commission. the nominees are norman bay and cheryl lafleur. if confirmed norman bay would start a four-year term as commissioner and cheryl lafleur will be approved for another five-year term on the commission where she has been acting chair since last november. to live coverage of u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we wait expectantly

for you to bring order from our world's chaos. empower our lawmakers today to contribute harmony to our nation and world by living with purity. make their thoughts and desires so pure that they can bear your scrutiny. make their words so pure that you delight to hear them. make their deeds so pure that you find joy in seeing them. and because of their pure thoughts, desires, words and deeds may our senators possess

such pure hearts that they will see you. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the president pro tempore: 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 president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 459, s. 2578, protect women's health from corporate interference. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 459, s. 2578, a bill to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their employees birth control and

other health care decisions. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader there will be a period of morning business until noon today with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the majority will control the first half; republicans the final half. at noon today the senate will proceed to executive session to a series of two roll call votes on the following nominations: cloture on norman c. bay to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission; cloture on cheryl a. lafleur to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission. following the second vote the senate will recess until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. if cloture sin invoked on the nominations the time until 2:15 until 3:00 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 3:00 the senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the two nominations. mr. president, it's my

understanding there are two bills at the desk due for second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2599, a bill to stop exploitation through trafficking. h.r. 4718, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus appreciation. mr. reid: mr. president, i object to further proceedings with respect to both of these bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, later today, as i've just mentioned, the senate will hold two roll call votes to confirm nominees to the federal energy regulatory commission, norman c. bay and cheryl a. lafleur. i'm aware of the important nature of these two nominations and aware of their specific consequences.

upon her confirmation, cheryl a. lafleur will remain at ferc as chair for nine months. following that period of time norman bay will assume the position of ferc chair. i appreciate very much the work done by a number of senators to get us to the point where we are. the chair of the energy committee, senator mary landrieu, has done really hard work and has been a bipartisan effort to move these nominations forward. i've been assured that the issue which the "wall street journal" talked about yesterday -- they called it -- quote -- "a federal takeover of new york's electric grid" will be addressed. i've spoken to both nominees and they'll take a hard look at it. when they came out yesterday i addressed them both to that. i ask unanimous consent that the remarks i'm about to give up here appear at a separate place in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, last week my friend, the republican leader, essentially declared victory for american women in their struggle for equality by saying -- quote -- "we've come a long way in pay equity, and there are a ton of women, c.e.o.'s now, running major corporations. i'd be wrong but i think most of the barriers for american women have been lowered." end of quote. the republican leader seems to be suggesting the obstacles preventing women from receiving equal treatment under the law have been conquered. the struggle for equality for women is over. the only thing missing from the republican leader's declaration would be an aircraft carrier on on -- and a large "mission accomplished" sign hanging in the background. we all remember that. remember? that was president bush declaring the war in iraq was basically over with. well, it wasn't, and the war regarding women is not over.

the republican leader suggested the notion of ensuring the rights for american women is tantamount to preferential treatment. that was his opinion. that's as shocking as it is troubling. the truth is regardless of what republicans in congress may say, the barriers of inequality for american women are very real and very substantial. take this as an example, mr. president. there are many examples but let's try this one. the republican leader mentioned pay equity. american women are paid an average of 77 cents for every dollar their male colleagues make for doing the exact same work. it's not fair. but neff working with the senate -- but instead of working with senate democrats to give

american women a fair shot at equal pay for equal work, republicans refuse to let the legislation be debated. this was one of their multitude of filibusters. the republican leader also spoke of the growing number of women, c.e.o.'s at major companies. try this one on, mr. president. currently among "fortune" magazine listing of 500 top countries in the world there are 24 chief executives are women. that's 4.8% of all the c.e.o.'s in the fortune 500. if anyone believes, including my friend, the republican leader, believes that fewer than 1 in 20 is good enough, this perfectly illustrates republicans' antiquated beliefs concerning working women and american women generally. perhaps most disturbing reminder of inequality barriers women face is the supreme court's recent hobby lobby decision. just a few weeks ago five men on

the united states supreme court gave corporate bosses the right to interfere with their employees decisions about birth control. in its hobby lobby decision, those five justices ruled that for-profit companies can insert religious objections to deny their employees who may not share their religious views the contraceptive coverage required by law. that's what the court said. the court decision was stunningly wrong. the court's misguided decision effectively takes away the right of american women to decide their own health care instead of empowering boardrooms to make final decision on their employees' access to birth control. how is it possible that in the 21st century we're debating whether or not bosses should be able to dictate their employees' family planning? mr. president, it is 2014. it's not 1906 or 1907 or 1915.

health coverage is a form of payment or compensation for employees. there's a strike going on in new york. they're going to start monday, i'm told, for the largest short-haul railroad, 300,000 people ride that every day. what is the big sticking point? health care. health care is a big deal to everybody. health care is a form of payment or compensation for employees. should employees' religious belief be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck and your days off? of course not. so why can we let bosses decide something so personal and so private as the use of contraceptives? last week senators patty murray and mark udall introduced the not my boss business act to fix the hobby lobby decision. this legislation would make it illegal for any company to deny

specific birth control. the udall bill allows it. the decision to use birth control is private, and it should be. and it should not be subject to the personal or religious beliefs of some corporate boss. otherwise, where is it going to end? as justice ruth bader ginsburg stated in her dissenting opinion -- and i quote -- "with the expengs extended to the employers with religiously grounded objection to blood transfusions? antidepressants, medications derived from pigs. and there are medications derived from swine that help people get well, includingance includingance -- including anesthesia. that's what she said, ruth bader

ginsburg. she points out the court's decision is a very, very slippery slope. it opens the door to endless possibilities in which the board room trumps employees health coverage. that is why i support this bill which clearly establishes a woman's right to quality health care. by passing the "not my boss's business act" the united states can knock down a significant barrier for women's equality. regardless of what republicans in congress will tell you, we have a long, long, long way to go before american women are equal in all aspects of the law, as they should be. the bill before us is a step in the right direction. it will help undo the damage done by the supreme court. but more importantly, not my boss's business act will help ensure american women have access to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to by law.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we hear the president is planning to spend the week calling for congress to pass highway funding legislation that congress is already planning to pass. it seems odd for the president to be focusing so intently on something that's inevitable while ignoring other issues that really should be addressed, issues like obamacare. so many middle-class families in my state and across the country continue to suffer from the impacts of this law. and one thing that becomes increasingly clear with each

passing day is the extent, the extent to which obamacare is particularly hard on women. research shows that women make about 80% of the health care decisions for their families in our country. and obamacare has caused countless women to lose the health care plans they had and liked when these women first spoke out about the betrayal they felt when they lost their plans, many of the law's supporters waved their concerns away or said they were making it up. they said they were lying or that their plans were junk because, of course, the critics knew better. it's a pattern that seems to have continued ever since. american women also now have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals under obamacare. the bill's supporters have continually waved those concerns aside too. millions of americans using

flexible spending accounts to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses, but obamacare imposes arbitrary limits on how much of a family's own hard-earned money can be set aside. and the law also prevents people who have come to depend on f.s.a.'s from using them to pay for common expenses like allergy medicine or cold medication. obamacare's cuts to medicare advantage and other regulatory actions could reduce the average benefit for women and men who rely on this program for more than $1,500 a year. concerns like these are all simply brushed aside by obamacare's supporters. washington should also be looking for ways to grow economic opportunities for women, but obamacare, of course, does just the opposite. i've heard from businesses large and small in kentucky who fear they won't be able to cope with the higher cost of coverage

