between terrorism on the one hand, caliphate, whatever you want to call it, and on the other hand, somebody with a nuclear weapon. and the whole notion that's governed relationships in that area since the end of world war ii, mutually-assured destruction and major states being responsible with respect to their acquisition of technology, that all dose out the door because -- goes goes out the door because you're dealing with north korea and pakistan and iran and formerly libya. and that is the place from which i think we will see merge terror arist-armed nuclear weapon. and that is a huge problem for us. anybody thinks we can ignore that is smoking something. >> mr. vice president, four years ago you believed you were dying. this your book -- since we're holding occupy books here -- "heart," which you wrote with your heart surgeon and liz cheney, you said by the beginning of june 2010, i was approaching end stage heart failure. i found it increasingly difficult to carry out any tasks

around the house, i was losing my appetite, and -- this is very cheney -- i wasn't fearful or anxious about my situation, i'd lived a wonderful life and now it was ending. how do you feel now? [laughter] >> wrong again. [laughter] no, i -- it was, i wrote that very seriously. it was a very serious moment. it obviously comes up from time to time. i did believe i'd reached the end of the line, and it was, as i said in the book, it was not frightening. i was at peace, and it was more difficult for my family to consider than it was more we to consider. for me to consider. the miracles of had earn medicine, one night 20 units of blood and installed a pump, then i got the transplant thanks to a donor. so every day when i wake up, you

know, i've got a smile on my face, thankful for a day i never thought i'd see again. it's, it really affects your sense of what's important and what isn't. and a lot of the things that we deal with in our daily lives aren't really very important when you lay it over against that kind of experience. what made it, made it possible to for me to get through all that not only was the donor and modern medicine, but also my family. and i can't say enough about what lynne and liz and mary did for me to help me through some very, very difficult days. lynne learned everything there was to learn about being a nurse with respect to -- >> doctor. >> cardiologist. [laughter] >> glass ceiling there. [laughter] >> one ph.d. on this stage. >> yeah, thank you. that's right. >> and i flunked out as an undergraduate. [laughter]

but it was absolutely something you can't go through without the wondrous support that i had in hi family, and i'm back doing all those things i ever wanted to do, and i spent a lot of time with fly rod and shotgun, and now i'm driving a ford 350 diesel hauling my 14-year-old granddaughter around to rodeos because she's a barrel racer. it's great joy that i never expected to see, and it's -- but at the same time, these are important points. i don't want by any means to diminish what's happening out there now, and to some extent i feel a sense of freedom about speaking out and telling people what i really believe. not that i ever didn't do that, but it's more urgent now somehow because the problems that i think are developing. >> your transplant was two years and some months ago. how much longer -- >> march 24th of 2012.

>> how long do they say you have? [laughter] how long is a transplant good for? >> well, they tell me my hear's pretty good for 30 more years, but they don't know about the rest of me. [laughter] >> we're about to get the hook here. very quick, rapid round, mr. vice president, one sentence, the bowe bergdahl trade, how dangerous is that? what do you think are the consequences of that? >> you gave five of the senior leadership back to the taliban, the same organization that a few weeks ago launched an attack on the karachi airport and killed 40 people, 34 people. terrible, terrible idea. >> this is a question from felix dodd, what should the republican party do about climate change? >> liz? >> nothing. [laughter] i mean, look, i think that what's happening now with respect to this president and this epa and using something like climate change as an excuse

to kill the coal industry nationwide -- and that's exactly what they're doing, they've been open about it. they even admit that, you know, the emissions from are coal aren't actually causing any kind of a heating of the planet, but this is an opportunity to go in, and they're killing coal. you know, wyoming is the leading coal-producing state in the nation, but you don't have to be from wyoming to understand that your electricity is going to be directly affected by that. it is pad policy, it's -- it is bad policy, it's bad science. we're seeing increasingly that it's bad science, and a much greater threat to us, frankly, is this massive expansion and growth of the bureaucratic state here in washington. the epa, the use of things like the clean air act and the clean water act to go directly at people's private property rights in a way that clearly, frankly, is unconstitutional and is a real net to our freedom. >> mr. vice president, do you worry about the politics of the republican party not doing anything on climate, marriage,

immigration? >> no, i'm of the school lynne mentioned earlier, i don't think it's necessarily a bad year when congress doesn't do anything. [laughter] >> what about 2016? >> given the -- [applause] well, given the role of the government, i'm, i guess, much more in hadson's camp. the founders, basically, said there needs to be limits, and we've got a great temptation to think we can't solve a problem without federal legislation to solve it, and we end up imposing more and more regulation and red tape that has a disastrous effect on our economy, and it's fairly dramatically moving us in the direction of something, you know, closer to socialism than the free enterprise be system. >> yeah. there is more than one way to destroy the republic, and you've spent a lot of time talking about those violent ways. and certainly, that needs to be in the tore host parts of our

mind. but you also destroy a republic when you do away with the idea of constitutional limitation on government. and when you walk down the path of government isn't an entity of limited rights, government is there to do things for us that our leaders decide we need to have done for us, that is so, so much opposed to what the founders thought that it is another way to destroy the republic. >> okay. last question on this, to look at it the other way then, mr. president, it's a mathematical certainty that if the -- >> i like that. >> -- it's base, like it's not going to win the9mílíl6q presi. without a new message for young people, for gays, for minorities, how does the republican party win national elections? >> well, i'm not sure i buy the premise to your question, mike. i think that's -- you made a lot of assumptions there, and i think, you know, i remember a time not long ago when i was part of a ticket with george

bush in texas with 44% of the hispanic vote. i think it's premature at this point for you to call out what the results are going to be in 2016. >> you're not worried about where the republican parties are with hasten hispanics? >> i am one of those people who believe that is the party ought to be doors wide open for everybody, and i see a lot of folks in the hispanic community. those are people that ought to be conservative, religious and are here in many cases because they worked very, very hard to get here because they care about those things, opportunities that america can provide. not just in terms of education, be but jobs and opportunity. i think we need to sort of reaffirm our basic fundamental commitment to those principles that ronald reagan and others have developed so successfully over the years, and i just don't buy into the premise of your question. i don't think that's necessarily

going to be the direction we go in. >> i want to say something to that too, mike, because i think what the democrats do is have a different message, you know? they like to divide the country up. they like to say, oh, you're a woman, let me talk to you about what i think matters to you, or you're hispanic, orr you're gay. that's not how republicans operate. our message is one about freedom, fundamentally the rights of individuals in terms of their ability to be free of government interference in their lives. and it's one of opportunity, and it's, you know, the idea that you're going to say to a woman let me talk to you about some women's issues, and you must feel this way about that issue because you're a woman, as a woman, i find it really offensive, and i think it's paternalistic, and i think it's not going to serve democrats well in the long run. i think what we've got to do is as a party is say we believe in opportunity for everybody, and the way that you have opportunity in this country is by limiting the size of the federal government, limiting the scope of the federal government.

not what the democrats are doing which is to say, hey, the federal government has got a handout for you from cradle to grave, you know? life of julia, the web site that they put up. that's not america, and that's not going to be successful for us as a party if we try to emulate that. >> mr. vice president, you said you believe in a doors wide open party. what does the republican party need to do to send that signal to voters in 2016? >> well, i think that we've got to nominate a good candidate. i think i don't have any problem with wide open primary situation. i support priebus trying to wrap it up by a date certain so we can get on to the general election. but i, i'm more optimistic in the good sense of the american people. you have to be to be in this business as long as i have. but i think that after the performance of the democratic party which i think had been dismal with respect to policy, with respect to we find the

state in today, with respect to all those criticisms you can lay out that barack obama has and the administration have been responsible for whether it's irs or the failures overseas, etc., obamacare, they've got a hell of a record to defend, and i'd much rather run a campaign based on our principles than based on their failures. >> so it sounds like you think it's more likely than not that a republican will be elected president in 2016. >> i think we'll take the senate in 2014, we'll gain seats in the house, and i think we'll win the white house this 2016. -- in 2016. prediction. [laughter] >> how many senate seats? [applause] >> enough. [laughter] >> how many house seats? >> i just, i remember when i first became vice president, we had an evenly-divided senate. 50/50. and because i got the tie-breaking vote, we republicans got to chair all the committees for about six months, and then the democrats bribed one of the republicans and

convinced him to switch and it turned upside down. but it's -- we'll have enough. i think we'll take control of the senate, and i think it's very important in term of trying to put a halt to the policies that obama is pursuing and i think are taking us down a very bad road both internationally and domestically. >> as we say good-bye here, you were just telling me you've been out five days on the snake river? >> so far. snake and the green. those are in the west. [laughter] >> fly fishing. jim is here, fly tissuerman. what is a fly fishing tip? >> i'll tell you what the fly fishing tip is -- [laughter] >> yeah. >> don't talk. [laughter] if you have someone in your boat, they can't talk. >> what else? >> make sure you get home when you tell your wife you're going to be there. [laughter] >> and i can't let you go, earlier you said that you drive?

>> what do you mean, i drive? [laughter] why do you find that surprising? [laughter] how do you think i get around? >> so this, so you're talking about driving your granddaughter, you actually pull a horse trailer, right? >> yeah. the you've got a horse, you've got to have a horse trailer, and if you have a horse trailer, you've got to have a truck. so i'm the proud owner of a ford 350 diesel to pull my, pull -- i can't remember the brand name on the trailer, but it's a nice big three-horse trailer. the thing that worries me is it's a three-horse trailer, and we started with one horse, and i'm going to end up with two more horses -- [laughter] because we've got space for them. >> i want to thank all of you in live stream land who are watching, i want to thank bank of america for making this conversation possible, thank you for politico for pulling off this amazing event, thank all of you for coming out in the middle of the day, and thank three cheneys for a fantastic

conversation. [applause] >> thank you, mike. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> well, on this tuesday afternoon the u.s. senate is about to return from their weekly party lunches. today we're expecting further debate on two nominees to the federal election -- federal energy regulatory commission. confirmation votes for norman bay and cheryl lafleur set for 3:15 eastern. mr. bay would start a four-year term as commissioner, and cheryl lafleur would be approved for another five-year term on the commission. she has led the commission since last november. we could also see debate on the senate's bill counter to the supreme court's hobby lobby decision on contraception coverage at work. live coverage of the u.s. senate starting shortly here on c-span2.

if neither side yields time, both sides will be equally charged.

ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, are we in a quorum call presently? the presiding officer: we are not. ms. murkowski: thank you. i've come to speak about the two nominees that are on the executive calendar before us this afternoon, norman bay and that of cheryl lafleur, both nominated to be commissioners on the federal energy regulatory commission, the ferc, an increasingly independent regulatory commission. as it has considered these nominations, it's been kind of a weird drama that has made out.

the entire community that follows the ferc, and, as i understand, the agency it is have been really very distracted by it. many are concerned that the wrong person is set to take over as chair of the ferc and that the commission is at risk of losing its reputation for objectivity. so for the benefit of senators who are not on the energy committee and for members of the public who have not followed the controversy surrounding these nominees, let me provide a little bit of perspective this afternoon. both nominees have been sesqui at the ferc -- have been serving at the decker. ms. lafleur currently leads the agency as its chair. she has done so with distinction for the better part after pretty difficult year. this is a year that has brought about the polar vortex and a challenge to the bulk power system reliability. the other individual, mr. bay,

is an employee, the director of the agency's office of enforcement. he was appointed to that post by its somewhat controversial former chair, john wellinghoff of nevada. if confirmed, mr. bay will become the first ferc employee in the agency's history who could go directly and immediately to the commission itself, despite just five years of relevant experience. furthermore, mr. bay will not only be elevated to the post of commissioner, president obama has announced that mr. bay will be designated as chairman after his confirmation, and that means that ms. lafleur, the female's -- ferc's only female commissioner, will be demoted when mr. bay takes over as chair. now, how soon ms. lafleur's demotion will take place is unclear at this moment.

at the energy committee's business meeting to consider these nominees, there was a lot of talk about a deal that would allow ms. lafleur to remain as chair for a period of time. it was suggested that this would give mr. bay some much-needed on-the-job training as a rank-and-file commissioner. so there was a lot of discussion going back and forth sms i was certainly part of that discussion. but talk of a deal and confirmation of a deal giving the assurances that certainly this senator had sought and yet was not given. talking about a deal and getting a deal are two different things. and so, as we discuss where we are with these nominees, i think it's important to recognize that even if ms. lafleur stays on

for a period of months -- whether it's nine months, as some have suggested that deal, or a different period of time -- what we understand is that ms. lafleur will only be allowed to continue in acting capacity. so stop and think about this: you have president obama, who has nominated ms. lafleur twice for high office. and despite what i think has been her distinguished service as a commissioner and as chair of the ferc, the white house dismisses her as an acting chair. the administration reportedly has limited her authority even to hire staff. as some have suggested -- some have suggested that this is just a technicality, that this is what happens within the commission. that is not my understanding at

all. i would view it as an affront. if you're going to be -- if you're going to be the chair, shoe have the full authorities -- you should have the full authorities of the chair. now, even though i disagree with acting chair lafleur on some key policy matters, by all accounts, from both republicans and democrats, she's doing a good job. she is fair, she seeks balance, she has the temperament that i think we need for this commission. she has the personal qualities of leadership that we look for. she clearly has the experience. she's got 25 years' worth, in fact. and i would certainly hope that she will be easily confirmed this afternoon. in fact, i would hope that chair lafleur's bipartisan support has not, in fact, hurt her prospects. chair landrieu observed during the committee's consideration of these nominees that ms. lafleur's renomination was -- quote -- "not a sure thing

just a couple of months ago." but you have to ask, well, why not? why wasn't the renomination of the only woman serving as a ferc commissioner, a harvard-educated obama appointee from mass, why wasn't she -- from massachusetts, why wasn't she a sure thing from the get-go? was it her bipartisan appeal? i would hope not. was it her good work as a chair? again, i hope not. to me, those are reasons that you would choose her to lead the ferc, not someone else. so one hint came from our majority leader here, senator reid. he recently told "the wall street journal" that ms. lafleur -- quote -- "has done some stuff to do away with some of wellinghoff's stuff." close quote. now, he didn't really define what stuff that was, and without acknowledging that much of mr. wellinghoff's stuff was

either incapable of legal challenge. now, before we turn to mr. bay, let's just discuss the agency that the white house proposes that he would lead for just a second. why does the chairmanship of the ferc matter so much? well, madam president, you sit on the energy committee. you know. you're watching thsm you're looking -- you're watching this. you're looking at the issues in the energy world. ferc regulates midstream everything. the chairman is a c.e.o. and under his or her leadership, ferc regulates interstate natural gas and oil pipelines, import and export facilities, the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce, the nation's bulk power system practically speaking, its

high-transmission net wherebies, also the reliability of the bulk system, the licensing of hydroelectric system and the safety of dams and the list goes on and on. one example is the safeguard of sensitive information about our critical energy infrastructure, information that was compromised by ferc during the tenure of former chairman wellinghoff. and that series of events is now subject to an ongoing inquiry by the inspector general of the department of energy and it is a breach that ms. lafleur has vowed will not happen again. and given the significance of this agency, let's consider mr. bay. so beyond the demotion of ms. lafleur and beyond his lack of relevant experience, what's causing me pause here? to begin, there are questions about the fairness and transparency of the functioning of the ferc enforcement office during mr. bay's tenure there. and i haven't resolved those questions, but i no he that

others are looking at them. senator barrasso has called attention to some of the questions. he's called for an independent review of the facts in dispute. second is the question of the circumstances under which mr. bay would recuse himself from at least 43 different matters, including some high-profile matters that have been pending in the office on his watch. but apparently, he doesn't see a need to recuse himself. and third are the answers that mr. bay provided to questions from those of us on the energy committee. at best, many were unclear, and at worst, his responses were simply evasive. i keep coming back to the waiting period that was needed to attract enough support on the democratic side to report mr. bay's nomination from the committee. you have to ask the question, we well, what were those terms? will the acting chair have the opportunity to serve fully and

completely as chair? will it be clear that mr. bay is not a shadow chairman or a chairman in waiting during this crucial period? and at a minimum, before we make a choice about who should lead the ferc, the president, i think, owes senators a clear time line of who will be in charge, what the powers will be given to him or her? madam president, ferc is just too important a commission. it's too important for appointees to be handled like this. so today i'm going to be supporting the confirmation of ms. lafleur. in fact, i'm pleased to support her, even though i don't always agree with her policy views. but i do regret that i will not -- i will not give my support to mr. bay, and i would urge other senators to withhold their support as well. and with that, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, madam president. i'd like to use this opportunity

and this time to speak on supporting the murray legislation to protect women's health from interference -- from corporate interference. and, madam president, because of obligations to speak at a memorial service tomorrow, i won't be able to speak tomorrow morning. i feel so strongly about it, i'd like to have a few words today. i believe that this legislation ensures that the personal opinion of your employer doesn't trump the medical opinion of your doctor. i sure wish this legislation wasn't necessary, but, unfortunately, because of a recent supreme court decision now known as the hobby lobby decision, it is necessary. let's talk about how we got here. like you, madam president, we worked on health care reform. we were so concerned that over

40 million people didn't have access to health care. we were concerned that just being a woman was treated as a preexisting condition. we were charged double for what our insurance was, we were often -- we often had to pay significant co-payments for those things related to early detection and screening, for those things that would affect us, like mammogram care. so on a bipartisan basis, we ended the legislation -- we ended that discrimination so that women couldn't be charged more than men of the same age or comparable health status, and we also wanted to be sure that we could do preventive health care benefits. now, during the -- and that was an amendment that i offered on the senate floor. we had a spirited debate, even with senator murkowski. senator murkowski, my colleague, we agreed on the same goals. we had different methods. ours won -- mine won. but i wanted to be sure that

politicians didn't decide what was preventive health care. i wanted to be sure that politicians didn't decide what would -- should be covered or not. and i didn't want to bring politics into it. so we towrnd one of the most distinguished organizations in our government that makes recommendations to our government on health care policy. it is known as the institute of medicine. it is a nonpartisan group funded by this congress, made up of scientific experts to advise us on medical and health care. and we wanted them to tell us what should be the preventive services that were included. so when you hear the criticism, some government agency decided this, some bureaucrat decided this, these are scientists,

these are physicians, these are skilled researchers. and they determine that women should have access to preventive health care benefits for free. first of all screening for gestational diabetes. that means do you get get diabetes while you're pregnant or because you're pretty pregna. high risk to the mother and the child. high historic h.p.v. d.n.a. testing. screening for h.i.v. comprehensive lactation support and counseling. screening for domestic violence. and an annual well woman preventive care visit, and the full range of f.d.a. contraceptive methods. and that brings us to the -- that's what it was. it was the institute of medicine, the institute of medicine, not barb milulski, not the democrats, not obama,

said that the f.d.a. -- f.d.a.-approved contraceptive methods should be available. now, that brings us to the supreme court and hobby lobby. a for-profit company employing thousands of people of different faiths and religions. well, the hobby lobby owners didn't want to cover certain forms of contraception for their female employees. they said it was against their religious beliefs. and the supreme court said that -- agreed with them. actually the five men on the supreme court said that they didn't have to. the women on the supreme court offered a dissenting opinion. this ruling of the court says that the personal opinion of an employer is more important than the medical opinion of your doctor. and as the gentlelady from wisconsin knows, herself who has put a lot of work into understanding health care and the delivery systems, that the

use of contraceptive methods are not always used to prevent pregnancy. some are to deal with fibroids and other medical conditions. this ruling, unfortunately, that a for-profit company can deny female employees coverage of an important preventive health care based on religious objections of a company's health care ownership or leadership team. well, i always felt that health decisions should be made by the patient and their doctor, by a woman and her doctor. not by an employer or an insurance company. so it concerns me greatly that the supreme court justices decided against that. it concerns me greatly that the supreme court justice -- justices decided that the employer should have the power to determine what medical care is available to their female employees.

this is pretty scary, actually, and i support what supreme court justice ginsburg said. what exemption does this extend? i mean, does this go to blood transfusions for some groups, antidepress dpres ants for other groups, vaccinations to other groups? and the supreme court said, oh, no, it's only for this. well, one supreme court decision leads to another supreme court digs decision. so senator murray has -- an architect of a bill which i am a cosponsor, has led the way. her bill does two things. it prohibits employers from denying coverage of specific health care items or services if the coverage of that item and service is required by federal law. it keeps in place, however, protections for religious organizations. so the house of worships can be

exempted from this mandate of contraceptive, religious nonprofits can certify they don't want to offer contraceptive care, and it ensures -- and ensures -- the insurers work spreat separately with employers. the supreme court decision is an attempt to deny women's access to birth control today, disguised as an effort to protect religious freedom. i'm a strong supporter of religious freedom. i stood on this floor and voted with its architect, senator ted kennedy of happy memory, that we would always have this religious protection of -- religious organizations, their nonprofit affiliates. so i hope that we do support the murray bill, that we follow the processes within the senate and it comes to our attention. and i believe that this will really go a long way to

clarifying this really very important distinction between the religious freedom, particularly of religious organizations, house of woreships -- worships and the nonprofits affiliated with them but does not embody in a private business the rights of an individual. so, madam president, i thank you for your attention and that of the senate. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. madam president, i have to dispel some of the myths that are being told here about the hobby lobby decision. first of all, one of the biggest distortions i think has been this hashtag campaign, hashtag not my boss' business, because before the hobby lobby

decision and as now, employers cannot deny their employees access to birth control. so let's be clear. employers cannot deny their employees access to birth control. so the not my boss' business hashtag and i think some of the statements that are being made on the hobby lobby decision are a misrepresentation or distortion of what that decision stands for, and you don't have to take my word for it. in fact, "the washington post" fact checker yesterday debunked several every several of the outrageous claims being made about this decision. in fact, here's some of the things that we know are true about the hobby lobby decision. nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives.

nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives. the majority opinion of hobby lobby actually states expressly under our cases, women and men have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives. and, in fact, in response to what the fact checker found in response to one lawmaker's claim about the hobby lobby decision, who claimed that it means employers can restrict the ability of their employees to use contraceptives, "the washington post" stated -- quote -- "no boss under this ruling has the right to tell an employee that they cannot use birth control." that's simply wrong. and i think that's very important for the american people to understand, for the women of this country to understand. also "the washington post" when debunking many of the claims

made about the hobby lobby decision said simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contra contraceptives. it does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control, and does not take away a person's religious freedom. in fact, what the decision does, is it's focused on the fact that under the religious freedom restoration act which was a law that was passed with overwhelming support in the house of representatives and in this body, in fact, by our count as i understand it, 16 members of the current senate actually supported the religious freedom restoration act in some way. it was signed into law by president clinton. so it used to be bipartisan that we would support religious freedom in this body. and the notion that somehow

hobby lobby is a closely held corporation and that they would have to give up all their religious beliefs seems to me to be ant thetd cal to what -- antithetical to what we've supported on a bipartisan basis in this congress, the religious freedom of americans that's reflected in the first amendment to our constitution. and, in fact, contrary to the misleading rhetoric, the hobby lobby decision doesn't take away a woman's access to birth control. that existed before the hobby lobby decision, and it exists today. that existed before obamacare, and it exists today, thankfully. no employer is prohibited from -- no employee is prohibited from purchasing any f.d.a.-approved drug or device. contraception remains readily available and accessible

nationwide. prior to obamacare passing in this body, over 85% of large businesses already offered contraception coverage to their employees. and in one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the obamacare mandate that has been the subject of the hobby lobby decision, it doesn't even apply to businesses that are under 50 employees in this country. and so there are millions of women that this mandate, the mandate that is addressed in the hobby lobby decision, doesn't even apply to at the obamacare mandate. so lower-income women, there are 5 programs at the u.s. department of health and human services that ensure access to contraception for women including paid comaid. in fact, -- medicaid. more than 19 million women were in. those who would insist that we

cannot stand for religious liberty while simultaneously ensuring that women continue to have safe, affordable access to birth control, it's just not true. we can do both and we need to do both on behalf of the american people. because people have deeply held religious bleefts and -- beliefs and it was so important to our founding fathers that they put respect for religion and protection of people's ability to have -- choose what they believe in and the first amendment to the constitution. americans believe strongly that we should be able to practice religion without undue interference from the government and and that really goes to our character. what happened in the supreme court's decision in hobby lobby is really reaffirming that, but it did not say that an employer will somehow now be making the

decision whether or not a woman can have contraception. that's not what it said. in fact, employers have no right under then law or current law to even know what my prescriptions are or any other woman's prescriptions for contraception. so any suggestion to the contrary is entirely misleading. the decision applies to closely held businesses whose own verse genuine religious convictions and in this case the green family, they agreed to cover, to provide coverage for 16 of the 20 contraception drugs that are required under obamacare, including birth control pills. so i want people to understand that. they only had a moral objection to the remaining four methods. and in the narrow ruling the court agreed based on the religious freedom restoration act -- and, by the way, the act

was introduced into congress by the late senator edward kennedy from massachusetts, and then congressman at that time, charles schumer of new york and supported by dozens of my colleagues at the time. they brought forth the law because they were concerned at the time about another supreme court decision which held that generally applicable laws that have nothing to do with religion could effectively prevent americans from fully exercising their religious rights. and guess what, it passed then a democrat-controlled house by voice vote and approved by a democrat-controlled senate 97-3. there's not much that happens around here on 97-3. when president clinton signed it into law he said what this law basically says is that the government should be held to have voe high level of proof before it interference with someone's free exercise of religion. and in the hobby lobby

decision, the government didn't even try, try to meet that standard, a standard that's set forth, they have tried to meet that standard with other religious organizations, but they didn't even try in this situation to meet what the court found to be genuinely held religious beliefs on a very limited basis. ÷ there's been a lot of misrepresentations about the breadth of this decision. the court's majority opinion states that the ruling does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. additionally, the court said that our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fail if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs, meaning -- meaning that someone must show a genuine religious objection, and the government can overcome it, if they're willing to show that they can do it in a least restrictive way. they didn't even try here in

this case. well, some americans may disagree with the family that owns the hobby lobby stores. all americans believe that religious freedom is a fundamental right that shouldn't be abridged. and when president clinton signed the religious freedom restoration act into law, he said, our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties. so, madam president, i come to the floor today because i want people to understand that this decision -- employers cannot tell you what kind of contraception you can have as a woman. an employer can't even know what kind of contraception you have as a woman. and that's protected under hipaa laws, privacy laws, that are very, very important. and finally, this notion that it's not my boss's business --

of course an employer cannot tell you that you can't go fill a prescription for contraception. and i think that to suggest otherwise is really to distort what the facts are of this case. and i believe that we can protect people's fundamentally held religious beliefs and provide women safe, effective access to contraception. and because of that, i will be introducing legislation on the senate floor, and that legislation will reaffirm that no employer can restrict an employee's access to birth control, to contraceptives. it will reaffirm hipaa and an employee's right to privacy in those circumstances. and finally, it will also ensure that we look at ways to give women greater access to

contraceptives. the legislation that i'll be introducing will also ask the f.d.a. to study whether women can purchase contraceptives over the counter and whether that would be safe and effective for adult women to be able to do that. so we should have the f.d.a. look at this issue to see if women can have even greater access than they do right now. but the american people need to understand that the hobby lobby decision did not change the access of women to contraceptives, which our bill supports, and in fact no employer can no what kind of contraceptives you may have been prescribed or otherwise using under our hipaa laws, and no employer can tell you that you can't fill a prescription for any kind of contraceptives that

you think are appropriate and that your doctor thinks are appropriate for you. finally, i would say, our bill also does one other important thing: that is, to repeal the restrictions that obamacare put on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts. obamacare actually reduced the amount that someone can put aside on a tax-free basis to pay for health care. obamacare also restricted the amount put this those accounts for over-the-counter medications. i have had many of my constituents complained to me about this and we would like to eliminate those restrictions and give people greater ability to set aside money on a tax-free basis to pay for their own health concerns, including over-the-counter medications. so, madam president, one thing i

would say finally is, i've heard so much from my constituents about the concerns they have with obamacare, and i have -- i've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for obamacare now come to the floor and complain about the hobby lobby decision. well, i would argue that we're here where we are today because obviously they said toed that obamacare -- because obviously they decided that obamacare was the way to go for the country. but i heard from a lot of my both male and female constituents about the real concerns they have with obamacare that i hope that we will debate on this floor, which is people who lost policies they liked who are paying more for coverage than they were before, have a higher deductible. i've had women write me about concerns that their employer is going to cut their hours because

obamacare -- talk about a bad mandate. it re-defifined the 40-hour work workweek. it's now a 30-hour workweek. in my own home state of new hampshire, it is a big deal. some people have lost access to the doctor that they had a long-standing relationship with or the hospital had a they had their first child. now if you're expecting their second child and they're on the exchange, that hospital is excluded and they're in a situation where obamacare is restricting women's rights where they might like to go, where they could have gone before. so those are the real issues that we think about when we talk about what's happened with obamacare. i could talk about other stories that my constituents have written me, but, madam president, i would hope that the american people understand that this "not my boss business,"

employers cannot restrict your access to contraception. we will re-assert that no employer can do that. and the f.d.a. should look into whether adult women can safely purchase contraceptions over the count w that i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i appreciate the majority leader scheduling this vote to confirm mr. norman bay to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission. ferc is one of the letters known but perhaps one of the most important independent agencies in the federal government. it has jurisdiction over interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas, as well as licensing of hydroelectric power. i believe mr. bay will be an

outstanding member of the federal energy regulatory commission, and i urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination today. since 2009, mr. bay has been the director of the office of enforcement at ferc, where he has gained extensive experience in the regulation of energy markets. the office of enforcement is responsible for market oversight and surveillance and for implementing the anti-manipulation authority that congress enacted in the energy policy act of 2005. this authority provided for new tools to combat the type of market manipulation that produced the devastating power crisis a decade ago across the west. under mr. bay's leadership, ferc has increased transparency in its work while bringing a number of enforcement actions that have helped protect the integrity of the energy markets and provided $300 million in relief to consumers -- $300 million back

into the pockets of energy consumers. he's a graduate of dartmouth college and harvard law school and has had a long and distinguished career of public service. before joining the ferc, he taught law at the university of new mexico. he also served as an assistant u.s. attorney and in 2000 was nominated by the president to be the u.s. attorney for the district of new mexico and was confirmed in that position by the full senate by unanimous consent. mr. bay has an outstanding -- is an outstanding public servant with extensive experience in the field of energy markets, and i'm confident that he will judiciously implement ferc's statutory responsibilities of oversight of our nation's energy infrastructure, competitive markets and reliability. at his confirmation hearing in may, members of the energy and

natural resources committee had a chance to question mr. bay extensively on his work at the ferc and his views on regulatory policy. senator pete domenici, a former chairman and longtime member of the energy committee from my home state of new mexico, spoke at the hearing in strong support of mr. bay's nomination. senator jeff bingaman, another former chairman of the frg enery committee from new mexico, wrote a letter in support of his nomination. madam president, the senate must give consent to the president's nominees to be members of the ferc. the senate is fulfilling that responsibility with this vote today. however, there should be no misunderstanding. congress gave the president alone the responsibility of designating a member of the commission to be the chairman of the commission. the law enacted by congress in 1977 remains very clear.

the president and not the senate determines who will serve as chairman of the commission. i believe mr. bay will be fair, balanced, pragmatic, and a consensus-oriented member of the ferc. he will decide cases on the merits, based on the facts, based on the law, and on the record. and i'm pleased to support the nominations of both commissioner lafleur and mr. bay to be members of the federal energy regulatory commission. i hope that the senate will vote today to confirm them both, and i would yield back the remaining portion of my time, mr. president. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. thune omr. thune: i ask consento speak for up to ten minutes and it not be counted on the the minority's time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: last week the president was i said by almost y

measure we are better off than what i took office. that's quite a statement. by almost every measure, we are better off than when i took office. i know a lot of americans struggling with high health care bills who might disagree with that, because the truth is, mr. president, very few americans are better off than they were five and a half years ago. household income has plummeted more than $3,300 since the president took office. meanwhile, the price of everything from milk to the refrigerator to store it in has prison. gas prices have nearly doubled since the president took office. college costs have soared and, of course, family health insurance premiums have increased by nearly $3,000 per family. combinecombine reduced income wh higher prices, you get a reduced living standard. americans are struggling to make ends meet.

americans have dropped out of the middle-class altogether. there are 3.7 million more women in poverty today than there were when the president took office. mr. president, you want to talk about the war on women, when the president took office, 33 million american women received food stamps. today there are nearly 46 million american women. the president likes to talk about the jocks the economy -- the jobs the economy has gained recently, but what he doesn't say is that five years after the recession officially ended, our economy is still posting recession-type levels of unemployment. back in 2009, the president's economic advisors confidently predicted that un-comoimen unemt would fall below 6%. we're still not below 6%

unemployment even after the largest fiscal stimulus since world war ii. and the only reason the unemployment rate isn't higher is because so many americans have given up looking for a job entirely and dropped out of the workforce. the labor force participation rate is at a 369-year low. to put it another way, mr. president, if the labor participation rate today were what it was when the president took office, unemployment would not be only 6%, it would be 10.2%. that's how many people have completely dropped out of the labor force and are no longer even looking for a job. then there are the millions of americans who are working part-time because they can't find a full-time job. the labor department reported that the economy lost march than half a million full-time jobs in june and gained almost 800,000 part-time jobs. that's not a good statistic.

i.tit's the rare part-time job t pays all the bills and gives financial stafnl stability. americans need more full-time jobs, not more part-time jobs. they also need the opportunity for hiring-paying jobs. but that's another opportunity in short supply in the obamacare economy. 30% of jobs that have been recovered have been high-wage jobs. similarly 37% of the jobs lost in the recession were midwage jobs while 26% of the jobs gained since the recession have been midwage jobs. meanwhile, while just 22% of the jobs lost during the recession were low-wage jobs, 44% of the jobs gained since the recession have been low-wage jobs. so we're trading high-wage jobs for low-wage jobs, full-time jobs for part-time jobs. that is the reality that many americans, mr. president, are

experiencing. the obama recovery, in other words, has been producing low-wage, part-time jobs, not the kind of jobs americans need for a future in stability. nothing is threatening americans' future more than obamacare. as every american knows obamacare failed to deliver on its promise of making health care more affordable. the president promed his promised his health care law law would reduce premiums by $2,500. instead they have risen. many americans were told their new premiums would cost more. one constituent wrote to tell me the cheapest plan she could find her for her family of four would cost $17,000. another wrote to tell me his insurance plan was canceled thanks to obamacare and the cheapest bronze plan he could find was $987 a month, more than double than what he was paying for. on top of that, the plan had a higher deductible and significantly higher cost sharing requirements than his old plan.

i'm sure every one of my colleagues democrat or republican has received letters just like this. our constituents are hurting. what middle-class family can afford to pay $17,000 a year in insurance or double its health care premiums in the year before? obamacare is placing an immense burden, mr. president, on middle-class families. the huge premium hikes many americans are facing are having a real impact on families budgets. money eaten up by health care costs is money that can't be spent on a daughter's education or a new car that needs repairs on the roof. there is seemingly no end to obamacare's penalties. in addition to hiking insurance premiums, obamacare is encouraging employers to drop spousal coverage from health plans. university of virginia has dropped spousal coverage because of obamacare. women are particularly affected by this since as the "wall street journal" reports they tend to be the wundz being -- ones being dropped from employer

sponsored health care plans. then there is obamacare's marriage penalty. a woman who equal fiez tor a tax -- qualifies tor -- for tax purposes could lose that insurance if she gets married. but, mr. president, obamacare isn't just hiking america's health care bills. it's also damaging their economic prospects thanks to the 30-hour workweek rule obamacare is helping to drive the surge in part-time employment. businesses that couldn't afford to give health insurance to workers working more than 30 hours have been forced to reduce their employees' hours and by extension their wages. 63% of those affected by this provision are women. then there's the employer mandate which is discouraging wage growth and making it more difficult for employers to hire new workers. they often have no choice but reduce wages or cancel raises

and abandon plans for growing their businesses. then there are the other obamacare provisions that discourage job growth like the tax on medical devices on pacemakers and insulin pumps which has already been responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the medical device industry. mr. president, the last thing that we need right now in this weak economy is the kind of widespread devastation obamacare is causing. americans are being hit from both sides. obamacare is raising their medical bills and it's destroying their job opportunities. the president was serious about trying to help middle-class americans, he'd be looking at where his health care law went wrong and at least supporting fixing for its most damaging provisions. if democrats were serious about helping families and fixing the economy they would be taking up legislation like senator collins 40 hours' full-time act which would fix the obamacare 30-hour workweek rule and put americans back to work. or they would support my bill to

eliminate the employer mandate for schools, colleges and universities so these institutions aren't forced to cut wages or eliminate positions. mr. president, democrats thought if americans found out what was in obamacare and what it meant for them they would come to like it. well, americans have found out what's in the president's health care law, what it means for them, and they don't like it. obamacare is hurting american families and it's hurting our economy, and it's time to start over and to replace this bill with real health care reform, the kind that will lower costs, that will increase choice, and will put americans back in charge of their health care. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following the vote on confirmation of executive calendar 842 the senate consider calendar number 894, 704 and 508 that there be two minutes of debate confide between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote and that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote without action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to the nominations, any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: the president may expect the nominations to be

considered and then confirmed by voice vote. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i rise to make a few comments about the nominees that are before the senate for confirmation and to thank members on both sides of the aisle for working together to try to move forward on two very important confirmations and nominees for ferc. first let me say there has been some criticism of one of the nominees from some members of the other party and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. that's what the senate is for. but i'd like to make sure that the senate record reflects an opinion that i admire greatly

and i believe is very admired, significantly admired by every member of this senate, and that is the opinion of senator domenici, the republican chair of the energy committee for many years, and a long-serving senator from the state of new mexico. senator domenici, it may not be clearly understood, actually came to the energy committee to testify on behalf of norman bay. his testimony was one of the most artful and compelling that i've seen in my days here which are now quite long, almost 18 years, and unusual in the sense that he read from no script and spoke from the heart and spoke to democratic and republican members of our committee. and this is some of what he had to say. "i'm pleased to provide a strong statement of support to the

senate energy and natural resources committee on behalf of norman bay. i first met normalman when he was -- norman when he was nominated to be the u.s. attorney in new mexico. i supported his nomination then and i support his nomination now to ferc. he was a good u.s. attorney, fair and bipartisan. and with my support he remained in office as u.s. attorney until 2001. he goes on to say in 2009 norman became the director of enforcement at o.e. at ferc. this is a big job, because among other things, the o.e. must administer the antimanipulation authority you have the energy policy act of 2005, a bill that i authored when i was chairman of the senate committee on energy and natural resources and one that passed with wide bipartisan support. the antimanipulation authority was intended to give ferc the tools to combat the type of manipulation we saw in the

western power crisis from 2000 to 2001. i'm pleased to hear that ferc has brought a number of significant antimanipulation cases and that the e-pac thofs port i gave -- authority i gave to ferc has been put to good use for consumers as well as the natural market and power market. i could not think of a more compelling person to have in your corner than the former republican chair of the energy committee in support of the bay nomination. now there are a hand full of members on the other side that have opposed every nominee put forward by president obama because their agenda is very different. it's a political agenda. but on policy, senator pete domenici's testimony goes a long way, and his support of a man that he believes is extremely qualified for the job that the president has nominated him for.

in addition to the compelling testimony of senator domenici, which was very influential in my final decision to support this nominee, i also want to present to the record the letter from the republican governor of new mexico, susanna martinez who let me know that she would have loved to have been there personally to testify on behalf of norman bay but wasn't able to because of her schedule and she goes on to write a strong letter of recommendation which is in the record of our committee. she says "i am certain that norman has been dedicated in his effort to protect consumers, has been fair and balanced in his approach and is focused on doing the right thing on behalf of the public interest. for those reasons and others, i hope the committee of energy and natural resources will approve norman bay's nomination to the federal energy regulatory

commission." these are just a few of the strong testimonials that led me to final consent to my support of norman bay, but i did so with your support actually, mr. president, as a member of the energy committee, making sure that the current share, cheryl a. lafleur could stay on for an additional length of time. i would have liked another year. some people wanted three months. some people wanted six months. some people wanted a full term. but we settled on a nine-month compromise, which is actually the fundamental nature of our business here. it's been lost in the last couple of years, but i continue to be an optimistic believer that a good compromise can help us move the country forward and reduce rancor, pull people together and make some decisions that are so important for the people that we are trying to serve. ferc is not an insignificant entity. ferc, given the power by us, is

the guardian of the public interest in our natural gas and electricity market, something that louisiana knows a lot about. natural gas and electricity markets. we produce a tremendous amount of oil and gas for this nation, and we consume a lot of oil and gas as producers of chemicals and other products that use natural gas as a feed stock. we are proud of our industry, and i would never casually support members on ferc if i didn't believe that they were prepared to do this job and to do it well. and particularly with testimony from the republican chairman of the committee and the current serving republican governor for norman bay, i feel confident, based on his background, that he can do a good job after working with cheryl a. lafleur for nine months, which is the agreement that the white house and others have made. let me talk about cheryl

lafleur for a moment. she's a graduate of princeton. she is able, she is competent. she has served as a member of ferc. she, in my view, has also doing a spectacular job. she will continue to serve as chair of ferc for the next nine months should she be confirmed today, and will continue with the members of ferc to try to provide reliable power and electricity to our country, being fair, protecting the public interest. this is a very complicated field of law and policy, as you know, mr. chairman -- i mean, mr. president. this is not an easy part of the law to interpret. there are many different electricity markets. there are many different ways to supply it. they are not for profits. they are municipals. they are public utility companies. they all have pipelines, issues that have to go before ferc, and

there are over 2,000 people that work for this agency. it may not be a household word, but it affects every household in america. so, cheryl lafleur will remain at my request as chair for nine months. norman bay will come on, train, if you will, under her leadership, and i think grow into the role as a policy-maker. he clearly is qualified by demonstration of the letters that i have put in. and i thank you for the leadership role that you played in outlining that path forward, trying to broker a compromise between people who wanted to do it very, very differently. and we had opposition on both sides for what is actually happening today. as you know, we worked with democrats and republicans trying to find a way forward, honoring the right of a president to -- to make his nominations and still doing the right thing by ferc and the country.

i personally think we have achieved that. so i wanted to put that on the record before we vote. i understand the vote should be called any moment now. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the bay nomination. ms. landrieu: we waive back all time on both sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nomination of mr. bay. the yeas and nays are sufficient. a second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on the nomination of mr. bay, there are 52 ayes, 45 nays. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be now two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the lafleur nomination. all time yielded back? objections? without objection.

the question is -- the yeas and nays have been called for. seconds? there appears to be a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: