liquified natural gas, and that following the disposition of the barrasso amendment, the majority leader and the republican leader or their designees be recognized to offer relevant amendments in an alternating fashion, including the cornyn amendment on military assistance to ukraine. the presiding officer: does the majority leader so modify his request? mr. reid: i would conserve the right and make a brief comment -- i would reserve the right and make a brief comment here. the committee action on this was really historic. the issue that my friend just suggested be part of an amendment process was discussed at some length in the committee. as i discussed this morning, the situation in the ukraine is critical. the senate must act as quickly as we can on the senate foreign relations bill. the bill before us gives

additional aid to a fragile ukrainian economy. as secretary kerry, former senator kenry, john kerry, he wants this aid that is in our bill now. but he also wanted what was in our bill, i.m.f. funding. he said if i can't get both the most important thing we do now is the funding that is in our bill and he's probably right. we already know there's been many signals from the house that they wouldn't accept i.m.f.. the republican leader said that he was concerned about the i.m.f. so i am really pleased that the sanctions inside this legislation i hope will pass on thursday is something that is going to help ukraine. i'm confident it will.

sanctions inside ukraine and russia wilil undermine ukraine's sovereignty and stability, as far as i'm concerned, we'll have more legislation on this in the not-too-distant future. as far as i'm concerned i think there should be more sanctions we look at. i think they need more aid. i heard on the sunday shows, republican senator ayotte and democratic senator durbin talked about the need for sleeping bags, small-arms fire and things like that that the ukrainians simply don't have. so that's why i'm pleased that we've been able to come to a tentative agreement to vote on this measure thursday. i would have preferred to have included, as i already indicated, international monetary provisions in this bill. these provisions would provide additional funds for the fragile ukrainian economy. my republican colleagues, for reasons unrelated to the ukraine were ready to kill the bill over the i.m.f. issue.

we're ready to move forward on the bipartisan senate foreign relations bill without the i.m.f. language. let me take a brief minute to extend my appreciation. i think i speak for the entire senate, for the hard work that has allowed us to get where we are. chairman menendez, ranking member corker, they have worked very well together on legislation generally but on this specifically. and senator mccain, a longtime leader on national security issues, has been very articulate and forceful in his view as to what should be done. by the way, both corker and mccain suggested that we should have the i.m.f. money in this, but i called senator mccain this morning and told him reasons why i thought we couldn't go forward with it, and i think he agrees with that. so i hope my colleagues will join us in voting to pass this bill on thursday. the people of the ukraine are watching. the russians are watching. it is time for the u.s. senate

to act. it is time for ukraine to get the support it needs. it is time for the body to sanction the russians and time the senate sent a message to putin that the u.s. condemns the russian annexation of the ukraine. i say once again if he so likes these votes that he created in the crimea why doesn't he have one in chechnya? why doesn't he have a vote there? it would turn out much differently than he would want. senator barrasso talked about this issue that my friend from texas suggested and it and other issues i think are something we need to bring up when we talk about further work on the ukraine. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i will be brief but further reserving the right to object to the majority leader's request, i want to make sure the majority leader understands that no one is talking about slowing this bill down and it's anticipated, i think, even under the majority leader's consent request, we

will be finished with this bill no later than thursday. and it is one of those circumstances where given the context of what is in the legislation, there is actually bipartisan support for this because of the importance of sending a unified message to the russian leader about this aggression. but i want to be clear that my position is that sanctions are not enough. we need to go further and to provide a means for the ukrainian people to defend themselves against this sort of aggression, which they do not presently possess. and we need to find a way to relieve the stranglehold that putin has on ukraine and much of the rest of europe that he's going to keep using as long as he feels like we have not acted to undermine or jeopardize that stranglehold. that's the purpose of these amendments and i regret the

majority leader seeing fit to object to my request. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my friend from texas is right, we need to do more in the ukraine. there is no question about that. i look forward to working with him and all senators to do that. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. the motion to proceed is withdrawn. the clerk will report h.r. 4152. the clerk: calendar number 328, h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the costs of loan guarantees for ukraine. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the substitute amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. menendez proposes an amendment numbered 2867. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. section 1, short title.

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the reading, further reading be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent, is there more that the chair needs to do. the presiding officer: there is not on that matter. mr. reid: okay. i ask unanimous consent that at 11:00 a.m. wednesday, march 26, the senate proceed to executive session and not withstanding rule 22 the senate proceed to vote on cloture on executive calendar numbers 581, 582, 583, 584. if cloture sin invoked on any nominations the time until 2:30 be equally divided between the two leaders or designees and at 2:30 the senate proceed to vote on the confirmations of the nominations on the order upon which cloture was invoked. following senate action on these nominations the senate proceed to vote on 694, there be two minutes for debate on each vote and all roll call votes after the first vote in sequence be ten minutes in length. following the disposition of calendar number 694 the senate resume legislative session. upon the disposition of the list

of nominations the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. r mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 333. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 333, h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. are whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i expect we are in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i'm now here for the 62nd weekly effort to have my colleagues wake up to the threats of climate change. congress continues to remain sound asleep. i suspect aness anesthetized bye

narcotic drip of polluter money into our veins. but the signs of change around us continue. this is the mauna loa carbon dioxide monthly, and we have passed again 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. this is the second year in a row this has happened. this year it happened two months earlier than last year. so why does it matter that we're at 400 parts per million? what does that mean to anybody? well, we've actually gone back and measured where the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has been. going way back. we can measure back in ancient ice. so we know that for at least 800,000 years our carbon concentration is between 170 and 300 parts per million.

that's a long run for a species that's only been homo sapiens for about 250,000 years. that has been a long and hospitable window during which our species has developed from very primitive hunter gatherers into the complex people that we are now. and so when you take something like that, the carbon concentration and you bust out of a range that has sheltered us for 800,000 years, that's not nothing. and it's particularly not nothing when you know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the earth. we've known that since abraham lincoln was president. this is not something that's debatable. this is not new news. this is established science for 150 plus years. we also know because you can replicate it in a laboratory, that when you put higher

concentrations of carbon in the air over sea water, it acid emphasize the sea water and if you doubt any of that, you can go out and measure that it's actually happening, the known, provable theories, the known principles, i should say, in fact, laws of science, are actually manifest in sea level rise from the warming oceans in warming ocean temperatures, in increased acidification. these are measurements. and as this continues, we continue to do nothing about it but let the big polluters continue to spew carbon pollution into our atmosphere. some of us in congress are tired of waiting for folks to wake up. this month, 31 senators from every part of the country held the senate floor through the night to sharpen this chamber's

focus on the threats of climate change. and i want to thank senator schatz of hawaii for leading us through this wake-up call and to senator boxer for her leadership of the senate climate action task force, and the presiding officer, the senior senator from massachusetts for her enthusiastic participation and support in that effort. the american people tuned in, tweeting over 54,000 times at the hashtag up4climate in the 24-hour period of this effort and also americans added more than 200,000 signatures to online petitions urging congress to get with it and do something about this climate problem. the public knows it's a problem and has been pushing us to act now for years. i've heard it from rhode island fishermen who now have to chase their catch further offshore

into cooler waters because our coastal waters have warmed. you've heard it from your massachusetts fishermen as well. i've heard it from homeowners in south kingstown, rhode island, whose houses are falling into the ocean as the sea level rises and they encroach further inland into what had for generations been family homes. rhode island does its part to try to address climate change. we're participating in the regional greenhouse initiative and -- gas initiative and readying four cliens for -- coastlines foreign policy worst storms and higher assess. but -- seas. the ocean state can't do it alone. the health, the safety, the prosperity of the people i represent in rhode island's communities depends on national action. we need a national groundswell of citizens and elected officials from every state.

so last week i went to iowa to share with that state rhode island's climate change stories. and to listen to iowans tell me their climate change stories and how it's affecting their communities. i was invited to iowa by senator rob hogue, a passionate defender of the iowan way of life and environment and a very knowledgeable expert on climate change. i want to thank him and i also want to thank the iowa legislature, particularly house minority leader mark smith and senate majority leader michael grunstyle for their warm welcome and my colleague, senator harkin and his staff for their assistance in planning and coordinating my visit. farming is not a big deal in rhode island. we're not known as an agricultural state. we have farms and we love them, but it's not quite the same as

iowa. farming is the cornerstone of iowa's economy and disruption of agricultural productivity is one of the great climate risks in iowa. the recent national climate assessment draft finds this -- quote -- "in the long term, combined stresses associated with climate change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity, especially without significant advances in genetic anding a row phenomenonnic technology. but we don't have to wait for the long term. iowans are already being hit by extreme weather. in 2013, just last year, 155 science faculty and research staff from 36 iowa colleges and universities, home state iowa teachers from their colleges and

universities, 155 of them, signed the iowa climate statement. concerning the losses that farmers across the state are already experiencing due to climate change. and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the iowa climate statement follow my remarks in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: iowa has had 20 presidential disaster declarations since 1990 due to flooding. damage has been more than $20 billion. alknow, though, no one particular flood can be directly connected to climate change, we know that carbon pollution loads the dice for the extreme downpours that provoke these floods in iowa and this the midwest. i call it the barry bonds rule. you don't know which home run was caused by the steroids, but

you know for sure he was hitting extra home runs because of the steroids. and you can measure that. in 1993 in iowa a flood exceeding once in 500-year flood levels hit des moines. ted corrigan of des moines water works told me during my visit that the city's infrastructure was overwhelmed leaving des moines without clean water for more than two weeks. "the des moines register" reports iowa has endured at least ten so-called 500-year floods since 1993. ten 500-year floods since 1993 and that includes the big 2008 flood that cost $10 billion statewide in iowa. doug newman, the executive vice president at the cedar rapids economic alliance, told me what

it was like to live through that unprecedented flood. doug explained that in cedar rapids flood levels had never as long as they'd measured it, never exceeded 21 feet. this flood maxed out at 31 feet, 10 feet above the all-time previous ever recorded record. a thousand businesses were flooded, one fifth of them were lost and more than a thousand people lost their jobs. so it was tough. but what i saw, madam president, was iowans taking action. from college students to business leaders, from activists of the iowa citizens climate lobby, to the conservationists of the izaak walton league, iowans are preparing for the effects of climate change and they want to

see federal action. like rhode islanders they're tired of trying to carry this themselves. des moines' mayor, frank county, is one of over a thousand mayors represented on this map all across the country who have signed the u.s. conference on mayors climate protection agreement pledging to meet or beat the kyoto protocol in their own cities and to press their state governments and the federal government, us, to enact meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. i visited with t.p.i. composites. they have a developing and manufacturing facility in warren, rhode island, part of our composites plus in rhode island. but they're also a leading iowa manufacturer of wind turbine blades. in ten years, t.p.i. has manufactured more than 10,000

wind turbine blades. so when the maytag headquarters closed leaving as many as 4,000 workers jobless in newton, iowa, this helped the town get back on its feet. if we allow the production tax credit or the p.t.c., to lapse, loss of that tax incentive for wind energy producers will jeopardize the business that t.p.i. has built. so the iowa state senate unanimously passed a resolution in january supporting extension of the production tax credit, unanimously, bipartisan. there is bipartisan support for extension of both the production tax credit and the investment tax credit and we should get that done. this congress. i also heard in iowa from warren mckenna. warren mckenna is the manager at the farmers electric

cooperative in colona, iowa. a town of about 2,400 people. it has iowa's first community solar garden with 25 kilowatts of capacity. for the co-op's 800 owner members that 25 kilowatts of energy helps reduce their monthly bills. and for members who have their own solar panels, they also get paid for the energy they add into the co-op system. and this year, off of those successes, the co-op is breaking ground on an 800,000-kilowatt solar installation, taking advantage of a state solar tax credit that was passed by a democratic senate and a republican house and signed into law by a republican governor.

this body could learn a thing or two from the iowa state legislature. it shows what can happen when the polluter money doesn't have a democratic institution locked down the way congress has been. i also visited bioprocess algae. this is a rhode island-based company. the c.e.o., time burns, is right here. quidnick islander, like myself. they design, build, and operate algae bioreactors. the demonstration project is down in the southwest corner of iowa, in shenandoah. bioprocess algae uses the wastewater and the waste heat and the carbon dioxide emissions from the nearby ethanol refinery so growal bee. -- grow algae.

the algae can then be used for animal feed, can be used for biofuels and, while it's growing, it eats up the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted to pollute the atmosphere. here in shenandoah, american ingenuity is turning carbon pollution into economic activity. i also visited -- this is the base of a wind turbine -- that is the stairway up in to where you can go and see where they deserve. there is the arc of the round, steel base and it towers up hundreds of feet. i think the blaze diameter was 160 meters. it's a pretty serious sized wind turbine. it is located in one of five wind parks which have a combined 500 wind turbines that are operated by a company called

mid-american energy. thanks to pioneering companies likes mid-american and to the state tax incentives that encourage these projects, more than a quarter of iowa's electricity is generated by wi wind. they are leading the country, more than a quarter of their electricity is generated by wind. it measures in the gigawatts. that's a lot of wind power. and they love it. the farmers get paid for having the tin wind turbine on their f. and if you look at this, i don't know how well the camera can see this, this is the turbine itself, the stand it rises up on, the column. that's the doorway into it. we're standing on a gravel sort of service road ring around it so that equipment can be pulled up to it for maintenance purposes. but you look right here, that's not too far away. that's maybe 25 feet, they're

farming right up to 25 feet away from this thing. so you farm and you get paid for having the wind turbine located on your farm. it's a wonderful two-fer. the conclusion i drew from all of this, from the exciting, new types of energy being grown from algae, from the huge commitment to wind, from the audiences that came out and expressed their support for getting stuff done on climate, for the bipartisan support for so much of this clean energy stuff, iowans have woag enup to the threat of -- have woken up to the threat of climate change, and that's important. because iowa plays a key role in our politics. iowa helps determine which issues our presidential candidates will be judged on. and in 2016, i will bet you

iowans are going to insist that they all address carbon pollution. and they're not going to accept a lot of nonsense denial out of those candidates. in fact, i believe that if the republican party tries to nominate a climate denier for president, they are in big trouble. of course, the carbon fuel funded denial machine will do its best to change the subject, to muddy the waters, to create doubt, to use its anonymous, dark political money to keep candidates quiet. but all the money in the world can't change the fact that iowans know, just like rhode islanders do, that climate change is real and those iowans are going to put those presidential candidates on record. if you're a denier, good luck in iowa. iowans see the changes taking place and they are speaking up.

farmers in iowa and fisherman in rhode island may be miles away from each other geographically but they all see around them the facts and the changes that are already happening. so the time sit on the sidelines is over. if we fight hard, if we're willing to have this fight, i am confident that we can do a strong climate bill in congress and soon. a climate bill that will strengthen our economy, because it will. a climate bill that will redirect our future, as it must. a climate bill that will protect our democracy. because the pollution of our atmospheres and the oceans that the carbon polluters are doing is matched by the pollution of our democracy that they're doing with their dirty and anonymous money. and, finally, a bill that will

honor our duty to the generations that will follow up, because each american generation takes that duty as a very, very high duty. and right now, folks, we are dishonoring that duty and we are not leaving for future generations the kind of a country that we should. i went recently to the ukraine. i met with one of the leaders of the ukrainian freedom movement. his name is vitaly klitchko. if you're a boxing fan, you know who vitaly klitchko, because he's a huge guy who was the world heavyweight boxing champion for years. and he has now thrown himself into the struggle of ukraine for freedom. first of all, freedom from russian influence and control. and more recently, freedom from the oligarchs who basically

robbed the country blind but were finally run out after that long bloody struggle at the can i he have, the maidan. he has an interesting phrase that he uses. because when he started this fight, it wasn't the least bit clear that anybody could win this thing. i mean, the oligarchs are billionaires. they've got immense resources at their disposal, and they keep stealing so there's always more. and the russians are right there with their bailful of influence trying to make sure there's as little freedom and opportunity as possible examine to keep ukraine under their thrall. those are some powerful forces. and so people would ask him, can you win? and he had a very simple answer. i can't imitate the good slavic accent or the big voice of a man that big, but his phrase was

memorable. "no fight, no win." well, we've had no fight in us for too long on climate. it's time we put some more fight into this thing, because i think on climate, the opposite is tr true. this isn't a no fight/no win situation. this is a, if we fight, we will win situation. the facts are there. the public is ready. there's nothing between us and doing our duty other than the barricade of lies, the polluter-funded denial beast that is out there shopping their nonsense, and we can outdo them. it doesn't take much, because, among other things, it's always easier for the truth to win over a lie. you just have to be willing to go out there and have that fight. so we have to wake up. when we do, we will win. i am more confident than ever, having been back from iowa. and i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

bhiewm blume madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lichted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am here to express my support for s. 2124, which expresses the american people's support for the sovereignty, integrity,

democracy, and economic stability of ukraine, and i also support the senate taking up a modified version of h.r. 4152 so we can get this measure to the president's desk, something we should have done weeks ago. i want to thank and praise majority leader reid for his commitment to this issue, his fortitude and his patience, as well as our colleagues senator murphy, the head of the subcommittee of the foreign reetleforeignrelations committey colleague from connecticut, and senator menendez along were senator mccain, whose leadership in spearheading this measure has been so instrumental. i believe that the people of ukraine need and deserve the opportunity to determine their own future. this goal is not an exceedingly

ambitious one, hardly novel. it is the universally accepted principle that forms the basis for sovereignty of all nations. together with our european allies, the united states has encouraged ukrainians to stablize their country and hold elections this spring. we've taken these actions not to bring ukraine closer to the european fold or separate it from its historic ties to any of its neighbors but to affirm the principle of human rights, freedoms, and sovereignty that is the bedrock of our own national security and ultimately the security of our global order. and the rule of law. russia's territorial expansion into crimea destibbleses and calls into -- destablizes and calls into question the security of russia's neighborhoods from

finland to china. who will be next? what pretext and implausible denials will russia use next time? who knows other than putin and his inner circle? the united states needs a productive working relationship with russia and the world relies on us to be the one nation that can always be counted on to speak clearly and honestly about world events, ukraine's deep internal division and chronic divisions are exacerbated by russia's less-than-neighbor ily interests. i support targeted individual sanctions already put in place by the president. i thank him for his leadership. and those we will vote on this week. but we and our european allies must do more. these measures must be the beginning, not the end. what we do on this measure is a

start, a good step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by additional action, not just words or rhetoric on the floor of the senate but actions that speak louder than words, sanctions that bite, just as the sanctions on iran had their effect and brought iran to the table. two years ago i worked successfully with my senate colleagues on the helsinki commission to impose individual sanctions on government officials in russia who were complicit in the murder and cover-up of car sergei magnitsko died in a prison after investigating fraud. this serves as a good framework for expanding these types of individually targeted sanctions.

and those sanctions should include travel and banking restrictions on anybody inciting violence and anybody who profits from the theft of state assets. so i believe that the legislation before us is an important matter of national security and we should delay it no further. we've taken a week with extraneous amendments and delay and time do not strengthen our hand. but the fact of the matter is, as we've seen with iran, we will need strong and strengthening sanctions on russia to have real effect. and this first step must be followed by more, and maybe equally important we need close cooperation with our regional allies to create a really effective deterrent so the

russians know their unilateral seizure of crimea is condemned by all law-abiding nations, and we are taking good, positive steps to isolate russia. russia's attack ought to be an n alarm to the harm of russian arms exports and military expansion that have brought effects globally and it should be the focus of ours and international efforts countering russian expansion. that expansion takes place at the expense of its neighbors, also sovereign nations, and at the expense of more than 140,000 civilian casualties. to my dismay and to the sadness of much of the international community, russia remains the largest arms supplier to the syrian government. russia is a chief obstacle in

achieving meaningful progress toward a peaceful resolution in syria, and they've undermined progress in geneva, obstructing or watering down efforts at the u.n. security council in a variety of international forms to bring humanitarian relief that is so desperately needed within syria and in the refugee camps. the senate should take meaningful action to sanction russia's arms exporters. these companies and individuals who benefit from contracts, both for the fuel that they provide to the civil war in syria and the takeover of crimea, truly deserve not only our condemnation but action. that's why i'm cosponsoring an amendment with my colleague senator cornyn and senator coats to take exactly such action.

and that's why i introduce the syria sanctions enhancement act of 2013, which would create comprehensive sanctions against anyone who finances the murderous actions of asahara assad -- assad or sustains his military. i've also written to the department of the treasury urging them to take action against russian banks that have undermined united states sanctions by facilitating transactions with the syrian government. that's right, russian banks facilitating actions with the syrian government. sanctions on them can have an effect, because their activities have reportedly included facilitating payment for s-300 mimissile batteries and assad's personal offshore funds, as well

as payments for crude oil. and in my view, these institutions, russian banks, financial institutions, the financial structure of russia, are complicit in prolonging the brutal conflict in syria and should be barred from the united states financial system. secretary kerry said in february, and i'm quoting, "russia needs to be part of a solution, not contributing so many more weapons and so much more aid that they are really enabling assad to double-down." end of quote. so as the majority leader has said, we need to act quickly on the legislation before us, but let us begin and let this action be the beginning of the senate working together on a bipartisan basis to push back against russian adventurism and aggression in all its forms, whether it is crimea or syria

and the institutions, financial and energy and otherwise, that support those efforts. i look forward to joining with my colleagues in those efforts and approving this important measure. now, if i may move to another topic -- and i ask unanimous consent that it appear in the record as if in a separate set of remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. madam president, there is no question at this hour on the senate floor that serious and severe defects in the ignition switches in general motors' vehicles have caused at least 31 crashes and 12 deaths. that tragic loss of life -- not

even recounting the damage to cars resulting in economic loss, the injuries to people resulting in suffering and emotional pain -- are part of a situation that calls for action. these defects meant that a car going full-speed down the highway, simply bumping or weighing down the key in the ignition, could cause the engine to shut down and disable its a airbags. that situation has prompted leadership on the part of a number of my colleagues, and i want to thank them: senator markey for his legislative proposal on nhtsa, senator mccaskill for her convening a hearing of our consumer protection subcommittee of the

commerce committee, as well as others who have taken action to criticize general motors. there's no question also, as "the new york times" reported this past saturday, that g.m. was aware of that situation, those problems with the switches, as early as 2001. that was eight years before g.m. went into bankruptcy, the old g.m. and the new g.m. were separated, and now the department of justice is investigating whether g.m. committed fraud when it did not disclose those defects in the context of its 2009 bankruptcy. now, i've been a federal prosecutor, and i can tell you about people who have been prosecuted very severely for lying to banks or lying to the

federal government, lying to banks when they got a loan, sometimes for as little as a couple thousand dollars; false statements to the federal government in connection with a seemingly small matter; and at that time that it went into bankruptcy and then emerged, g.m. signed a document -- section 6.12 entitled "true and complete disclosure." and it said to the federal government in return for not a couple of how to dollars, not evening a coupleven a couple ofn dollars, but tens of billions of dollars, more than $40 billion, there is -- and i'm quoting -- "no known" -- "no fact known to a responsible person of any loan party that after due inquiry

could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect that has not been disclosed herein." it also said that the documents that were submitted to the u.s. government at that time -- quote -- "do not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements herein or therein," and that section is replete with other representations. -- cothat now pretty clearly were false, because those defects and the role of those defects in causing crashes was known to g.m., and it knew also that those defects and the

deaths, injuries, damage seems almost certainly then and now to be a material fact. and have a material adverse effect on that agreement. well, when g.m. was restructured in 2009, it was split into an old g.m. which took most of the bad assets like g.m.'s closed down plants, and the new g.m. which took the good assets. the old g.m. took the liability for accidents that occurred before the bankruptcy, effectively granting the new g.m. a shield from responsibility. but not a shield from criminal liability, and that's why the department of justice investigation is so critically important in holding g.m.

officials and g.m. itself responsible. although some prebankruptcy claims have been settled, they have greatly reduced the pool of money to draw upon so that the potential claims on the part of those 12 families whose loved ones perished -- not to mention the injured parties who are due money for their suffering as well as economic loss and others who may have suffered damages -- all those claims will be without recourse unless something is done. now let's be clear about the 2009 bankruptcy. it was not the kind of reorganization that involved manville, where a fund was created with a trustee. that kind of reorganization is a way that bankruptcies are often pursued. this was a sale of assets.

it was fast and easy because the government wanted it so. and of course the old g.m. and the new g.m., g.m. officials, shareholders, everyone interested wanted it to be so. i was serving as attorney general of connecticut at the time, and i warned that this bankruptcy agreement would leave many injured victims without recourse. i led a group of eight state attorneys general in warning the federal government which supported and sponsored the bankruptcy plan that the situation we see now would come to pass. i don't take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that now we have learned the real fact, which g.m. concealed then. i don't take any satisfaction in the potential of denial of what

is due to the victims of g.m.'s concealment, not to mention its reprehensible and potentially illegal failure to repair those defects rather than conceal them. but unfortunately, that's what has happened. and due to g.m.'s failure to disclose that known defect in its vehicles and facts that will continue to come to light in this investigation, everything suggests that this failure to disclose was in fact deliberate, fraudulent concealment of information from consumers and from government officials. that is criminal, and that is why the department of justice is investigating as we stand here. we may be too early to reach conclusions but not too early for the department of justice to

make things right and for g.m. to do the right thing. yesterday i sent a letter to attorney general eric holder. i told general holder respectfully that i believe the federal government has a moral if not a legal obligation to take certain steps to protect innocent consumers, and i requested that he give it his personal attention. i do that again today, make that request and urge his personal attention. although consumer victims may be barred from seeking relief before the bankruptcy court, the department of justice can take steps now in the context of this criminal investigation that could greatly help people who have been injured, innocent victims who were driving that car down the freeway or on a country road when the ignition was bumped, when the key ring

had too many keys; their car stopped, the air bags failed to operate, and some died. i requested the d.o.j. to have g.m. establish a fund to compensate injured consumers. it's a civil remedy that can be be done as an interim step in a criminal prosecution. the department of justice has the authority to request many kinds of relief and in light of the continuity of personnel between the old g.m. and the new g.m., this kind of remedy would be absolutely appropriate for the new g.m., and it could simply allocate some of its assets -- and fortunately it is doing well. no one begrudges g.m. its success. we welcome its profitability.

but it can do the right thing now and use some of those profits to correct this wrong. if necessary, the department of justice also could enter into a deferred prosecution agreement as it did recently with toyota, and it reached a settlement there of $1.2 billion. there's also precedent for criminal investigations of this nature being resolved by settlements in the b.p. oil spill in the gulf of mexico, $4 billion criminal settlement that was distributed among groups working to mitigate the spill's effects and prevent future problems, including the national fish and wildlife foundation, which has done great work there, and the oil spill liability trust fund. if such a settlement were reached here, there should be

priority on insuring that funds compensate consumers who suffered the worst losses, the loved ones of people killed as well as the innocent victims who were injured or suffered economic loss. and in addition to the fund, i also requested that the department of justice intervene in pending civil actions to oppose g.m.'s effort to deny knowledge or responsibility for the damage because what g.m. has done is removed state court cases to federal court and then asked for a transfer to the bankruptcy court knowing that the bankruptcy proceeding cannot be reopened and the old g.m., in any event, has vastly insufficient assets to satisfy any real judgment. so i believe there are answers

here that will satisfy fairness and justice, that will enable g.m. to live up to the integrity and the image that befit it. and i believe that the department of justice or another consumer protection agency must ensure that consumers are aware of the potential dangers in this continuing defect series of vehicles including the cobalt, saturn, other models over those same years. i would never let one of my children behind the wheel of one of those cars driving now without a major repair. and i don't know that anyone else should or anyone driving themselves would responsibly be

behind the wheel of these cars. when a large national company like g.m. markets a product, it has a responsibility. it's a moral and a legal responsibility to ensure that the product is safe. and when one of those companies, any company becomes aware of safety issues, it has a responsibility to disclose them. and i've joined a bill with the leadership of senator markey that would require better, faster disclosure by nhtsa, and i will speak on another occasion about the lapses in responsibility on the part of federal watchdog who failed to protect the public, who failed to detect a pattern of problems in these cars and who failed to blow the whistle. but g.m. has its own

responsibility, and i know that a new era of leadership at g.m. under a new leader may mean a new day in its acknowledging its moral and legal responsibility. and i hope for that new day. the innocent victims of defective cars suffered life-ending and life-changing injuries. many of them could have been avoided but for the purposefully misleading and deceptive conduct by g.m.. our responsibility now is to see that justice is done either through ensuring that compensation is made available or through appropriate criminal enforcement. or both. because the criminal law, as we know in this body, is a means of

seeking justice, and it can provide a good outcome if it is properly framed and enforced. so i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the president proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: senate resolution 396, senate resolution 397, and senate resolution 398. the presiding officer: is

there objection? without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i understand that senate 2157 introduced earlier today by senator wyden is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2157, a bill to amend titles 18 and 19 of the social security act to repeal the medicare sustainability growth rate and to improve medicare and medicaid payments, and for other purposes. mr. blumenthal: i now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator murray's budget committee legal extern elizabeth mendoza be granted floor privileges beginning today, march 26 and ending april 30, 2014. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, that it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., wednesday, march 26, 2014. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the

time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. and that following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: there will be four roll call votes at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and another series at 2:30 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tom

thing on a different subject because today in the supreme court something very significant is happening. i'm from oklahoma. david green, a guy in oklahoma david green, a guy in oklahoma today in the supreme court something significant is happening. david green a guy in oklahoma city and his wife started a group called hobby lobby by making picture frames in their garage. that wasn't that long ago. i can remember they are doing that. they were able to open their first store which was about 300 square feet with the prophets that they made in their little garage operation in and david greens faith and practice in this day-to-day decisions that

led him and his family to build a successful nationwide company. over the years their business has grown to 602 stores. they have 602 stores now met in president with plans to expand. the hobby lobby has an annual revenue upwards of $2.5 billion david has had success despite running his business at a very countercultural way. for instance all of the retail stores close at 8:00 p.m. each night and all day sunday so employees can spend time with their families. this is appreciated by the companies some 16,000 employees who are paid above minimum wage. hobby lobby's general -- generous benefit plan includes an on-site clinic with no co-pay at hobby lobby headquarters and eligibility to enroll in medical dental and prescription drug plans along with long-term disability and life insurance and a 401(k) plan with a

generous company match. this is something they had done long before obamacare came along. at one point hobby lobby was challenged via competitor who said they would bury the company with their money so the firm opened their doors on sunday ultimately earning the company some $150 million in revenue each week. that was over and above what the competitor previously had been able to raise. eventually david green said he was challenged by god to trust in him with his business to go back to his policy of closing on sundays and he did in his business has prospered. david's christian faith runs deeper than his desire to have a profitable successful company but he is getting both. when he was faced with a decision to make more money or obey god he chose to obey god no matter the consequences. recently he was faced with a new test and is in to this madam president. it didn't come from a competitor.

he came from the united states government. part of obamacare requires not only to provide health insurance to their employees but also to provide free access to the pills that terminate pregnancies. as i do and many others believe that life against a conception i believe that in david believes that. offering an option to end that life would be a violation of our moral compass is defined by his faith in our faith. here's a guy who feels so strongly in his belief saying it is his actions have shown he would rather pay the $1.3 million a day in fines from the obama administration and comply with the law. in other words killing the unborn child. today the obama administration is claiming this privately-owned business is waging a war on women for not agreeing to provide these treatments for its employees free of charge.

nevermind that he has been offering his employees health insurance since long before the government mandated it. so we have the faith of an individual and what he is willing to do for his faith. he is willing to stand up to this abusive government. if you restrict those of faith from a applying their conscious to the world around them then you quench the progress of freedom. the obama is attempting to write a new moral code that is going to tell people like david green that he no longer has the freedom to apply his faith to how he operates his private business. the case before the supreme court today is about maintaining freedom which starts by preserving the fundamental freedom of religion under the first amendment whether its practice in a temple or a public square. hobby lobby is not alone. it's a leader in this battle. more than 100 institutions have filed similar claims, four universities in my state of oklahoma have also filed a

lawsuit along the same lines. so here we have a situation and it's hard to believe that this can happen in america where there's a man who has dealt up his employee actively 16,000 people who otherwise might not be employed. he has been providing all of the income. he is selling raw text. he is a self-made man who started out in his garage and he is built up this giant operation all throughout america and is made that great contribution. along comes the obama administration and obamacare it says we are going to fine you $1.3 million a day if you don't offer these abortions. that is actually being considered right now and united states supreme court. i think god is on our side and i think we will have a good outcome from this. just imagine one man taking the risk with $1.3 million a day in fines just to show into stand by

his faith behind the 16,000 people who work for him to make sure that good things happen and with that i will yield the floor. >> madam president. >> the senator from missouri. >> madam president i want to talk about the same topic that my good friend from oklahoma has brought up. actually i was at the supreme court this morning listening to the arguments on this case, sebelius verses hobby lobby and another case involving a pennsylvania company that i want to talk about as well. of course this case as the senator from oklahoma has pointed out starts with the affordable care act and what many people and i believe the supreme court will decide is really a blatant violation of religious freedom in the way that act would be applied. there is nothing in the act that

deals with the rule that sets those big signs up or establishes how those fines would he collected or in fact nothing in the act that specifies specific rings that have to be in the so-called model plan. that always up to the administration, all up to the department hhs unless the court or the congress do what needs to be done here which is to say that there are certain boundaries that you can't cross. the affordable health care act, so-called affordable health care act which seems to be providing neither better health care or better affordability, was signed into law four years ago this weekend and that for years we have seen disastrous effects of the health care act. one of those is the workplace effect where more and more people work less and less. why do they work less and less? because for the first time ever

the government has said that people have an obligation to provide insurance for somebody who worked more than 30 hours. provider to that law many people had insurance who worked less than 30 hours. it may not have been insurance at the present of the united states would have specified they have but it was insurance that appeared to be working for them. once the government says here is what you have to do, the government ironically also appears to be saying here's what you don't have to do. so we know that the workplace effects are bad. we know that this is one of the principle reasons given for people working part-time without benefits instead of working either full-time or part-time with benefits. we see that caught in medicare and the impact that has on seniors. we see the increasing level of the amount of money you have to spend before your insurance kicks in for so many people and we know that this law is not

working for american families or american individuals. now we see a case where the law doesn't work for the constitution. specifically the law forces businesses like hobby lobby that was mentioned by senator inhofe the senator from oklahoma to offer health insurance for employees that cover services that violate their religious belief. this is the company that has always prided themselves and their ability to offer health care coverage that was better than their employees might be able to get other places. this is a company that starts their nonseasonable employees at a rate of twice the minimum wage, there lowest in point. this is not a company that is in anyway any way trying to take advantage of their employees. this is a company that is given every indication to the existence of the company that they want to act in a certain way, a way that is comfortable with their faith. the penalties, if you don't do what the government says the

penalties are $36,500 per employee per year. $36,500 per employee per year. in the case of this company that has locations all over the country and has a significant number of employees that's more than $450 million a year. if you don't provide insurance at all one of the points that was made by the government lawyers today, your option would be that you would only pay at 2000-dollar penalty, a 2000-dollar penalty. $2000 a year if you don't offer insurance at all, $36,500 a year per employee if you don't offer exactly insurance that the all-knowing government has decided you need. what a foolish position for the federal government to be in. your penalty if you are this big

company privately held closely held by a family of big and successful company but not of publicly trading company. it happens to be a company that chose to incorporate that incorporated within the ability of that family to do that in this closely held way to do that if you don't pay -- if you don't do with what the government says your penalty would be less than the insurance you are providing by quite a bit. if you don't provide insurance at all. if you don't do exactly what the government says it's probably the amount of money that puts your company out of business. this company hobby lobby with more than 500 arts and crafts stores around the country is a company that is being joined in the case today. the cases were joined together by conestoga wood specialties a company that manufactures pigeon

cabinets. their case was presented at the same time. this company was founded by a mennonite family from pennsylvania. a smaller company than hobby lobby but a company still that holds their own religious beliefs of having tradition of holding those religious beliefs and everything they do. two companies a very different size. these are not companies that object to all of the things in the list of things the government says you have to offer. .. offered other kinds of contraception, but this crosses their religious boundary. and so for these four things only, the government would say you'd have to pay $36,500 per employee a year. there are at least 46 cases filed concerning for-profit

companies that have the same kinds of religious objections. more than 10 of those lawsuits in my state, the state of missouri. and it's not just about one set of religious beliefs. it's about protecting all itself, wheretecting all

freedom of religion is the first freedom mentioned in the first sentence in the first amendment to the constitution, and it is that important in our history of who we are. 21 states have joined this case on behalf of these -- these companies. doctors and women's organizations have filed briefs advocating that the court respect the religious rights of these companies. protestant and catholic protestant and catholic protestant and catholic theologians have filed briefs and the catholic bishops, the international society of christian consciousness. the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, the coalition and the christian colleges and universities.

such a broad diversity of religious views come but they agree that this is a principal tenet of who we are. just as president jefferson said in a letter that he wrote to the new london methodists that of all the rights we hold, we should hold the right of conscience clear. and most dear. so once you believe and we have given him the most fundamental of all freedoms. congress has a long tradition of protecting religious liberty and the congress enacted the religious freedom restoration act to ensure broad protection of religious liberty and the hhs regulations do not satisfy the high bar set by that act. that is the position that i hope that the court upholds. the mandate is an enormous government overreach and it violates americans constitutional rights.

while this mandate severely defines religious individuals, it exams plenty of other nonreligious institutions. the administration has already exempted 100 million employees from the mandate for commercial or political reasons and people should also not be forced to give up their business to hold onto their faith or to give up their faith to hold onto their business. these family businesses are not publicly traded. there is not one court case. i'm not a lawyer but i'm told that there is not one court case that diminishes the rights of these kinds of corday. numerous once have held up the ability of racial discrimination cases. so you can have a racial profiler but you can have a religious profile and this is an untenable position for the

government to take. the supreme court here has heard this case today. i join my colleagues on both sides of the isle and in both chambers to urge the court to preserve the fundamental religious freedoms that americans have enjoyed in the constitution demands and that laws passed overwhelmingly in 1993 continue to be the standard that is applied to the right of conscience, the right to believe what we want to believe and must believe and do believe. and i am pleased to be joined by my colleagues here to talk about this very same topic. >> the senator from oklahoma. >> thank you. i did not get to hear all of the comments by senator inhofe, but as an oklahoman, we couldn't have a finer company or a finer

corporate citizen then the family and turns in trend terms of their chains of stores around the country. the reason that they are successful is because they actually care and nurture and support every one of their employees. and they work on some principles that they truly believe in that has been the key for their success. they are never open on the sabbath. they believe the pay someone a livable wage. they are big in the community and some of the largest contributors to organizations and a terrible realm that go down deep to actually help out people. they come with your motive. the senator from missouri

mentioned thomas jefferson. here's what he said in 1809. no provision in our constitution ought to be dear to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. now, i want you listen to that. jefferson, one of the authors of the rules of the senate, one of the key framers of the very constitution that we live under recognized and what he is saying is it's the most important thing, to protect this conscience to do what they think according to their faith is the right thing to do. my colleague referenced this act. why is that necessary? because we saw several starting to impede into an arena that

thomas jefferson warned about and that is why it was passed and that is why it was signed. and that is why was the law of the land. this is going to be a seminal case and it has nothing to do with birth control. hobby lobby has a lot to do with birth control. always has and always will. can they allow the civil government to impede to such a level as my colleagues from missouri said that the government can now tell you what your values are and what you have to think and how you have to act. on the basis of what it says that your values are. and as someone who has delivered more than 4000 children as an obstetrician and care for every complication in pregnancy and someone who believes in this value, all they are saying is

that we really shouldn't have to pay our money when we find it unconscionable to take a human innocent life. it doesn't mean people can't get an abortion. it just means that they don't want to violate their own conscience by supplying that in the other thing is that randy is over-the-counter. and there's not even an age limit on it. a 12-year-old can go buy an over-the-counter. so it is about the conscience of a very successful company and the reason that they are successful as they follow the faith. now we have a government in the position that they're going to tell them what the position is. and let me just reiterate what

jefferson said. no provision in our constitution ought to be dear to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. these are deeply felt and held beliefs based upon faith. the other side of this, as we see how they have rescued universities and came to the aid and how they have actually been active in the community and everywhere that they are involved. they are out following the same deeply held beliefs of helping the poor and the indigent. giving people an opportunity through college education that they never would have had. giving people a day of rest. the stores are always open late. they can sell more product if they were open later. they can sell more product if they were open on sundays.

but they chose not to because they think the principles under which they operate their business based upon their faith has created an environment which allows everyone to succeed who works for them. and if you go through their businesses and the warehouse is in the stores come what you see is a smile on almost everyone's face because all enjoy working there because they are treated like human beings and they are lifted up. for those that are our neighbors and ourselves and my hope is that the constitution will be looked at as the supreme court considers this case and that the religious freedom extradition -- restoration act will be looked at in this way. it's unaffordable for americans, it may cost $2 trillion.

it's a disaster in terms of how it's been implemented. a disaster in terms of quality of care and the increased deductibles that almost everyone in the country is facing. and we shouldn't let it be a disaster in terms of destroying businesses. but we ought to embrace this family and their businesses for what they have done, taking advantage of the american enterprise system that has benefited not just this family but hundreds of thousands of people through their generosity and their capability to empower people to get ahead. i'm glad to see that my colleagues are here and i yield the floor. >> madam president, i ask for in a digital five minutes for the senator from new hampshire. >> without objection. >> thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to

talk about a very important case that a united states supreme court heard arguments on this morning. it goes to the very core of our nation's foundation. the future of religious freedom in the united states. as americans we cherish our liberty and it lies at the heart of who we are as a people. we know that we must always guard against threats to our religious freedom as enshrined in of the first amendment of the constitution. that is why i am here on the floor today to join my colleagues, senator blunt, senator coburn in speaking of support of the constitutional rights that all americans have under the first amendment, which guarantees the right of freedom and conscience and religious liberty. and here is what is at stake. americans should not be forced to give up their religious freedom or the rights of

conscience simply because they want to open a family business. american families should not be forced into choosing between their family business in complying with unlawful government mandates that infringe upon the first amendment to the constitution. that is why this case is being heard today by our supreme court is so very important to the american people the provision of president obama's health care law includes a mandate that threatens penalties on private organizations and less they involuntarily agree to violate their deeply held religious leaves. this is part of the first amendment to our constitution. if religious institutions and faith-based organizations are forced to comply with government mandates that violate the core principles of their faith, this

is a violation of the first amendment to the constitution. and it is contrary to what we stand for as americans. i have heard from people in my state who are deeply concerned about this mandate and the issue that is being considered by the supreme court today. they are simply asking to have the same conscience rights that they had before the present health care law was passed. the same conscience rights that are enshrined in our constitution that protect all americans, regardless of what our faith is and our background. this is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role of our government. it is about who we are as americans and as the government through mandates can take away our conscience rights, what does that say about other rights that we have under our constitution?

this debate comes down to the legacy left kind by our founding fathers in over 200 years of american history and we have a choice in being responsible stewards of this legacy or allowing the federal government to interfere with religious life in an unprecedented way. protecting religious freedom and conscience rights in the past has been a bipartisan issue. congress has a long history of protecting religious liberty and i've heard my colleague talk about the religious freedom restoration act. it was actually signed into law by president clinton to ensure that the government should be held at a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. and that is what is at stake in this supreme court decision and the mandates that are being rendered by the health care law against private companies like hobby lobby and others. this is what is at stake under the presidents health care law. companies like hobby lobby and

others. and we are proud to have them there. that they do provide health coverage to their employees and they want to help their employees. being forced to pay over $36,000 per employee unless they provide drugs and devices that violate their religious beliefs and conscience rights. why should they be forced in this position? if the federal government is able to violate the first amendment in this way, what is to stop other rights from being violated. protecting religious freedom once bound americans together. and i believe that this effort, which is so fundamental to our national character must bring us together once more. i look forward to seeing the supreme court's decision on this issue. for this is the case that never should have been filed. the affordable care act or obamacare should never have violated the rights of conscience of these companies or religious organizations. and it is time to turn this around and i look forward to the

spring quarter vindicating their rights under the first amendment to the united states constitution, which should've should have been respected by this administration. that is why our supreme court is they are. and i look forward to the supreme court decision, which i hope will uphold the first amendment rights of the parties to this litigation and to all americans. i thank you, madam president. >> with that, madam president, let's change here is a bit and address one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime, the affordable care act. on sunday, madam president, the law celebrated its fourth anniversary serving as a stark reminder of where our nation's health care system was just four years ago. four years ago our health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called pre-existing conditions like pregnancy were being domestic

violence victim. four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against are akin to insurance premiums and often were paying more for coverage. four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventative care like mammograms or prenatal screenings and much more. four years ago insurance companies have all leverage and all the power and too often it was women to pay the price. now thanks to the affordable care act, for the first time women and other insurance companies or their employers are now fully in charge of their own health care. in fact, women make up over half of the 5 million people who have already signed up for coverage in the new marketplace. over 47 million women have already gained guaranteed access to preventive health services thanks to that of formal care

act. that is why i feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way that things were. while we can never stop working to make improvements, we owe it to the women of america to make progress and to move forward and not allow this to be rolled back on their health care needs. unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country, including here today in our nations capital to severely undermine a woman's access to some of those most critical and life-saving services that are provided under the affordable care act. no provision of this law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing affordable , quality reproductive health services to the women of america. for this reason i was very proud to lead members of my coppers in following an amicus brief with the supreme court in the two cases that are being considered there today. those cases were brought by ceos

who wanted to take away their employees to insurance coverage for birth control, which is 19 under the affordable care act and just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there that would like the american public to believe this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. to them it is a debate about freedom, except when it comes to women to access care. it's no different than we are told then tacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on their rights as well. but they are somehow part of the states rights and contraception isn't about this but somehow about protecting pharmacists were just like last week when an alaska state senator proposed

placing state-funded pregnancy tests and bars but ruled out providing contraception because birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly. madam president, the truth is that this is about contraception. this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care in the is about women. allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access and it should be inconceivable to all americans in this day and age and it takes us back to a day in history when women have no voice and no choice and contraception was included as a required preventative service in the affordable care act on the recommendation of the independent nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and

families. after many years of research we know that ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in america. we have been able to directly link it to maternal and infant mortality and reduce risk of ovarian cancer and better health care outcomes for women and far fewer unintended use and abortion, which is a goal that we all share. this is whether a ceos personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the affordable care act. madam president, i strongly believe that every american deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage regardless of where they were where they live. each of us should have the right

to make our own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to you or limited by employers. contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand just how important it is for women and families. when weighing this case my hope is that the court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care regardless of who signs their paychecks. and we can't allow secular corporations or their shareholders to deny the male employees access to women's health care under the guise of a religious exemption. it is therefore saying that because you are a ceo or a shareholder, you're right are more important than that of your employees that happen to be

women. and as i sat inside the supreme court chamber this morning listening to the arguments being made on both sides, i couldn't help but think that if the ceos are allowed to obey these laws, what would happen to the other legal actions. could your boss decide not to cover the hiv treatment? could an employer opt out of having to comply with antidiscrimination laws? corporations should not be able to use religion as a license to discriminate. madam president, i am proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other senators who are in office when congress enacted the religious protections through a religious freedom act in 1993 when we meet access to women's health care available through the affordable care act in 2010. we are senators that know the congress did not intend for a corporation or its shareholders

to restrict a woman's access to preventative health care. because we all know that improving access to birth control is a good health policy and good economic policy. we know that it will mean healthier women and healthier children and healthier families as well as healthy america and we all know that it will save money for businesses and consumers. madam president, i know that many of our colleagues believe that repealing the affordable care act is somehow a political winner for them. but the truth is that this law and that these provisions are winners for women and men and children than 40 health care system overall. so i'm very proud to stand with my colleagues are committed to making sure that the benefits of this law cannot be taken away from the women of america because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure that women get

the care that they need at a cost that they can afford. so thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. >> i do recognize that this exists. it can explain the irrational fear of islam and therefore a negative attitude and i'm absolutely against it if it is part of zeno phobia. it's nothing then zeno phobia versus one group or any other kind of foreign phobia. but what happened is that the brotherhood lobbied had hijacked a motion and anyone who is criticizing a policy issue that has nothing to do with this has to do with the five pillars. they have been accused of islamic phobia. i think this is very close to what a national socialist and germany would've accused anyone criticizing their policies

against the germans and the german rights. even at the international level this has become very dangerous. >> u.s. policy in the middle east saturday night at 10:00 a.m. eastern on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on april 6, more discussion on the middle east with military strategist and former assistant defense secretary bing west with your calls and comments live in depth at noon eastern. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> have you ever heard of hydraulic fracturing? >> what? >> fracturing? >> what? >> in 2010, congress ordered the environmental protection agency due to hydraulic fracturing.

..

>> louisiana senator chaired the two hour hearing. >> good morning, everyone. thank the member for attending and thank our witnesses for being a part of this important hearing. it is my pleasure to bring the energy community to the opening session on the subject of natural gas and importing energy and exporting gas; can this be reversed. senator senator ron whied wydide for hi n -- i want to thank sen