under obamacare. they don't want to cut hours for their staffs or eliminate jobs, but many may no longer really have a choice. many of them are worried about new mandates that place millions of americans, nearly two-thirds of them women, at risk of having their hours and wages reduced. one of my constituents from summer set recently -- from somerset recently wrote to tell me what this new obamacare has meant for her, this particular obamacare mandate. i'm employed at a major chain, putting these rules into effect now, she said. this is causing us to lose up to 11 hours per week, averaging $440 a month less in wages. obamacare's causing us to lose hours and lose wages, and at the same time expecting us to spend more. let me repeat that. she says obamacare is causing her to lose hundreds of

thousands a month in lost wages and at the same time causing health care costs to skyrocket. this is simply not right. and yet, despite these terrible stories that keep pouring into our offices, the people who supported this law when it passed continue to defend it now. we kept warning them that obamacare would hurt jobs and increase costs. they had to know that obamacare was going to reduce choices for women and limit their access to certain doctors and hospitals, but washington democrats voted for obamacare anyway. they created these problems, and that's why they should be working with republicans now to start over with real patient-centered reform at lower costs and that women and men in this country actually want, but of course they refused. they are just doubling down on obamacare. and now they are trying to convince people of another untruth that somehow it's not possible to preserve our nation's long tradition of tolerance and respect for people

with faith while at the same time preserving a woman's ability to make her own decisions about contraception. and washington democrats are doing this based on a claim that in the words of "the washington post" nonpartisan fact checker is -- quote -- simply wrong, end quote. so i realize that democrats may think the best way to keep people from focusing on the impact of obamacare on middle-class families is to just make things up and to attempt to divide us. well, i think that's a shame, and it takes a pretty dim view of what we're capable of as a country. the goal here shouldn't be to protect the freedoms of some while denying the freedoms of others. the goal here and always should be to preserve everybody's freedoms. we can do both. and that's just what a number of us on this side are proposing to do this week. instead of restricting americans' religious freedoms,

we should preserve a woman's ability to make contraceptive decisions for herself, and that's why we plan to introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any employee from legal access to her f.d.a.-approved contraceptives. there is no disagreement on that fundamental point. the american people know that. they know democrats are just attempting to offer another false choice here. what we're saying is that of course you can support both religious freedom and access to contraception. look, if washington democrats really wanted to help women, they would work with us to do so. we have been imploring them to work with us to deliver relief to middle-class women for years now, to work with us on a new approach to the health care law that's hurting millions of american women. it's not too late. work with us to increase jobs, wages and opportunity at a time when american women are experiencing so much hardship as a result of this

administration's policies, especially obamacare. and, mr. president, on a different matter, i'd like to voice my opposition to the nomination of norman bay to be commissioner of and eventually lead the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc. i fail to see what qualifies mr. bay to be chairman of the commission, especially when the acting chair of ferc whom he would displace is much more qualified to hold the position. unlike most ferc commissioners in the last decade, he has never served as a state utility regulator. he's never served on the commission and does not possess the background and policy areas that ferc is charged with overseeing. in contrast to mr. bay, the current acting chair of ferc, shirley lafleur, is much more qualified to hold the chair position. miss lafleur came to ferc with

more than two decades experience in the electric and natural gas industries, including roles as chief operating officer, general counsel and acting c.e.o. of national grid u.s.a. and its predecessor. i find it shameful that this administration would seek to displace a well-qualified woman in favor of a male nominee with less experience. more importantly and of utmost concern to my home state, there are factors that lead us to believe that mr. bay would reliably serve as a rubber stamp for this administration's extreme, extreme anticoal agenda. this agenda harms the people of kentucky and is one i most strenuously oppose. as the current head of ferc's enforcement office, he has shown a history of targeting carbon- intensive businesses. who is to say that if installed as the next head of ferc, he won't come after kentucky businesses reliant on the coal

industry for electricity, which is 90% of my state? moreover, during his testimony before the senate energy and natural resources committee this past may, bay cited his home state of new mexico as an example of real-life, all of the above approach to energy. he mentioned his state's reliance on solar, wind, oil and gas for its energy mix. notably left out of this supposed all of the above approach, however, was any mention of coal, which, by the way, provides 70% of the electricity in new mexico. for all of these reasons, because he is not qualified, because he holds an anticoal agenda and because he will be only too willing to implement this administration's anticoal policies, i will be opposing norman bay's nomination to ferc, and i urge my colleagues to do the same.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:00 noon, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. with the majority controlling the first half. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the repercussions of the supreme court's misguided hobby lobby decision which allows employers to refuse to cover contraception as a part of their employees' health plans under the false premise that corporations can not only have religious beliefs but they can impose those beliefs on their employees. several days ago, i was home in the great state of colorado and i stood shoulder to shoulder with experts in women's health care who joined me to highlight

how the hobby lobby decision is already negatively affecting women in our state. one denver-based ob/gyn explained how physicians might now have to consider an employer's religious beliefs when making medical recommendations. she said the court's decision fundamentally interferes with health care decisions that should be based solely on a patient's well-being. because of the supreme court's 5-4 decision, women across america are now facing the uncertainty that their bosses may restrict the health care benefits that federal law currently secures for them. birth control has been deemed an essential preventative health service by a nonpartisan independent group of doctors and other medical experts. 99%, mr. president, 99% of american women have used birth control at some point in their lives, and they use it for a variety of health reasons. in fact, just hours after

senator murray and i introduced legislation in response to the hobby lobby decision, a colorado mother called my office to share the story of how her college-aged daughter was suffering from a health condition that was so debilitating that it kept her from attending class or really participating in any activities at school. as a result, her doctor prescribed a form of birth control that ended up managing her symptoms and getting her back on track. this colorado mother wanted to make sure i knew that access to contraception isn't just about birth control, and if her employer took away the contraceptive coverage in her family's health plan, her doctor wouldn't have had coverage for a medically necessary treatment. mr. president, regardless of why women take birth control, none of those reasons have any connection to how they do their jobs and their bosses have no business interfering in those decisions. but with the court's ruling in

hobby lobby, corporations and c.e.o.'s have been handed the right to play the role of gatekeeper for what kind of health care employees and their families can access as a part of their health insurance plan. that's not acceptable to coloradans. i've heard the arguments from those who say that the supreme court's decision narrowly protects religious freedom, and i think we can all agree that religious freedoms are being threatened, we as americans have a duty to act swiftly to address it, but the fact is that actual religious institutions are already exempt from requirements that run contrary to their beliefs. remember the men and women who work -- went to work for hobby lobby signed up to work at a craft store, not a religious organization. this decision in the words of justice ginsburg is one of startling breadth. in the hobby lobby majority opinion, the supreme court said its decision only applied to

closely held corporations, but up to 90% of american companies are considered closely held and over half of americans work for a closely held company. to call this decision narrow is as wrong as the reasoning behind it. and contrary to what supporters of the decision are saying, this just isn't about contraceptives. we have been warned by legal experts, including justice ginsburg and the three other justices who joined in her dissent, that this decision could lead to employers discriminating against women, minority groups and others because a company's owner may object to any number of medications or procedures such as vaccinations or h.i.v. treatment. just over two short weeks ago, before the hobby lobby decision, workers knew exactly what health services they had access to under their health plans. they didn't need to be labor lawyers to figure out what benefits they would receive, which benefits they might be at

risk of losing or how much more they would have to pay out of pocket for prescription drugs or other critical health treatments. however, with the hobby lobby case, that's all changed. supporters of the hobby lobby decision want women to believe that this isn't a big deal, but let me be clear. this has the potential to change health coverage for millions of women. i'm not, along with millions of americans, going to stand for this kind of discrimination. i trust women to make their own health care decisions, and i don't believe their employers should have a say in them. through their hard work and insurance premiums, women have earned and already paid for coverage that includes co-pay-free contraception under federal law. health insurance is a part of their compensation packages. there is nothing free about it. they've earned it. and not only does this case wedge bosses into private health care decisions, it unfairly

burdens hardworking women, ignoring the fact that contraception can be crucial to women and families' economic success. the ability to decide when, how and with whom to have a family is critical to the health and economic security of women and their families. the supreme court even stated this in its opinion in planned parenthood versus casey in 1992. i want to quote, mr. president, the supreme court from 1992. "the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." that's what the court said in 1992. so today, many employees are left wondering if that economic freedom is in jeopardy, and women are left to ask their bosses whether they will continue to cover their birth control, a topic of conversation that women should never be forced to bring up at work. an issue that is certainly not a

boss' business. throughout my time in congress, i have long believed that we all have the fundamental right to live our lives the way we choose, free from needless intrusion, whether by the government, by bureaucrats or by corporations and c.e.o.'s, and certainly free from intrusion by politicians. indeed, a woman should be free to make her own health decisions based on what's right for her and her family, not according to her employer's religious beliefs. so the reason i'm standing here today is to make very clear that this type of intrusion will not stand. i'm proud to lead the effort with senator murray to ensure employers cannot refuse to cover health services guaranteed to women under federal law. our bill, the protect women's health from corporate interference act, would restore a woman's power to make personal health care decisions based on what's best for her and her family free, from corporate

interference. i invite my colleagues of both parties to join this effort and i thank my colleagues who will stand with senator murray and me this week to say, women's health care is not your boss's business. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor this morning to join with the senior senator from colorado and i want to thank him for his excellent statement and his leadership on this issue as we kick off this really important debate on our bill, the protect women's health from corporate interference act, or, as you just heard, "the not my boss's business act." and i want to start off by asking our colleagues a few basic questions. first of all, who should be in charge of a women's health care decision? should it be the woman making those decisions with her partner and her doctor and her faith? or should it be her boss making those decisions for her based on

his own religious beliefs? well, to me and to the vast majority of people across the country, the answer to those questions -- that question is obvious. women should call the shots when it comes to their health care decisions, not their boss, not the government, not anyone else. period. but, mr. president, we are here today because five men on the supreme court disagreed. five men on the supreme court decided there should be a group of whammy cross america who are required -- of women across america who are required to ask their boss for permission to access basic health care. five men on the supreme court decided that a corporation should have more rights than the women it employs. five men on the supreme court rolled back the clock on women across america and we are here today because we cannot allow that to stand. people across the country think the supreme court was dead wrong on this decision and we are here

today to be their voice. mr. president, when we passed health care reform, we made sure that every woman has access to basic health care, including contraception which is used or will be used by 99% of the women in this country. and when 58% of women use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention, including managing endometriosis, ovarian cysts and other medical conditions, we know this provision could have a sweeping impact on women across our country. in fact, according to the department of health and human services, 30 million women nationally are already eligible for this benefit. and when the law is fully implemented, 47 million women nationally will have access to no-pay birth control thanks to the affordable health care act. and, by the way, thanks to this benefit, women have already saved $483 million and that's

just in the last year alone. mr. president, contraception was included as a required preventive 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 their families in america. it is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, to reduced risk of ovarian cancer, to better health outcomes for women, and, by the way, far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all should share. we should all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and it is good economic policy. we know it will mean healthier

women, healthier children and healthier families. and we know it will save money for businesses and consumers. but with their ruling setting a potentially dangerous precedent, the supreme court has not only inserted a woman's boss into her health care decisions, in many cases they've given him the final word. mr. president, in the aftermath of this decision, women across america are turning to congress and demanding that we fix this. and, by the way, it's not just women who want congress to act. people across the country understand if bosses can deny birth control, then they can deny vaccines or h.i.v. treatment or other basic health care services for employees and for their dependents. and i think what men across america understand, it's not just the female employees who are impacted, it is their wives and their daughters who are on their health care plan as well.

as the i thin ink was still dryn justice alito's misguided opinion in this case, i made an unwavering commitment to do everything i could to protect women's access to health care since the five male justices of the supreme court decided they would not. that is why i've been working with my partner, the senior senator from colorado, to introduce this bill and i'm proud that in the many days since then, we have received such strong support from people across the country. our straightforward and simple legislation will ensure that no c.e.o. or corporation can come between you and your guaranteed access to health care, period. this shouldn't be a controversial issue. the only controversial -- controversy about birth control is the fact that it is 2014 and women across america are still fighting for this basic health care.

mr., the data's clear. ensuring access to contraceptive coverage isn't just the right thing to do, it is a critical part of making sure that women and their families have a fair shot. in the 21st century, women and their families shouldn't be held back by outdated policies and unfair practices. and, again, it's not just about access to contraception. this includes pay equity, access to child care, higher minimum wage, and it absolutely includes the right to make their own medical and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by their employer. the bottom line is this -- women use birth control for a host of reasons, none of which should require a permission slip from their boss. so i want to thank leader reid for moving this bill to the floor so quickly and for his commitment to getting this done, because women across the country are expecting action. they do not want to wait. and as we move forward on this

bill this week, i hope enough republicans can put aside -- can put proven science over their partisan politics and join us and revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of americans to make their own decisions about their own health care and their own bodies. and i want to thank senator udall once again for his work with me on this commonsense and bicameral legislation. i also want to just thank the members of the house pro-choice caucus who've introduced their companion legislation in the house. and i, again, sincerely hope that our republican colleagues on both sides of the capitol join us. and for those of them who don't, for those republicans who've already said they oppose our legislation, i really am interested in hearing their answer to the question i posed a few minutes ago. do they think bosses should be in charge of a woman's health care decision? do they think women should have to ask their boss permission for

health care used by 99% of the women? and do they think that we as a country should start done the path where c.e.o.'s and corporations can start making decisions for all kinds of health care for their employees? mr. president, women across the country will be watching this debate and i think they will be very interested in seeing who is on their side. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. booker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. booker: i rise today to support the not my boss' business act which will help to fix the recent supreme court lobby decision by making it illegal for a company to deny their workers specific health benefits, including birth control, as required to be covered by federal law. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill which is necessary to h ensure that all women have access to preventive care. i want to say on a personal note, i was a young child growing up in a household with a working mother, a mom that

worked for a big corporation and actually worked in human resources. my table would often be one where it was discussed my mother dealing with challenges of racial discrimination, challenges of sexism in the workplace. and i watched how my mother in human resources would fight to make sure that we as a nation as well as this particular corporation continued to advance in fairly treating all of its employees. i was proud to watch my mother assert her independence, her freedoms and her basic sense of equity which resonates with the highest values of this nation. what is frustrating to me now, that here we stand in 2014 and we seem to be fighting so many of these battles and advancements that we won before that still need to be fought now. it's unthinkable to me as we should be turning our focus

towards other things, like paid family leave, or raising the minimum wage, that here we are again fighting about whether women should have the right to have access to birth control. and this is unfortunate because contraception is an essential -- is essential to a woman's right to make her own personal health decisions. birth control is not only a basic to making health care decisions, but it's one that 99% of women avail themselves of. throughout their lifetime, we will see 99% of american women avail themselves of birth control. and these women should not be forced to decide between contraception and a tank of gas or between contraception and meals for their family, contraception and paying rent. the hobby lobby decision, if you think about it, is imposing the will of corporation, of one

corporation's board members' religious beliefs or what have you can be imposed such that it would cost women who now want to exercise their freedom, up to $1,000 a year. for minimum-wage or low-wage workers, the $40 out-of-pocket expense for birth control each month is a real and substantive financial burden. let's be clear, workers can ensure worker coverage through their labor. it is part of their earned pavement this is not a free giveaway. they earned this coverage. what they spend their health care coverage on is their business, not their boss's business. i deeply value ideals of religious liberty. this is what our country was founded on. but religious liberty belongs to all of us. it does not belong to a corporation. religious liberty means being free from having other people's religions foisted upon you, imposed upon you, forced upon

you. most employees would never dream of telling their bosses what they must decide and abide by in terms of religious freedom. and by that same principle, no boss should have the right to impose their religion on the people who work for him. that's one of the reasons why so many faith leaders have spoken up against the hobby lobby decision. it is now making it acceptable for a corporation to impose on the individual liberty of others their religious beliefs and also the financial freedom that goes along with that, and also the ability for a woman to make critical health care decisions that might even be interfering with a doctor telling -- by telling a patient what is best for them and their health. the views held by companies' owners should not be able to

interfere with this basic understanding and fundamental right. the "not my boss's business act" protects religious liberty by not allowing their bosses to impose their religion, to impose what i believe comes down to discrimination. finally, the president has set by this decision could open the door wider and wider for more court cases and more employers who want to deny more aspects of basic health coverage and services because they claim it conflicts with the boss's religious beliefs. from blood transfusions to vaccinations, we are now in a minefield in which we can have the destruction of religious freedoms of employees and the health care freedoms that we have fought so hard to manifest. the hobby lobby decision is a step backwards that we must correct. it is a step against women's

rights. it's a step against religious freedom. it is a step against workers who earn basic benefits to have the ability to make those benefits real in their lives. the "not my boss's business act" will make it clear that bosses cannot discriminate. the "not my boss's business act" will make it clear there should be equal treatment under the law for the tens of thousands of workers whose coverage now hangs in the balance. a woman's health care decisions should be between that woman and her doctor. there is no room for a boss's religious beliefs in that equation, period. i watched for decades growing up not only my mother, but countless people fight to establish basic principles in the workplace. we cannot go back now.

this is such a critical piece of legislation to correct for the mistakes in this supreme court decision and assert those fundamental american ideals that individuals should be able to make their own health care decisions, that bosses and corporations should not impose religious beliefs on others, and that we are a nation where every woman can create a sacrosanct and private relationship with their doctor and make ultimately the health care decisions that are best for them. not ones in any way influenced or affected by a corporation. i want to thank again the senate president for this time, but most importantly i want to thank senator murray and senator -- and other senators who have led on this issue.

thank you very much, and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: madam president, i'm proud to follow my colleague from new jersey, and i am proud to say that i am a cosponsor of your bill and senator udall's bill, the murray-udall bill, that is going to make sure that we protect the health of our families. madam president, i'm going to put up -- and i should say mr. president. i'm going to put up a beautiful photograph here of the supreme court where above the portico these words are inscribed: "equal justice under law." and we've reprinted them up here. and i'm going to keep this up for the remainder of my remarks, because i think that is the

essential issue before us. those four words are the promise of our country that every american should be treated equally, should be respected, should be honored. and i would like to note that these words don't say equal justice under law except for women. it doesn't say equal justice under law except for birth control. it doesn't say equal justice under law unless it's okay with your boss. the beauty of this nation, mr. president, is that we respect each other's rights and freedoms, and we shed blood to make sure those freedoms are protected. and yet, with this hobby lobby ruling, five men who happen to be appointed by republicans, decide that a corporation has the power to deny me or to deny

you coverage of critical health care for us and for our families. and what is really upsetting to me is that they seized on the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 to justify giving for-profit companies the sweeping power to deny their employees access to affordable girth control and we believe it will prove to be other health care benefits required under federal law. i want to speak as someone who voted for the kennedy bill, the religious freedom restoration act. if anybody thinks that ted kennedy wanted to deny access for birth control, they didn't know ted kennedy and they didn't read at all the record as we debated that bill. so i voted for the religious freedom restoration act because

it was written to protect an individual's freedom of religion. an individual's freedom of religion so that i as a religious individual working for a corporation don't want to use the birth control coverage, i don't have to. but if i want to, i make that choice. if i as an independent individual want to vaccinate my child, it's covered under law, under the insurance, i can. if i don't want to, no one can force me to do that. so the idea behind the religious freedom restoration act was to protect the individual. and i'll read from it quote -- "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." let me repeat. "a person's exercise of religion." it didn't say a corporation's exercise of religion, your boss's exercise of his religion. it was about protecting the

individual. and what the conservative majority of the court did two weeks ago turned the religious freedom restoration act on its head. as someone who supported that act, it made me angry, sad. put in the adjective. it's wrong to reinterpret what a law meant. it stood the religious freedom act on its head, and they ruled that a corporation can put its own ideology ahead of religious freedom and health care needs of its employees. a female employee should be able to decide whether to use birth control, and that's not all that's at stake after the hobby lobby decision. because we know if you follow their logic that a corporation can deny birth control because of a religious objection, what if they object to a blood transfusion? there are certain religions that

do. then the employee can't get a blood transfusion. and what if they object to a vaccine or h.i.v. treatment? then in order for employees to have access to those treatments, they wouldn't have the insurance. and we all know from looking at the real world, if you don't have insurance, these treatments become very, very expensive, and you may not be able to avail yourself of them. now, chief justice john roberts during oral arguments in the hobby lobby case, made it clear that congress can fix this and override the court's decision. and i agree. and that is why i'm so thankful to senator murray and senator udall for working so hard and so fast that we can have a remedy right now. and it's important that we act fast. people, mr. president, are very confused out there as to what they can count on in their insurance coverage.

and so we're going to have a vote on this tomorrow. it's a cloture vote to end debate so we can actually get to a vote on the substance. and sadly, it means we need 60 votes -- a supermajority. but i hope and, frankly, pray that we get those 60 votes because we need to protect women's health. now, the bill, the murray-udall bill is called the protect women's health from corporate interference act. but they have nicknamed it "not my boss's business" act, which i like. it is not my boss's business what i decide to do. and it would require employers to follow the federal law when offering health insurance to their employees, not withstanding the religious freedom restoration act which, as i said, i believe the court stood on its head. it was meant to protect individuals, not corporations. not your boss. so the bill says corporations

can't hide behind the religious freedom restoration act to deny their workers coverage to the benefits that we have in law. now, more than 180 house and senate lawmakers have cosponsored this bill so far, and i hope our colleagues will vote for it. so i was saying that we need to act fast because there's confusion out there and virtually so many women rely on birth control at some point in their lives. it is amazing. 60% of women who take birth control, 6.5 million american women, do so in part or in whole to treat painful and difficult medical conditions. so let me say that again. you take a birth control pill for birth control, but there are many other uses for that pill. 1.5 million women out of the 6.5 million who use it, at least in part for other conditions, use

it solely as a medication to treat those painful and difficult conditions. now by allowing employers to deny coverage for contraception, the court is depriving many women and families of health care. surveys have shown that 5% -- 55% of young women aged 18 to 34 struggle to afford birth control which can cost up to $600 a year. maybe the supreme court justiceness their ivory tower think that's not a lot of money. but let me tell you for women working the minimum wage, even for women earning more than the minimum wage, it is quite a hit to their pocketbooks. now ruth bader ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that a woman earning the minimum wage would spend nearly an entire month's wage to get an i.u.d., $1,000.

imagine. this case has unjustly singled out women's health services. now i have to make a note here. i do not know of any employer that is dropping coverage for viagra. i don't. i've asked around. i have been on tv. i have invited folks to let me know. oh, no, viagra's fine. birth control's not fine. and just put the pieces together yourself. i think that this decision discriminates against women. in the slippery slope argument, you are going to see it affect everyone. and we need to listen to the women who rely on birth control to approve their -- improve their health and the health of

their families. let me tell you a few stories. richelle from sacramento was diagnosed with non-hodgkin's lymphoma in 2010. after her treatment, her doctors told her she needed to use birth control to ensure she did not become pregnant for the next three years, because she was really sick. luckily, her employer covers birth control, and now happily four years later she is pregnant with her first child. what could have happened to her if she had gone through an unintended pregnancy? it could have been pretty devastating. and what if she had worked for a different employer who refused to offer her that birth control? her health and the health of her child would have been at risk, and that would have been tragic. so let's listen to her and let's listen to katherine from pleasant hill, california, who relies on birth control after having her first child. she says -- quote -- "both my husband and i want to be the best possible parents for our son, and having another child so soon would hurt our ability to

do that. a variety of affordable birth control options, those are crucial for me and for all first-time moms like me. many, many, many years ago, i was on the board of planned parenthood, and what we said all the time is our dream was that every child be a wanted child, a wanted child. and as a parent myself and as a grandparent, i will tell you right now it takes a lot to raise a child. hillary clinton said it takes a village. it certainly takes loving parents. and it takes a loving family. and it certainly costs money. and it certainly takes energy. we want our families to be healthy. we want our families to be productive. and birth control is a success

story. it breaks my heart that women just like katherine who work at hobby lobby and other for-profit corporations now could be denied access to affordable health care unless we fix this. the religious freedom restoration act was not about handing your boss the power over you like this. it was about giving you the right to make your own choices and decisions. now, ariana in redding wrote -- quote -- "i am a recent college graduate trying to make ends meet and pay off my student loans. it is a great relief to know i can get the birth control i need without a co-pay." these are real stories. now, if the boss doesn't like it that you choose birth control, that's his right. if he wants to sit down with his daughter and tell her his religious objection and if she

agrees with him, that's fine. i mean, that's what america's about. but don't take your religious beliefs, your ideology, your biases, your prejudices and your opinions and foist them on your employee. that is not this country. that's not what we're about. shouldn't we care more about the rights of women and their families than the rights of a few employers who can exercise them in their families? i mean, really, this bill that we're going to vote on is critical, and i hope it won't die as a result of partisanship. we have to rise above partisanship around here. equal justice under law, that's what it says over the portico. and, you know, frankly, there is another issue. if you look at what has happened to the rates of abortion since

we have seen more use of birth control, they're going down. there has been a study in one of our nation's big cities that prove that because there was broad use of birth control, abortions went down by 50%. imagine. so if that's our concern, regardless whether we're pro-choice or not, we shouldn't be embracing decisions that make it more difficult for women to get access to birth control. so equal justice under the law, it doesn't say except for women. it doesn't say except if my boss disagrees with me. it's pretty beautiful. it's pretty clear. it's something that we have to respect. it's for the ages. and tomorrow, we're going to see

if our colleagues agree. every senator must take a stand tomorrow for individual liberty. and when we vote tomorrow, let's be reminded women are watching. the american people will hold each of us accountable if we fail to protect their rights and their ability to decide what's best for their families. i have been around a while. i was -- i was around when one of the bushes actually was on the board of planned parenthood, george herbert walker bush. suddenly this issue is back, birth control, and suddenly we're arguing over it again. so let's say this -- i may be wearing a white jacket, but it's not a white doctor's coat. i'm not a doctor, and i don't want to put myself as a politician in between a woman and her doctor or in between a family and their doctor. let's leave important health care choices where they

belong -- with women, with families, with doctors. not with politicians, in the senate or justices sitting in a court somewhere. thank you very much. i yield the floor. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i ask

consent that if cloture is invoked on either the bay or the lafleur nominations, that the confirmation vote or votes occur at 3:15 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i rise in support of the protect women's health from corporate interference act to stand up for what i thought was a commonly shared value, that a woman's health care decisions are between here and her -- her and her doctor, not her and her boss. i thought that was well established, straightforward, simple even, but it turns out that a majority of the supreme court thought differently when it came to certain kinds of health care decisions. whether or not a woman would have access to contraceptives without co-pays as guaranteed by federal law. as we all know now, two weeks

ago, the supreme court held in hobby lobby that an employer's personal beliefs can trump some of the most private and significant health care decisions a woman makes. so let me be very clear on where i stand. what kind of birth control a female employee uses is not her boss' business. now, i have heard some supporters of the supreme court's decision argue that that ruling is a narrow ruling and that it only applies to closely held family businesses. that doesn't tell the whole story, mr. president, because just three days after its ruling in hobby lobby, the court said that a nonprofit religious college didn't have to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement, even though it had already had an accommodation that allowed it to avoid paying for such coverage itself. the majority even pointed to this accommodation in the hobby

lobby ruling as an example of a less restrictive alternative that could be open to for-profit businesses. a few days later, that same accommodation wasn't good enough. in her dissent, justice sotomayor wrote that those who are bound by our decisions usually believe that they can take us at our word. not so today. in other words, in less than a week, the supreme court's conservative majority went from issuing a supposedly narrow ruling to potentially broadening it to encompass a new class of institutions. the impact of the ruling in hobby lobby will most definitely not be limited to those closely held businesses, as some say. and i have heard others argue in essence don't worry, the ruling doesn't expressly ban access to

contraceptives. it just shifts the additional cost of the coverage back to the women. but those who say that erecting a barrier of cost between a woman and birth control will give her the same access she had before the decision don't understand what women have to go through to get covered and don't understand the many reasons why women use birth control. since the coverage requirement went into effect last year, the number of women who got their birth control without a co-pay jumped from 14% to 56%. that meant some serious costs were avoided for many women. the average annual savings for women last year was $269. in total, women in the u.s. saved $483 million on contraceptives, thanks to the affordable care act. among those women were 917,000 in north carolina alone who were eligible for preventative services without additional

co-pays. and many of these women sought and used medicine, birth control for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with planning pregnancies. in fact, oral contraceptives are a key treatment for at least three major medical conditions that affect women. polly cystic -- polycystic ovary system affect women of reproductive age and if left untreated can lead to infertility. in addition, 11% of women are affected by endometriosis in their lifetime and approximately 40,000 women each year with diagnosed with endometrial cancer. many women are at risk of developing ovarian cancer, one of the most deadly cancers in the u.s. and women with ovarian cancer also can receive treatment via birth control. and yes, one of the best known ways to reduce the risk of these conditions is birth control.

employers who make their female employees pay out of pocket for contraceptives aren't just imposing their personal beliefs. they are also making it more difficult for women to access important life-saving medical treatments. mr. president, i would like to ask for about another 45 seconds to a minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, without objection. mrs. hagan: mr. president, thank you. that's why i believe it is so important to debate and to pass the protect women's health from corporate interference act. this bill would fix the hobby lobby decision by making it illegal for any company to deny their workers specific health benefits, including birth control that are required to be covered. it would make clear that bosses cannot discriminate against their female workers and would ensure equal treatment under the law for tens of thousands of workers for whom coverage hangs in the balance. it would preserve and codify the existing accommodation for our nonprofit religious employers.

it's troubling to me that in 2014, we're even debating women's access to contraception. nearly all women, 99%, will use it at some point in their lives and should have access to safe, effective birth control if they choose to use it, plain and simple. this bill would ensure that those decisions about an employee's health can stay between the woman and her doctor, not between the woman and her boss. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, we are talking about a lot of issues on the floor here in the senate as we go through this election year that might be considered political. i want to talk about one today that's both urgent and transcends party lines. it's a humanitarian crisis. we're seeing it in africa in the

democratic republic of congress owe. -- of congo. in september of last year, the congo informed the united states that they would no longer issue exit visas, exit permits for congalese children in the process of being adopted by american parents. these are kids already in the adoption process and yet the congo government says they can't leave the country. this is a terrible precedent, terrible, unjustifiable action, and it's left hundreds of children and their new families here in the united states in limbo. last friday the congolese government announced an end to exit permit exceptions until the country passes what they deem are new adoption laws. so i stand here today to express the deep concern and commitment to resolve this crisis from so many of us here in the senate. we have over 50 cosponsors of a resolution calling on the congo to do the right thing. those of us who have cosponsored this are looking for a way to

help these children who, again, who have already been adopted to be able to be reunited with their families permanently. more than 350 families have finalized adoptions with congolese children. they've all obtained the necessary u.s. approvals, including the u.s. visas authorizing the children to emigrate to the united states. 400 additional families were in the process of completing adoptions at the time the congo imposed this moratorium. in every way that matters, including in what they feel in their hearts, these are their children. all told, more than 800 children are caught in this diplomatic nightmare. by the way, that's about 10% of total adoptions worldwide by american families last year. these are international adoptions. so it's a significant number. many of these kids have special needs and those needs are now not being met. and until they are able to come with their families, they won't be met. and, in fact, some lives are being put at risk. in fact, six of these children have already died. i had the opportunity to meet with some of the parents of some

of these children and see some of the photos and hear some of the stories and it is one of these issues where if the congolese government will simply do the right thing and allow these exit permits, lives would be saved. we can't remain silent in the face of this tragedy. together with senator landrieu of louisiana, again, i have a resolution calling on the administration to take action and demand that the government of the democratic republic of congo resume processing these adoption cases, permitting these kids to leave and prioritize the process of the intercountry adoptions that were initiated before the suspension began. i want to thank senator landrieu for all of her hard work on this as well as, again, more than 50 of our colleagues now from both sides of the aisle who have joined us. in my meetings with a number of families from ohio last week, again, we had opportunity to talk about some of these kids and some of their specific circumstances and also about what these families are ready to do. and they're ready to give these kids the support they need.

the love they need. i met with the milliman's from columbus, ohio. they're adopting a little girl who has very serious medical conditions. they're in the final stages of the adoption pro adoption procey fear they're not going to be able to provide her the treatment and care she needs. i also met with the webb family. webbs are in the process after departmenting a child from the -- adopting a child from the congo to bring home and the webbs' biological daughter heather is also in the process of adopting from the congo. they were both here in the capitol to talk about their kids and talk about what they've been through. these families represent the very best of our country, of our values, a respect for these young people's lives, a commitment to live with humility, prioritizing the needs of these most vulnerable children. this diplomatic impasse is keeping these families apart. it's time the administration join with congress to support the families and the children involved in this crisis in every way possible. in the coming days, i hope we'll

speak with one voice and demand that congo reverse their decision and process these adoptions as quickly as possible. now, my sense, mr. president, is that it's possible that this could be an issue that will come up in committee this week, and if not before this session is out, we would be able to take this to the floor of the senate and pass it and begin to put some pressure on the congolese government to do the right thi thing. it's time to allow these children to be with their loving families. with that, i yield back my time, mr. president. mr. portman: mr. president, it would appear we do not have a quorum. i ask --

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

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso barrasso: mr. pres? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: mr. president, last week i heard the majority leader speak about people who are happy with the health care law. i agree some people have actually been helped by the law, but many americans -- many americans have been hurt by the law's destructive side effects.

republicans have given examples from people from all across the country, in all ages, in all kinds -- of all ages, in all kinds of situations being harmed by the health care law. and what we found is a disproportionate number of those being hurt are women. these are middle-class americans. they work hard. they do the right thing. they just want to care for themselves and their families. the health care law that the president wrote and every democrat in the senate voted f for, this law is standing between them and the lives that they want to live. that's what i'm hearing from my neighbors back home in wyoming and i think i hear it perhaps from more individuals than many of the senators do because i was a physician that practiced medicine in wyoming for 25 yea years. taking care of patients, taking care of families. but i'd like to share with you what i've been hearing from women around the state of wyoming and how this law has been impacting their own lives. so i got a letter from a woman in gillette, wyoming, and she

says, "i want to share with you my frustration and my worry concerning the affordable care act." she said that she and her husband have three daughters, three daughters ages 12, 9 and 3. she said her husband recently started a business. she said, "thanks to the new health care law, our insurance premium has increased $560 every month." that's the increase every month. that's $6,700 more a year that this family has to pay for insurance under the president's health care law. here's what she wrote. she said, "as we struggle to plan for our girls' futures, attempt to make my husband's business prosper, and dream of what our future may hold once our children are raised, it is disheartening," she said, "that we will now pay nearly $17,000 a year for health insurance." she said, "there are so many things we could and should be able to do with that money." she says, "that's an additional

$560 a month could put our girls into college funds, could go -- our girls' into college funds, could go toward a payment on our car or home or could be given back to our church or community. she said sald, we don't get to tell how to spend our hard-earned money. we've been told by washington how to spend our money on health insurance. she said, "i've never been so completely let down by the american government." here's a woman who just wants to raise her family, send her daughters to college, maybe grow the family business and there in wyoming she is struggling with the burden washington democrats imposed on her with this terrible health care law. and it is -- and it's damage -- its damaging, disheartening side effects. now, president obama says the democrats who voted for this law should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. are democrats in the senate who voted for this health care law

proud of what they're doing to this woman and her family? are democrats willing to come to the floor and forcefully defend and be proud that this family, this wyoming family has to spend thousands of dollars on health insurance instead of on their daughters' college funds? millions of women all across america are in the same situation as this woman in gillette, wyoming. there's been a new study that looked at how much more money people are paying this year for insurance in the obamacare exchanges than they paid last year, before the obama health care law kicked in. in. what they found is a lot of women are paying much, much more because of the health care law, because of the president's health care law. in north carolina -- we just heard from the senator from north carolina -- in north carolina, an average 27-year-old woman is paying $1,100 more for insurance coverage this year

than she did last year. in north carolina, a 64-year-old woman is paying $5,000 more because of all the requirements of the health care law. is that senator willing to come back and forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law? and what it's done to these women in their home state? it's the same thing in arkansas. an average 40-year-old woman pays $1,300 more this year because of the lawmen law. a 64-year-old woman in arkansas is paying $3,400 a year more this year because of the exchanges. women of all ages are paying more and getting hurt. and "the washington post" had a very interesting story about this on june 24th. it said, "older women bear the brunt of higher health insurance costs under obamacare." that's the headline from the "washington post." "older women bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under

obamacare." the article says, "a new report found women aged 55-64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange." the article says, "these women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and the out-of-pocket expenses after the affordable care act." so under president obama and the democrats' plan, older women are bearing the brunt of higher health insurance costs. this is a disgraceful side effect of the democrats' health care law. women across the country paying more money for insurance they do not need, do not want and will likely never use. are democrats willing to come to the floor of the united states senate and forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that older women are bearing the bruntd of higher -- brunt of higher health insurance costs under this law? i've got another letter,

mr. president, from a rancher from new castle, wyoming. she and her husband were paying $650 a month for insurance. she says we don't carry maternity insurance because we've completed our family and the woman has had a hysterectomy. now, i say the president i get letters more than maybe most because i am a physician, practiced in wyoming for a long time. she says their insurance agent told them they couldn't renew their policy at the end of last year and the reason, well, because it didn't meet the president's requirement that they have to have maternity coverage. so they had to choose a new policy from the exchange. now, remember she doesn't need or want maternity coverage and she's never going to use it because she's had a hysterectomy. according to president obama and the democrats, doesn't matter one bit. doesn't matter, they said. so they were paying $650 a month

before obamacare. she said that her insurance agent quoted her waits rates for a comparable policy of anywhere between $1,300 and $1,600 a month. or they could take a bronze policy with much less coverage than they had before for $900, still more than they were paying before, so $3,000 a year more than they paid before obamacare, and the out-of-pocket costs would be much higher, much more difficult for the family. this woman from wyoming writes "we're being forced out of a good spood which we pay for with hard-earned money and which we choose into a dangerous financial health situation with less coverage and which puts my husband and i, she said, who are proud of our own sustainability, on to what we consider the welfare rolls by needing a government subsidy to afford a plan that we don't want or need. we don't want, we don't need, and we're forced on to it.

she writes "to say that we're angry is an understatement. why is this happening? why can obama force me this? we feel helpless." this isn't what the president of the united states promised the american people, what every democrat who voted for the health care law promised the american people. it seems to me president obama and democrats in the senate just don't get it. all these women wanted was a chance to buy insurance coverage that worked for them. they wanted the right to be left alone, to make their own choices about their family's health care, not to have washington make choices for them. they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. president obama wasn't interested in listening to what women wanted. he wanted to tell, he wanted to mandate, tell them and mandate what he thought was best for

them. it's outrageous. i hear from people almost every day who are feeling the costly and cruel side effects of the health care law. heard from a woman in casper, wyoming where i practiced and was chief of staff of the medical center, the wyoming medical center in casper. she gets her insurance through her job and the costs have gone up so much under obamacare she is worried about what will happen. she writes "i'm concerned for what i might be facing when my employer has to comply with the health care law next year. she said i've not had children yet, not had children yet because of the effects the recession has had on me and my husband. she said i would very much like to think that we could have one in the next couple of years, however, the insurance fiasco worries me. so this woman is worried that the health care law might actually affect her and her husband having a family. why did president obama take

away the rights of women to choose what health coverage is right for them and their families? and active decision made by democrats in this body and the president of the united states to take away the rights of women to choose what health coverage is right for them and their families. why did president obama raise the cost of health care and make it more expensive for women? these are just a few of the women who are being hurt by obamacare and just a few of the ways that the president's health care law is affecting women all across america. again, there are some people who have been helped by the law. some people are happy with their insurance. nobody's denying that. there are also people who have been hurt by the law and who can't afford it and who are dual dwad because of -- deaf stated because of it. what does the president have to say to those people? why won't president obama sit down with just one of these

women who have written to me and actually listen to the damage that he has done to them, to their families, and to their health care as a result of his health care law? why won't democrats come to the floor of the senate and talk about these millions of americans, millions of women who they have harmed with the health care law? republicans have offered ideas for health care reform that allow women to make choices on what's best for them and their families. if they want maternity coverage, they can find a pol policy that offers it's. they woonltd be forced to pay for what they don't need or want just because someone in washington tells them they must. people wanted health care reform to give them acres to quality, affordable care, not more expensive coverage. republicans are going to keep coming to the floor, keep offering real solutions for better health care without all

these expensive and offensive side effects. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. cloar the clerk will report quorum call: mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, like many americans, i've watched

with increasing concern and increasing frustration the rapidly growing humanitarian crisis on our southern border. more than 60,000 unaccompanied alien children, mostly minors from guatemala, honduras and el salvador have been apprehended at the border this year in this fiscal year and we have two and a half months remaining. so the numbers are staggering. another 40,000 family members, one or both parents traveling with their children have also been an lee pre-hended just in this fiscal year. 20 to put these numbers in perspective, in 2008, the number of unaccompanied alien children apprehended at the border was 8,000. three years later, in 2011, the number had doubled. it had doubled to 16,000. so this is something that we

perhaps didn't but should have seen coming. today, of course, the numbers are straggering as -- staggering as i just mentioned. it has skyrocketed. in april and may of this year 10,000 a month have arrived. so we're going to be well toward the number of 100,000 or more of unaccompanied children, or accompanied children with families that are coming here across the border illegally, creating a significant crisis. we simply cannot sit back and let this situation grow worse as it does day by day. we must now find a way to solve this crisis and stem the flow of unaccompanied minors entering our country. it is imperative that this congress and this administration work together to do this and do this immediately. we dare not move toward our

regularly scheduled august recess without accomplishing the solution or resolution of this current crisis, which is impacting children, impacting families, impacting communities, impacting many across the united states in terms of this crisis. now, as we do this, i think it's important that we be guided by some key principles. currently laws on the books, laws that might need to be adjusted as well as compassionate hearts in terms of how we deal with those who are here but will need to be returned back to their homeland. first, clearly and foremost we have to enforce existing law. existing law says we need an orderly process. immigration needs to be legal, it needs to be processed in an orderly way and in a way that we can accommodate those who come to america. i'm the son of an immigrant who was processed through a legal

process and that speaks for many of us, not only here in this chamber but many across america. we are all in a sense immigrants. but for over 200 years we have come as immigrants through a legal process, and today we find the situation where our borders are being swamped with those who are attempting to come illegally for whatever reason and more importantly, we have to make it clear to them that the law does not allow this to happen. so we have to get control of the border. we have to get control of our immigration process. for those -- and i think all of us feel the need for immigration reform, step number one has to be securing our borders. so we can convince the american people that we have returned to an orderly process of bringing immigrants to this country and not be overwhelmed by the illegal immigration flowing across in these days, across the southern borders. it's also important because we need to let the families know

and the children know that their trip to america is not what has been promised them. many believe this humanitarian crisis is focused on how we handle these children once they arrive at the border. and there is a need to address that issue. but in reality, the crisis for these children begins when they start their trip, given the dangers of the journey. we now know that the children who are making these dangerous treks from central america are often in the hands of smugglers, drug cartels, coyotes, those who -- criminal elements who are delivering a false lie to family and individuals in these countries, basically saying get your children across the border and they will then be absorbed into the american society and they will be in a better place. and, by the way, write us a

check for $7,000 or $10,000 or $5,000, whatever the market bears, and we will ensure that your children arrive safely and then you won't have to worry about them anymore. that is simply not true. sadly, in the latest information that has come to us in surveys being taken and investigations that are being made, story is horrendous. often those in the hands of those who are seeking to bring them along the 1,500 -- approximately a 1,500-mile trip from central america to the texas border, the reality of what these children are facing in particular and these families are facing is stark and it's something that absolutely has to be addressed. doctors without borders exist in southern and central mexico and they did surveys of those who

were attempting to make this trip. they indicated that 58% of their patients suffered at least -- at least -- one episode of violence along their way from central america to the united states. one media network did an investigation that followed the path of central american migrants, including children, and while their numbers have not been verified or documented, they are staggering and even if the results are half of what they claim, it is a situation of immense humanitarian dysfunction. they found that 80% of all migrants will be assaulted, 60% of women will be raped, and 40% of all migrants and only 40%, will actually make it to the border. now, let's say those numbers are exaggerated, there's some indication this media outlet was

perhaps sensationalizing their numbers. let's say it just half of that. but if it's just half of that it is something we absolutely cannot tolerate. we absolutely cannot sit by and say the only humanitarian crisis is taking care of these children once they cross the border making sure they have vaccinations, u.s.s. enhance, a place to clean until we get them processed. need -- those that chamber that need to understand the crisis that exists before they ever get to the border and the impact on these children in particular. in 2010, when the narrative coming out of the administration was chipping away at our nation's immigration laws through the abuse of prosecutorial discretion, this generated whispers of hope that ran lamb pant through the families of our central american neighbors and gave a self-confidence that if you

illegally enter the country, once you're there, you'll be able to staivment th stay. it spread in 2012 when the president halted the immigrants that arrived as minors. there was a process where they were give an piece of paper which basically said you have to appeal -- have to appear before a judge who will determine whether or not you're able to stay in the country or whether you will have to be sent back home. the narrative there was, this is your document that allows you to stay in america. in fact, it wasn't that at all. but because of the overwhelming number of people that receive these documents allowing them to stay here until they were ajudd indicateadjudicated by a judge t number now is 75,000. there is no way we can

adjudicate these and make these decisions in a short amount of time. those that arrive simply melted into the society and most never showed up for their -- before a judge who was making a decision em theiabout their legality or illegality. a key part of what we have to do here is a repatriation plan. it is easy to simply throw money out there and say, welcome up with a plan later. i cannot support a provision that doesn't have a policy -- doesn't have policy changes that address this situation, policy changes that will allow us to inform our central american neighbors that they must make every possiblest to engage with us -- possible effort to engage with us in telling the truth to their constituents and the parents of that's children as to what lies ahead for them; the fact that they will be subjected

to potential brutality, unspeakable, brutal efforts and consequences of this trip, as well as returned back to their families and to their countries. we have to, together, make this message clear that our laws require that these children be sent back. but we also have to make it abundantly clear that they are putting their children at great harm and great risk to believe this narrative that says they'll be fine, they'll be taken care of, just give us the money and we'll make sure your children become americans and they'll be fine for the future. secondly, i think we need to go a step further. to deter children from making this journey, we have to return those that have already come, and including in this -- including in a viable repatriation program has to be a streamlined process. as i mentioned -- imansed the ii

mentioned the number of the hundreds of thousands who are still waiting for adjudication. there have been suggestions made here by some of our colleagues that we dramatically increase the number of judges that can go down to the border and make these decisions quickly so that we can safely return these children home without having the horror of seeing these children rejected in different communities and no place to put them as the numbers simply overwhelm our a ability to care for them. the administration does have some flexibility under current law to move families and children through these immigration proceedings in ancel rated manner -- in an accelerated manner. i believe the secretary of homeland security has stated that we need to go further to change current law to treat all unaccompanied alien children the same. this is the president's own

secretary of homeland security who has been to the border, who i have met with and talked to several times, who is assiduously trying to address this in a bipartisan way, and we need to work together to make sure that we put the processes in place and policies in place before we simply decide on a number and hope for the best later. we need to change the law to allow central american children who qualify to choose voluntary return as well rather than go through drawn-out immigration proceedings that should still lead to their removal and damage any chance they have to seek illegal immigration in the future. this narrative out there, this story out there is, oh, well, just go back across the border. then maybe tomorrow you'll get back here and someone else will pick you up and you'll go to a different place and you'll start the process all over again and you'll finally get hand add piece of paper and then don't worry about showing up 12-18

months later. you can melt into society and everything will be well. that absolutely has to be addressed. and if we don't do that, we will not succeed with this process. we also need to use our leverage with these foreign countries to gain their cooperation, if they refuse to cooperate with us, whether it is withholding foreign aid, whether it is any number of punitive measures. we need to make sure that the governments of these nations understand the risk to their children, the harm to their children, and the fact that we are going to enforce the law, and if they want continued future reels with the united states -- relations with the united states through a legal immigration process, they have to work with us to convince their constituencies and to give them the truth as to what is happening to their children, to engage in this process of working with us to stop this flow of illegals.

now, obviously we have to provide reasonable care for those that are already here. the vast majority of the new funding the president is requesting would go for caring for illegal immigrants who are already here. it includes housing, transporting, and caring for the children and families already in the united states. i believe it's our responsibility as a nation and as a compassionate society to care for the hurt and displaced, but we cannot simply open our arms and encourage all the world's children to strike out on their own, face endless dangers, and come to our shores with the belief that they will be welcomed and accepted and integrated into our society. we simply don't have the capacity to do that on a worldwide basis, and we see the trouble we're having from just three countries. what are we actually doing to

stem the flow of unaccompanied alien children coming to the united states? and when will we begin to see the tide turn? that is something that has to happen animus happen initially. -- and must happen initially. and finally, in addition to the care which we must provide the sustenance and the health care and the bedding and the nutrition and the efforts that we need to make -- and thank goodness for so many nonprofit organizations, churches and others who have volunteered to join us in this particular effort. but it can't be an ongoing effort. it has to be something that is accompanied by significant changes that i've talked before in terms of policy. you've got to stop the bleeding. you've got to stop the effort first and convince the american people that we've finally gained control of our borders before we can move to any kind of sensible immigration reform.

this is going to be expensive. we're going to have to make sure that the money we're spending is spent as part of a plan to address the problem, not just simply address it and have the problem continue, but address it in a way on a one-time basis that would put an end to this story that, send your children and they'll be just fine. mr. president, the time is moving on, and i know my colleague here is waiting to speak and that we have votes coming up, so let me shorten this by simply concluding that, at the end of the day we have a huge humanitarian crisis on our hands, on our border, and i believe we have a moral responsibility to swiftly address and solve this crisis. we have to understand that the crisis involves more than just unaccompanied minors. we cannot ignore the national security implications of a weak border. there are many dark powers in this world that wish to see the

influence of the united states diminished. that wish to extinguish the beacon of freedom that we have been to the world. so for the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of our national security, and the safety of our children, it is imperative that we act now and that we get it right. and it'll only happen if this body, the congress, the house and the senate, and the president will work together to put in place on an expedited basis a sensible plan to address this humanitarian crisis. save the children. save the children means don't put those children in the hands of smugglers, coyotes, criminal elements. put them on the buses and the trains only to reap the unintended consequences that they think are consequences that are horrendous and really have become the humanitarian crisis that we're addressing. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

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

votevote: quorum call: