesterday. not political people, not partisan people. and they urgently appealed to us to pass this legislation in this session of congress. it gives them authority to protect us that they don't have now. and, frankly, they worry that without that authority to share information with the private sector, for the private sector to share cyber threat information with each other without fear of liability, for the government to have the ability to create some standards for the private owners of cyber space and then give them the voluntary option to abide by those standards, that all of

those add-ons, all of those realities that will be created by passage of this bill are desperately needed now. the fact is they were needed yesterday. they were needed last year. that's why i'm so disheartened to hear this morning that our friends in the republican caucus are talking about introducing an amendment to this bill that will repeal obamacare, as they call it. it's just not -- there's a day for that, but it's not this week on this bill. frankly, i feel the same way about some of the gun control amendments that have been submitted by members of the democratic caucus. those amendments deserve debate at some point, but not this week on this bill. we can get this bill done and protect our security. nobody believes that we're going to repeal obamacare this week or that we're going to adopt gun

control legislation. those are sort of making a statement. they're sending a political message. and they'll get in the way of us protecting our national security. so i appeal to my colleagues on both sides. hold back these irrelevant amendments. let's have a full and open debate on cybersecurity, and let's get it done this week. there are already more than 70 amendments filed that are germane or relevant. i wonder if i might ask my friend from kansas if i could have two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the senator from kansas. already 70 amendments filed, so we don't have time to sit here staring at each other while we could be working through them. the truth is we have a number of amendments we're ready to take votes on, but of course we need cooperation from both sides in order to nail down that agreement with the consent

that's required. but i want to, before i yield the floor, underscore that while there are important issues, we still need to work through this week, the reality is that because senators on all sides have been willing to compromise, we have a golden opportunity to prove that we can work together when it counts the most, which is in defense of our security and prosperity. leaders -- leading sponsors of the pending bill, leading sponsors of the leading opposition bill -- secure i.t. -- and leaders of the peacemakers in between, led by senators kyl and whitehouse, have been meeting for the last week and making progress. and i would say that what was once a wide chasm separating us is now a narrow ridge which we can bridge. and i firmly believe we will with good faith on all sides and a willingness to compromise.

you could really get 100% of what you want in a democratic -- small "d" -- legislature like ours. if each side can get 75% or 80% and we can begin to fix a problem and close the vulnerabilities that exist in our cyber infrastructure this week, we will have done exactly what the american people want us to do. that's my appeal to my colleagues. with that, mr. president, i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague, senator lieberman, for his leadership and in urging members of congress to bring amendments down that are germane to the very serious national security issue. i thank him for his comments and his leadership again.

i rise today on a different subject but maybe the same kind of thing. it's to recognize a distinguished group of world war ii veterans from kansas who are now visiting their nation's capital as of today, this week, as part of the honor flight network. the honor flight network is an organization with the main mission to give veterans the opportunity to visit their memorials or the national mall free of cost to the veteran. the veterans who participate are many times unsung heroes in world war ii, and in many cases their remembrances and their stories are shared for the first time, become public for the first time for families and home towns, in many cases young people travel with these veterans, hear the stories, put the stories of these famous

battles in their local newspapers and in their school newspapers. it's history. it's history shared, lessons learned. and certainly we give thanks to the greatest generation. many of these veterans are in their 80's and 90's. there are fewer than 2,000 world war ii veterans in kansas. the v.a. estimates approximately 740 members of the greatest generation pass each day. so i am especially pleased that this tuesday, a group of 28 will fly in to our nation's capital from kansas to see their world war ii memorial and other memorials and allow us the privilege to pay homage to their heroism. with five regional hubs in kansas, there is a steady stream of veteran groups making their way to our nation's capital. the leaders of these groups

include brian spencer and bill patterson. leading the honor flight kansas student edition from lynn don, kansas. the leaders of the jackson heights honor flight. and the north central honor flight out of concordia, kansas. michael castle, jeff true guide the shall southern coffey county high school honor flight out of leroy, kansas. finally the leaders of this group coming in on tuesday are mike van campen and lowell downey. these hub leaders and the many volunteers deserve our recognition for hours of work, organization and fundraising that goes into planning for these trips. so thank you for what you do for these folks and for setting such a fine example in remembering and honoring the sacrifices made by those who stood in defense of our country in world war ii. kansans and all americans should know that this program -- and as

a matter of fact the world war ii memorial itself -- would not even exist without our former senate majority leader, the senior senator from kansas and a world war ii veteran himself bob dole. bob was instrumental in bringing the world war ii memorial to the national mall, and even now bob meets personally with honor flight groups who make their way out to see their memorial. when veterans learn that bob dole is at the world war ii memorial, there is a crush of veterans like a flock of chickens going to the mother hen. i'm not sure bob dole is going to appreciate that al gory, but at least i think it indicates that everybody -- that allegory, but i think it indicates everybody comes to hear him and thank him for his efforts. finally, mr. president, i'd like to recognize each member of this honor flight trip from kansas visiting their memorial and ask unanimous consent that their name appear in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. roberts: i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i know under the order this hour is reserved for members of t republican caucus, though i am an independent i don't qualify exactly under the terms of the agreement. to speak now but seeing no member of the republican caucus on the floor, i thought i would take the opportunity to continue to speak about the pending item, s. 3414, the sierkd

sierkd -- the cybersecurity act of 2012 and if any of my colleagues arrive i will yield to them immediately. before i yielded to senator roberts a short while ago, i made a statement that the two sides, if i can put it that way, the sponsors of the pending legislation, senators feinstein, collins, rockefeller and i, and the sponsors of the alternate approach, security i.t. act sponsored by senators mccain, chambliss, and hutchison and others, have been meeting and particularly assisted by the bridge builders here, blesseder the peacemakers, senators kyl, whitehouse and others. and we've been making progress and i said what was once a chasm separating us is now a narrow ridge that we're close to bridging. let me explain what i mean by that.

the sponsors of s. 3414, the pending legislation, strongly believe that owners of critical cyber infrastructure -- and this a is a unique aspect of our free society, thank god. 80% to 85% of critical infrastructure in our country is privately owned, including cyber infrastructure. that's the way it ought to be. but it means when critical cyber infrastructure in a new world becomes a target of cyber attack and cyber theft, that we, the west of -- the rest of us americans represented by the government, have to enter into a partnership with the private sector owners of critical cyber infrastructure so that they will take steps to protect the cyberspace that they own and operate because if they don't, the whole country is in jeopardy. if an electric grid is knocked out, the kind of awful

experiences we've all had at different times when the power grid has been out in our area of the country will be felt perhaps for weeks and weeks. think about it. what if the financial cyber system, wall street, the -- the systems that take -- handle millions of -- trillions really of transactions over and over again was knocked out. it would have a devastating effect on our economy let alone the most nightmarish which is some enemy breaks into the cyber control system of a dam holding back water and opens the dam. and floods surrounding communities with a terrible loss of life. you could go on and on with the nightmarish scenarios, but they're out there and we're vulnerable to them. so the sponsors of 3414 have felt that private-sector owners of critical infrastructure should be mandated, that is only the owners of the most critical infrastructure,

mandated to adopt the standards that would be set under our legislation to protect their systems and our country. sponsors of the secure yit -- i.t. act started this debate firmly committed to the idea we only needed to enhance information sharing between private-sector operate oars and the government. we have a section in our bill that does exactly that. but we feel that's not enough. we feel there needs to be these standards set for the private operators of the electric grid, of the transportation system, of the financial system, etc. if we -- both sides had just stuck to our guns, no legislation would be possible. but when it comes to cybersecurity, no legislation, which is to say the status quo, is not only unacceptable, it's dangerous. some of our really -- really

most of our national security leaders in this country from the last two administrations, the george w. bush administration, the barack obama administration have warned as if in a single voice we're already facing the equivalent of a digital pearl harbor or 9/11 if we don't shore up and defend our exposed cyber flanks. same is true of the impact of our vulnerability in cyberspace to cyber theft. general keith alexander the head of the defense department cyber command and the national security agency made a speech a week or two ago in which he estimated that more than a trillion dollars has been stolen over cyberspace from america. he called it the largest transz every of -- transfer of wealth in history. that results from moving money at a bank -- out of bank

accounts a lot of us never hear because the banks feel it's embarrassing, theft of industrial secrets to other countries that then build from those industrial secrets and create the jobs in their countries that our companies wanted to create here. so there's a unified position among national security leaders apart from which administration they served we need this legislation and we need it urgently. several of us met with the leaders of the cybersecurity agencies of this administration yesterday. these are nonpolitical people. these are professionals from the department of homeland security, department of defense, the f.b.i., and others. and they warned us again that the cyber systems that are privately owned and that are critical to our nation's security remain terribly vulnerable to attack. they said, i'm paraphrasing,

we need this legislation to respond urgensly and effectively to an attack on infrastructure as critical as the electric grid or wall street itself. and one of the leaders in our government, uniformed leaders said today, to him is a little like 1993 when it comes to cybersecurity. when as we remember, al qaeda launched a precursor attack on the twin towers in new york with a truck bomb that blew up in the parking garage. we all know that there was a loss of life then but the damage was relatively small. but al qaeda persisted and, of course, on 9/11 succeeded in bringing down the two towers of the world trade center. this leader of cybersecurity efforts in our government said that our adversaries today in

cyberspace are just about where al qaeda was in 1993 when they blew up that truck bomb in the parking garage of the world trade center. what i was impressed yesterday, i'll say parenthetically, mr. president, though there is some controversy out here about who is capable of what in our federal government, let me people frankly of people who don't have much respect for the department of homeland security, i don't understand why because they do a great job in my opinion in so many different areas including the one that's relevant here, cybersecurity. but it was clear that the department of homeland security, department of defense, f.b.i., working like a team really, like a seamless team, 24/7, 365 days a year, to leverage each others' capabilities to provide for the common defense. and they all agreed yesterday that we need to pass this legislation to give them the tools they urgently need that

they don't have without this legislation to work with one another and the private sector. mr. president, i want again to give thanks to senators kyl and whitehouse, joined by senator mikulski, blunt, coons, graham, coats, and blumenthal, who have come together with a compromise proposal after a series of good-faith negotiations and as a result, senators collins, rockefeller, feinstein and i have made major and difficult compromises in our original bill in order to move the legislation forward to get something started to protect our cybersecurity. i think we've now got a broad agreement on a bill containing those same cybersecurity standards that were in our original bill that result from a collaborative public-private sector process and negotiation.

but now instead of mandating them, we're going to create incentives for the private sector to opt into them. we're going to use carrots instead of sticks. and we've added some compromises also from the original legislation to guarantee members of the senate and millions of people out in the country that when we act to share information from the private sector to the government, that we're going to have due regard for the privacy of people's data in cyberspace, personal information. without compromising our national security at all. many -- there are advocates on both sietdz of both the information sharing provision and the critical cyber standards provision that think we've gone too far and some think we haven't gone far enough. but while advocates on the

outside of the senate can hold fast to their particular positions, legislators on the inside of the senate need to take all these deeply held views into account but ultimately our responsibility is get -- to get something done. to protect our security. it's our responsibility to pass a law. we've done that here and, mr. president, i'd like to first review some of the broad areas of agreement and then outline the differences that remain because i want my colleagues to understand how much progress has already been made. sometimes the news stresses the differences between us. let me start with title one of the bill, which is the one on critical infrastructure. i think there's a growing broad agreement now that the private sector owners of critical infrastructure should work with the government to develop what somebody yesterday called the best cyber hygiene or standards

of defense that are needed to safeguard their facilities and the rest of us. we've created in the original bill we had the department of homeland security playing the singular role for the government. we broaden that now in response to particularly recommendations from the kyl-whitehouse group and we've created a new interagency council we call the national cybersecurity council which will consist of the department of homeland security, the department of defense, the department of commerce, the f.b.i., and the director of national intelligence as well as relevant primary regulators when that sector of cyber structure is before the council. what do i mean by that? if they're dealing with the cybersecurity of the financial sector of our government, then on those standards, we would expect the securities and

exchange commission and the treasury department, for instance, among others to be seated at the table to come up with agreement on those standards. we've also agreed that adoption of these practices will be voluntary and that there will be no duplication of existing regulations or any new regulatory authorities that will be added to law. we've also agreed that incentives need to be created, the carrots that i've talked about, such as liability protection to entice private sector owners to adopt these practices once they have been developed. totally voluntary. the differences -- but i think if we build this right, they will come. though it's not mandatory, we will set a standard and private sector operators of critical infrastructure will want to meet that standard because they'll want to act in the national

interest and protect their customers but also when they do, they'll receive very valuable immunity from liability in the event of an attack or a theft. and look, i decided that we needed to make the system voluntary in order to get something passed this year. i think it has a really good chance of working as a voluntary system. but if it doesn't and the cyber threat grows as much as i think it will, some future congress is going to come along and make it mandatory. so there will be an incentive on both the public and private sector, particularly the private sector, to make this voluntary system work. mr. president, god forbid between now and then there's a major cyber attack against our country. congress will come flying back an