strengthen those sanctions include an enforcement mechanism to ensure that these measures are implemented and call for the dismantling of iran's nuclear program which should be the only path to relaxing sanctions in the future. this legislation will lay out a clear path that iran can follow to evade the sanctions -- simply behave in good faith and stop its relentless marks towards acquiring nuclear weapons capability. the connection between hamas and iran is a sobering reminder of the larger context in which the events of the last month have taken place. they are not an isolated local issue that could be managed if only israel would act with restraint. both the united states and israel want the palestinian people to have a secure and prosperous future free from the

corrosive hatred that has so far prevented them from thriving. but, as has been demonstrated time and time again the simple truth is that concessions from israel are not going to alleviate the hatred. the truth is that aid from the united states is not going to alleviate the hatred. the truth is that even the establishment of a palestinian state would not alleviate the hatred while the avowed policy of the palestinian government is the destruction of israel. only -- only -- when the palestinians take it upon themselves to embrace their neighbors and to eradicate terrorist violence from their society can a real and just peace be possible. until then, there should be no question of the united states'

firm solidarity with israel in the mutual defense of our fundamental values and interests. this is nothing less than the defense of our very exceptionalism as a nation. that same exceptionalism fueled by those god-given rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to which israel aspires. writing in "the new york times" last september russian president vladimir putin warned that it is -- quote -- "extremely dangerous to encourage a people to see themselves as exceptional." in a very odd echo of president putin's sentiment secretary kerry said just today in vienna that hearing politicians talk about american exceptionalism makes him quite uptight because

it is -- quote -- "in your face and so might offend other nations." as secretary kerry should know and as president putin clearly fears, it is, indeed, discomforting for bullies and tyrants such as hamas and their iranian sponsors to see free people boldly assert their exceptionalism. indeed in modern history it has been dangerous for totalitarian despots when the american people rise up and defend our exceptionalism. i would encourage secretary kerry to unambiguously explain american exceptionalism to his colleagues across the negotiating table. they might benefit from hearing that one of the most exceptional things about america is that we

will robustly support our allies when they are engaged with a radical terrorist enemy that targets us both. it is not enough as mr. gordon seemed to think sufficient, to -- quote -- "fight for israel every day in the united nations nations." we shouldn't just have israel's back. we should be proud to stand beside israel to make sure that both hamas and iran know that the united states is ready to provide whatever moral support or military resupply israel might need. it's true we might risk a little of the criticism from the international community that seems to be of such concern to mr. gordon and to president obama but the united nations should be the least of our worries at this point. in any event threats of israel

finding herself isolated threats sadly emanating in part from the administration of this government appear empty as many of our closest friends including canada, great britain france and germany have spoken out on the strongest of terms supporting israel's right to self-defense. i add my voice to theirs today and urge president obama to reconsider the counterproductive policies laid out by mr. gordon last week. the white house should explicitly disavow mr. gordon's misguided speech haranguing and attacking our friend and ally, the nation of israel. a negotiated settlement is not an absolute prerequisite to israel's security as the administration has claimed but rather establishing israel's

security may be the only way to eventually reach any such settlement. israel's fight against radical islamic terrorism and by extension, the radical iranian regime that supports it is our fight as well. there is a reason that they call israel "the little satan" and america "the great satan." this does not menace does not discriminate tweens israelis or americans and it cannot be easily achieved with the deftest diplomacy t. must be diligently defensed and at times when necessary, it must be directly confronted. that is difficult dangerous work that israel's government and the brave men and women who serve in its armed forces are doing right now for the sake of both nations.

and i hope and i pray for their continued success as america stands unshakeably alongside the nation of israel. thank you madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president i rise to describe my concerns with the recent united states supreme court ruling in the hobby lobby case and also to describe my support for the ryan ryan-udall legislation when i'm cosponsoring and which we will act on later this week. first, madam president just a word about one item in the case that's not my main concern but i think is just worthy of a passing comment and that is whether a corporation can have religious rights. of course individuals can have religious rights. churches can have religious rights. religionly affiliated organizations --

religiously affiliated organizations have religious rights. that has been recognized often. but do corporations have religious rights? madam president, i would -- i would argue that the supreme court's decision in hobby lobby that they do is sort of fundamentally at odds with the notion of what a corporation is. corporations exist for many reasons but fundamentally the core of a corporation is the creation of a fictional entity that is supposed to stand apart from the individual owners. that fictional entity has rights and responsibilities that are different than the rights and responsibilities of the owners. and, in fact, we create the corporate form to protect the individual owners. the individual owners, once a corporate form is created as you know are generally protected against legal liability. a corporation's actions if they are illegal can only be held

against the corporation. and except in very rare circumstances the individuals who own the corporation are free from the liability that might flow from a corporation's acts. so the basic question is, if individuals decide to form a corporation to distance themselves and protect themselves from liability for a corporation's acts, how can they also presume to exercise their religious viewpoints, their personal intimate religious viewpoints through the very form of the corporation? it's allowing the owners to have it both ways. complete protection from legal liability but continued ability to exercise their personal and intimate religious viewpoints through the corporate forum. i think the notion of corporate religious freedom is almost an oxymoron. the statute at question in the supreme court case, the rifra statute, references to the sincerely held religious beliefs of a person.

what are the sincerely held religious beliefs of a corporation under the corporate charter that would be granted by states? in order to determine that should we inquire in this instance, for example, whether the families of the owners ever used contraception? if, in fact, they did would that undermine a claim that they have a sincerely held religious belief against contraception? what if it could be shown that the owners invested in stocks in companies that produce contraception. would that undermine the claim that a corporation has a sincerely held religious belief against contraception? i don't know the answers to these questions but i think the mere raising of the questions demonstrates again that the notion of a corporation exercising religious beliefs is highly suspect. but, madam president, i don't think the hobby lobby case was about religious freedom. let me talk to you what -- about

what -- i've read the opinion. i practiced law including constitutional law for 17 years. i've read the opinion. i don't think this is a case about religious freedom. i think the opinion in the hobby lobby case is instead part of an anticontraception movement whose political goal is not just to encourage women or families to not use contraception but instead it is geared toward the reduction of social access to contraception for all. this isn't a case about religious freedom. it's a case that's very focused on attempts to reduce access to contraception throughout american society. the court does something in the opinion that's fascinating. i guess there's a phrase -- i'm not a poker player, but there's a phrase, if you play a lot of poker, that a poker player, you should watch for their tell. if they -- if they repeal, you

know, by knocking on the table or something that, oh, well, they're bluffing now you watch for the tell. and -- and i think the hobby lobby majority opinion has a tell in it that tells us that this case is not about religious freedom. in response i guess to a notion raised in the dissent well, hold on a second if you allow this corporation to deny coverage for contraception because it has a sincerely held religious belief against contraception well, there are other religions and other corporations that might have a sincerely held religious belief against transfusion. that is a sincere belief of certain religions commonly practiced in america. against vaccination. that is a sincerely held religious belief of certain religions in america. there's other sincerely held religious beliefs. but, madam president, the majority in this opinion says, "oh, don't worry, this is just about contraception. you don't need to worry that the rationale in this case would be used to allow an employer to

excliewt -- exclude vaccination or exclude transfusions." well, if those are religious beliefs every bit as sincere as some who think contraception is bad why wouldn't this ruling apply to those kinds of coverages? the fact that the supreme court took such care in the majority opinion to say "don't worry it's not going to apply to that," tells me that this is not a case about religious freedom. because if it were a case about religious freedom a sincerely held religious belief about transfusions or vaccinations would be equally conflicted by -- implicated by this case and the court instead is very clearly telling the world don't worry, you don't need to worry about this stuff. so it's not about religious freedom. i read this case as a very candid admission that what the case is really about is contraception access. there is an unfortunate legal movement in this country that is kind of surprising whose focus

is deny -- to deny women access to contraception even though access to contraception has been constitutionally protected in this country since 1967, nearly 50 years. and i am stunned i'm reluctant as a lawyer to criticize court opinions. i mean, lawyers always have different points of view and you have to give some latitude that a court might decide something in a different juan way than you think. but i'm stunned to see in the rationale expressed by the majority that is court is joining an ideological antiaccess movement. contraception access is important to women it's important to families, and it's important to society. for women contraception is important not only surrounding the planning of a pregnancy but the hormones in contraception are often prescribed for all manner of other medical

conditions, some directly related to pregnancy and reproduction and some unconnected to pregnancy or reproduction. the access to contraception is critically important and that's why the panel that looked at implementing the affordable care act found that contraception was an important part of the act's goal of prevention. prevention is good. contraception is part of prevention. contraception, madam presiden is also costly. so when a company strips that coverage away from employees and just says you can buy umps, that is not a more than expense, especially in a time where, you know, wages have been stagnant. it is a significant expense. and the notion that that coverage would be stripped away from thousands and thousands of employees is not a more than burden at all it's a significant burden on their lives. contraception is not only important for women it's

important for society. madam president, contraception and the access to contraception is achieving important social goals. from 2008 to 2011, just in three years the number of abortions in the united states fell by 13%. and teen pregnancy in this nation has been falling steadily since 1991. why are both of these things happening? those who study these laudable trends conclude that access to contraception is one of the main reasons that abortion is falling and that teen pregnancy is falling. now, it would seem like those are laudable trends that we would want to continue, and that access to contraception therefore is very important. but the court instead finds otherwise. madam president, i want to conclude and say i don't think this is a case about religious freedom. i think the court has strangely

joined an anti-contraception ideological crusade. but i want to say a word about religious freedom because it's critically important. i'm a lifelong catholic. i served as a missionary in honduras in 1980 and 1981 and i'm a virginian and it was a virginian, james madison who wrote the draft of the constitution including the first amendment, the bill of rights, that protects our right to religious freedom. gary wills the american historian says every idea in the constitution was already part of somebody else's constitution or laws our drafters did a great job of finding the best and putting it in but there was only one unique thing in the american constitution that wasn't part of any organic law before us and that was freedom of religion. jefferson wrote it into virginia law, the statute of religious freedom in 1780, the basic idea was no one can be punished or

preferred for their choice of worship or for their choice not to worship. and that has been a critical component of american life for a very long time. and so religious freedom is incredibly important. there is nothing about the bill we will take up on the floor tomorrow that impidges -- impinges upon religious freedom. madam president, as you know, with the church or religiously affiliated institution or an individual or even a corporation has as their view that contraception is wrong, they can take to the airwaves, they can run a newspaper ad. they can go stand on a street corner. they can encourage anyone they want by explaining the merits of their view and hoping to persuade someone that they're right. and they are protected in doing that. they're protected in their

religious liberty to try to encourage people to follow their points of view. but when these entities try to go beyond that and in this case corporations and use legal mechanisms not just to encourage people but whether it's lawsuits or personhood amendments or other things that we see popping up in states and here in this body not just to discourage use of contraception but instead to reduce access to contraception for women even women who do not share their moral point of view, who do not share their particular religion, then i view that as extreme extremely troubling and actually contrary to the notion of religious freedom that is established in the first amendment. advocate are moral position, but don't force it on to people who have a different moral

viewpoint. so madam president in conclusion i support the bill that we will debate tomorrow because it will protect the access to contraception. whether people choose to use contraception or not will be up to them and to their own medical and their own moral calculation calculation, and that is as it should be in a society that is supposed to protect the rights of all. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, thank you. before i get into the business i have come to address let me thank the distinguished senator from virginia for his remarks. i was a lawyer at a time when the previous case on this subject came out of the supreme court, and that said something very different. that said if you were a native

american and if as a native american you had a sincerely held religious belief that peyote was part of your religion's sacrament that in pursuing that ritual and that transition, you could utilize peyote notwithstanding the laws of the state to the contrary. that was the argument they made that this was protected by the free exercise of religion. and the supreme court said absolutely not. no way. if you're a native american, you're a sincerely held belief that peyote is an appropriate part of your sacrament is overruled because of society's interest in enforcing the law generally. now if you're a corporate c.e.o. a completely different set of rules applies. remember that in the case of the native american, the question was whether that individual could ingest the peyote

themselves. and they were told no, the interest of the state prevail over that. in this case, if you're a corporate c.e.o., you're being told that you have a free exercise right to control what other people do. and in this case the supreme court completely reversed itself and said no, the state has to back off if you're a corporate c.e.o. telling other people what they have to do but if you're a native american seeking to honor your own transition, then the state can butt in and move around. soy in addition to the distinctions that you so eloquently and properly described, i think a certain amount of this might -- what might have been influential to the court about this was the fact these were corporate c.e.o.'s and there is very little that a corporate c.e.o.'s can do that the five activists on the conservative side on this court won't encourage them to do and let them to do and i'll reserve for another day the

statistics of how this court has overand over and over again turned itself over to corporate interests and over and over again ruled in favor of corporate interests and reversed precedent to give benefit to corporate interests in this country. but thank you senator kaine. my original topic for being here before i got to that subject was that this was my 74th visit to the floor to urge my colleagues it is truly time to wake up to the threats of change. the reports just keep rolling in. the latest one for coastal states like ours, madam president, is a study called risky business that was commissioned by former new york city mayor michael bloomberg who knows about doafl issues, having been flooded by sandy former george w. bush treasury secretary, hank paulson and former hedge fund manager tom steyer. this report calculated the

economic effects of climate change throughout the united states and found along our coasts between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing property property that americans own right now will likely be below sea level by 2050. and by 2100, $238 billion to $507 billion worth of americans' hard-earned property will be under water. now, everything doesn't happen just as you guess. sometimes you get bad news, but there are long odds and you need to be prepared for those long odds. the report found that they're 1 in 20 odds by 2100, the end of the century there would be around $700 billion of

infrastructure below sea level and nearly $730 billion more of infrastructure that would be potentially in trouble during high tides. so our landlocked colleagues may laugh this off but if a similar threat were looming at their state's door, they would, i would submit, be paying attention and for coastal states like ours, madam president, this is deadly serious. and the atlantic coast including rhode island, a coastal state named the ocean state, the second most heavily populated state in terms of density in the country we have a lot of people living along that coastline. and our coast will see the worst of it. climate change, unfortunately has become mostly, since

citizens united for reasons i have elaborated on before, a tab ewe subject now for republicans in congress. so the discussion here of climate change is somewhat one-sided but americans who are witnessing climate change's effects firsthand in every state around the country know, and if they don't know, they are learning that climate change is a real problem. i've discussed my travels to florida, to iowa, to north and south carolina, to georgia to new hampshire and of the action that these people are taking in their home states to stave off the worst effects of their changing oceans and climate. but at the local level folks truly aren't denying climate change. that's something that's unique to congress and the peculiar world we inhabit. they're not denying they're

paying attention and it's not just in coastal states that people are paying attention. this week i'm going to look at utah. utah is right here on this section of the map of our southwest part of our country and this is a map of temperature trends. temperature is not complicated. it's not some difficult theory that people have to try to get their minds around. we measure it with thermometers. it's pretty straightforward stuff. over the last 13 years compared to the long-term average over a century shows that there has been an increase in temperature across the entire state of utah. now, here this region, the average has increased two full degrees fahrenheit. in the southeastern part of the state down here, there are actually spots where the

temperature has risen as much as 4.5 degrees fahrenheit. southern utah, this area, is home to iconic national parks including zion bryce canyon and arches national parks. in utah, park officials aren't denying climate change. just last week, the park service released a report called climate exposure of u.s. national parks in a new era of change. this report studied dozens of climate variables in 289 national parks. in bryce zion, and arches, the report shows higher year round temperatures, hotter summers, and warmer winters. such significant shifts in temperature can mean less snowpack worse wildfire seasons and abnormal conditions for the plants and animals mals

that reside in those a parks. utah is getting warmer and it is getting drier. the united states geological survey shows a significant drop in the size and scope of floods in rivers and streams all across the southwest. in this area. from 1920 to 2008. and that pofng includes southern utah. -- of course, includes southern utah. here are the symbols for the negative trend and the biggest symbol for a negative trend in river and stream flooding is this one and if you can't see the map very clearly, that is southern utah. here is the state of utah right here and there's the location where the highest drying trend in rivers and streams is taking place. again, not complicated. this isn't a theory.

this is based on simple rainfall measurements, simple flooding measurement. if you look at it you'll see other places where it's going up a lot. we new englanders are seeing an increase although in the southwest they're seeing a substantial decrease. so when those characters come come in to our hearings and give testimony saying, oh, you don't have to worry about this because there isn't an overall increase in flooding or anything yeah, because they offset each other. you go to utah, and you see a very distinct trend and it is dryer. other factors such as population growth and water management policies play a role. but lake powell in utah, is about half-full right now and lake mead further down the colorado river in nevada has drained down to just 39% of its

capacity. it's the lowest level lake mead has ever been since it was first filled up behind the hoover dam. scientists at the u.s. forest service and princeton predict that unless we take major action, climate change may lead to water shortages so severe that lakes powell and mead dry up completely. the drying of the western united states and of southern utah means less water for drinking, fighting fires farming wildlife and recreation. salt lake city gets 80% 80% of its water supply from the the mountains. if predictions hold true, local water managers in utah will no

longer be able to depend on historical data to predict and manage how much water the mountains will yield. utah will be in a brave new world -- a dry new world. the western united states' prolonged drought conditions compared to the last century make it ripe for forest fires and indeed a recent study of western wildfire trends, led by dr. philip denison of the university of utah, found that from 198 to 2011, fires have become larger and more frequent. the total area burned by these fires is increasing over this time period at roughly 90,000 acres burned per year. that's the rate of increase. the recent national climate assessment similarly shows

that -- quote -- "between 1970 and 2003, warmer and drier conditions increased burned area in western u.s. midelevation conifer forests by 650%." end quote. and that report is quite clear about the link between climate change and these forest fires in the region, noting that -- i'll quote again -- "climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western u.s." these changes in temperature and precipitation are putting utah's iconic desert sage brush at risk according to peterald peteralder. sage brush is important to utah's ranching industry. dr. alder is working with faculty and students from seven

area universities to better ngd the vulnerability of sage brush ecoal systems to climate change. these utah scientists aren't denying climate change, and neither is, for instance, utah state university. utah state has an entire new courses of study to train the next generation of students to predict and combat climate change. utah state has its own climate action plan. utah state has an active climate center, and i.t. not the only one. the university of utah has an active sustainability center and an army of students and researchers working on addressing climate change. each year the university of utah publishes an annual report on climate change. members of utah's delegation may be pretending climate change isn't real, but utah's

universities aren't. they're not denying. they're acting. utah's capital city is not denying climate change. there may be a biericaid of polluter influence around congress but mayors all across the nation are taking action, including in utah, as you saw with the unanimous resolution recently. that united states conference of mayors ranked salt lake city, utah and its mayor raffle ralph becker first place in the mayors climate protection center rankings because of the impressive work being done in salt lake city. for example the salt lake city public safety building will be the first public safety building in the nation to achieve a net-zero rating, meaning it generates as much electricity as it uses. utah also has energy investors

who are wide awake building a growing number of solar installationstallations. community solar has a pilot project in salt lake that allows homeowner groups to purchase solar energy. it is estimated that over its 25-year lifetime, this installation will avoid over 5 5,500 tons of carbon dioxide pollution. renewable energy is inat the grail in utah's -- is integral in utah's utah's portfolio. you can see this display in this chart showing that by 2050 utah will rely mostly on wind, solar geothermal and natural gas to achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions of 80% compared to 1990 levels. and, as you see, this is the yellow, which is solar. solar is projected to account for more than half of this the

shift. utah-based businesses like ebay are enhancing renewable energy. ebay built a data center in south jordan, utah, and wanted to make sure it used only clean energy to run that facility. to accomplish this, ebay worked with g.o.p. state senator mark madsen. rocky mountain power the state's largest electric utility, and a local renewable energy generator on utah legislation to make renewable energy available to utah electricity consumers. none of them were denying climate change. and the renewable energy bill was unanimously passed by the utah state senate and house of representatives and signed in to law by republican governor gary herherbert.

utah energy hires 1,500 people and a green team dedicated to make the the qup environmentally responsible. they are not denying climate change in utah. ebay is actually looking to add another data facility and more jobs using that same clean energy framework. the faith community in utah is taking action as well. utah interfaith power and life is a network of nearly 30 christian, jewish and engine denominational congregations seeking to promote earth stewardship, clean energy, and climate justice -- end quote. in addition to conducting free energy audits for new member churches and offering plans to increase energy efficiency in their buildings utah interfaith power and light also works to educate its members about climate change and advocates

that the local and state level for moral and responsible climate policy. then, of course, there is the famous utah ski industry. the operators of utah's great ski resorts have been outspoken about the threat climate change poses to their business. five of them -- alta ski area, canyon's resort, dear crest private trails, dear valley, and park city mountain resort -- all signed the bicep climate declaration in support of national action on climate change. for sure they're not denying. indeed the park city foundation in utah is issued a report explaining that as drought and increasing temperatures reduced the snowpack in the cascade

range and the rocky mountains the future of skiing and snow boarding in those ranges is at risk. this utah report predicts a local temperature increase of 6.8 degrees fahrenheit by 2097 2075, which could cause a total loss of snowpack in the lower park city resort area. beyond the loss to the skiing tradition in park city, this will result in thousands of lost jobs tens of millions in lost earnings and hundreds of millions in lost economic output. according to this utah report. in utah, like in other states, there is a groundswell coming from local communities asking for action on climate change.

there are scientists, public health advocates business owners and corporate leaders outdoorsmen, faith leaders state and local officials and countless others demanding action on climate change and leading the charge. david falland is a pediatrician and co-owner of the salt lake city citizens climate lobby which recently joined seven other utahans and 600 volunteers from around the country to come to congress to push us for swift passage of a proper carbon fee. in a salt lake city tribune op-ed last week, dr. falland wrote that -- quote -- "placing a fee on carbon sources and returning the proceeds to households would create jobs,

build the economy improve public health, and help stablize the climate." i ask unanimous consent to submit dr. falland's op-ed into the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you madam chair. outside these walls, climate change is an issue republicans can actually discuss. outside these walls 2,012 republican presidential candidate john huntsman, who won reelection as utah's republican governor in 2008 with almost 80% of the vote -- this is a popular guy in utah -- he wrote a "new york times" op-ed this year titled "the g.o.p. can't ignore climate change." that's the title of governor huntsman's article.

in it he wrote -- and i'll quote him -- "while there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming and failing to deal with this reality will leave a vulnerable and possibly worse. hedging against risk," he said, "is an enduring theme of conservative thought and it is also a concept diverse groups can embrace." that's from utah's former governor. and, by the way when he ran for reelection and won by that near 80% margin, he was actually running 0en a pretty good environmental platform. he was not denying. but in congress -- in congress,

there is silence from the republican party except those who come and say that climate change is just a big ol' hoax. it would have to be the most complicated hoax in the world with most of our major corporations shall the conference of catholic bishops the national aeronautics and space administration, noaa and numerous other groups involved in it and it would be pretty impressive to actually raise the levels of the seas 8 to 10 inches as part of that complicated hoax, but i guess that's their notion of why that's happening. but here, other than that hoax argument there's silence. no republican comes to the floor to say you're right. this is a problem. we should do something about it. let's work together. we may not agree on the solution right now but let's at least work on it as a serious problem.

they won't do that. the republican party has taken the position and followed the direction of the polluters. it's as simple as that. i, for one believe that they will be judged very harshly for that choice. because americans know better. utahans know better. more and more, people across america see what's happening before them and they're no longer fooled by the phony campaign of denial. i hope that this congress will listen to the people in our home states to the people across this and wake up to what has now become a clear and present danger

and do what the people who elected us sent us here to do which is face reality make sensible choices work together and solve problems, not stick our heads in the sand and pretend the problems don't exist. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president yesterday i went to chicago to a residential neighborhood and went into a building and saw a

piece of american history and an american humanitarian challenge the likes of which we've seldom seen. in this building were 70 children. they were children who just hours and days ago were at the border of the united states and mexico. they had turned themselves in to the border officials and they were being processed. our law says that within 72 hours, they need to be moved from the law enforcement world to the world of protection or at least secure environment. that's the right thing to do. it was a law passed years ago when president bush was in the white house signed by him and i believe unanimously passed by at least one of the chambers. so it was not controversial at the time. it was thoughtful. it basically said, if it's an unaccompanied child at the border within 72 hours put

them in a safe place. this is one of the safe places across america. it is a shelter in the city of chicago and it's not the only one. it is protected from the public. if you went by it in a car you wouldn't even know that it was a shelter with 70 children inside in a residential neighborhood where for 19 years this shelter has been welcomed because it's clean, secure. no problems. but now we face a challenge because the number of children unaccompanied coming into the united states is reaching record-breaking proportions. america primarily because of location and other circumstances, seldom has faced anything like a refugee crisis. oh, we can remember efforts by the haitians or the cubans maybe the vietnamese the mong people to come to the united states but our experience pales

in comparison to countries like jordan. 10% of the population of jordan today are refugees who've come to this country from all over the middle east. when syria collapsed under the the -- the weight of war and all of the horrors that it brought 2.3 million, maybe 3 million left syria to countries like jordan and turkey and lebanon. for these countries refugees are part of their daily lives. for the united states, it is rare. it is rare to see one, it is rare to speak speak to one. and that's why yesterday's experience for me was so important. because i'd heard all of these stories about these children and a lot of speculation about why they're here and what we should do with them. and i wanted to see them firsthand. well let me tell you, of the 70 chirnchildren, there were some that were newborns, babies being held

by their mothers. now, i've reached a point where it's hard for me to guess anyone's age particularly young people harder still when they're from countries in central america because they are smaller in stature many of them malnourished and they are usually a little older than you might think. they look younger. but five women walked into this dining hall carrying their babies and i -- i don't believe a single one of them was 15 years old. they had brought these babies many of them on buses for eight days to the border of the united states to try escape. cases of rape and assault had led to these pregnancies and these babies and they were trying get away from drug gangs and threats on their lives. and here they were in this neighborhood in chicago in a safe place with others just like them. and then when you went among the children 0%90% of them from

central america -- some from south africa, some from china -- 90% of them from central america, and you'd speak to them and hear their stories. for many of them, there was a relative in the united states they were hoping to find so that they could finally find a safe place. this situation is a terrible humanitarian crisis involving vulnerable children. the united states is about to be tested. we're going to be tested as a people our generation, as to how we respond to this. and i hope that we pass that test. remember, our country the united states issues a report card every year, the state department issues a human rights report card on the world. the united states stands in judgment of the world and their record on human rights. and we take into consideration the way they treat women how other countries treat children how they treat refugees and we

grade them. that's a pretty bold position for us to stand in judgment of other countries but we do. hoping that we can set a standard that they will follow and that we can hold them to those standards. now we aring we we are going to be graded, the united states will be graded as to how we respond to this crisis. the president has sent a bill to congress. he's asking for a substantial sum of money so that we can not only deal with this issue at the border but beyond in places like the shelter that i visited in chicago. and there's a lot of speculation among senators and congressmen about how our laws are going to deal with this current flood of children coming into the united states. we know why they're coming. many are being pushed out of their countries by drug gangs and violence. girls who are threatened with sexual assault if they don't give in to a gang leader and then if they do killed and left in plastic bags by the side of

the road. young boys drafted into these gangs at the point of a gun they're going to comply or be shot and killed. that's the reality. not to mention the horrible poverty which is endemic to these three countries -- horn honduras, el salvador and guatemala. now we have to decide what we will do. there are several things that are obvious. first, i'm glad president obama and vice president biden have gone down to central america and told these families please, do not send any more of these children. it's just too dangerous. they don't automatically come into the united states and receive citizenship. if you've heard that, it's wrong. we've told these countries we begged their leaders to help us in discouraging these children from coming but in many cases desperate parents desperate families are doing desperate things. i asked yesterday at the shelter, is it true that some of

the teenaged girls who arrive here -- and they all go through a physical exam -- are on birth-control pills. they said yes. before they start the journey their families will give the girls birth-control pills as a protection from pregnancy because they fear that they will be assaulted and raped. i cannot imagine -- i cannot imagine -- a family situation so desperate where they would make that decision but it's happening happening. and i looked, too at some of the comments that have been made. there have been people who said, you know what we need to do? we need to flood the border of the united states with national guard troops. that doesn't make sense. because these children are not trying to sneak past border guards. they are turning themselves in as soon as they cross the border because they have a little piece of paper with the name of someone in the united states to contact. so more troops and guards on the border won't change those desperate children. one of them i saw from guatemala

with his little sister -- she was a cute little thing but too shy to say anything to me. he through a translator said a few words. he carried her on his shoulders across the rio grande river. that is what his responsibility was and he was going to get across that river with his little sister. he did. and that is why we need to look at this in human terms as well. before i came to congress, i used to be a lawyer in central illinois, a small town of springfield. not a big city. i guess by our state's terms we're proud of our population, but not a major city. and i practiced law there and i knew what it was like in a small town to practice law. and i also knew this -- no one in good conscience with an ethical bone in their body would put a six-year-old kid in a courtroom and say "good luck." we never did that. it was inconceivable. if there was a child whose fate was going to be decided in a courtroom, there was a guardian add litem reported to represent

that child's interest. not the interest of any other party, just that child. there may have been an attorney appointed in addition to represent that child. because you realize they cannot make decisions for themselves. now we're faced with the suggestion by some that when it comes to these children within a few days after their arrival in the united states, they will be put in a courtroom. if members of the united states senate and house of representatives came to that shelter in chicago and saw those little children sitting at the table, they would be embarrassed by that suggestion. you can't do that. it isn't fair to them and it doesn't reflect well on our values if it's even suggested. we have to have a process that is fair and one that reflects our values in the united states. this is a human tragedy. these children who've made it through this death-defying journey i can just tell you it breaks my heart when they told

us stories. a little girl, she was there with her little brother. she was 12. her little brother 6. he had down's syndrome and she brought him from honduras to the united states. she said she came by bus and she was on that bus for six or seven days before she made it to the border. can you imagine turning your child loose to catch a bus ride that would last six or seven days to go to a country in the hopes that they might be safer? and also take their disabled little brother with her? every time that little boy would get up and scramble around the room, she was right after him. she wasn't going to let him out of her sight. that's what her life is what it has been and it's an indication of the kind of children that we are now facing and need to deal with. this is not a political issue although politics are involved.

it is much more. it is humanitarian testing who we are what we believe. it is a challenge to us to deal with immigration in the 21st century. it is a challenge to us as well to make sure that at the end of the day history writes this chapter about the american people and says, they were a good and caring people, compassionate and caring people. today i received a press release that was put out by a religious group the evangelical leaders of america. this is not my religion but i respect very much what they had to say. and i'd like to read what one of the ministers said. quote -- "as a former texan my heart goes out to the border of texas. as a born-again christian the gospel of jesus christ calls me to compassionate action for those who are suffering right now as a result of the

immigration crisis, especially the children." this was written by ronnie floyd, president of the southern baptist convention, pastor of the multicampus cross church in northwest arkansas. his friday baptist press op-ed continued -- "this is an emergency situation that requires the best of each of us in america. the gospel of jesus christ moves me to call on all of us to demonstrate compassionate action toward the immigrant and others joining." as i said, it doesn't -- not a member of my religion but i respect very much that he would stand up and speak out. and remind people that this really is a test regardless of whether you're a christian or some other denomination or have no religion. it is a test of who we are and our human values. when i read the suggestion that these young children will be placed in a hearing room or a courtroom within a few days with the possibility of someone standing by their side, that's

wrong. that is just wrong. we can't let that happen. many years ago we find a refugee convention saying when it came to refugees, countries in the world should accept and adopt the same humane standards. now we're facing our refugee crisis here in the united states. we need to make it clear to these countries that these children are not coming in to be citizens of the united states, that isn't in the cards. but we never want to be in a position where these children are returned to dangerous situations harmed and it's on our conscience, on our watch that is unacceptable. mr. president, i want to say one thing in closing here. we need to solve this problem but god forbid that's the end of the conversation. we passed an immigration bill, a comprehensive immigration bill to clean up this broken immigration system a year ago on the senate floor.

democrats and republicans greed agreed on it. we sent it to the house of representatives, for a year they refused to call the bill, refused to gate debate the bill refused to come up with a substitute for the bill. they are ignoring the broken immigration system in america and criticizing the president when the solution is obvious he said he'll step aside let them come up with a congressional answer but there is no excuse for this. for congress to receive refuse to accept its responsibility when it comes to frairm is just -- immigration reform is just wrong. i'm glad the senate met its responsibility and i call on my colleagues in the house to do the same. mr. president, i ask consent to enter into the record a statement at a separate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: on june 30, five conservative justices of the supreme court held that certain for-profit corporations, clesly

held corporations, could refuse to provide their female employees with coverage for health care benefits that are guaranteed by law. this hobby lobby decision, some estimate suggest would apply to as many as 90% of american businesses depending on what the courts define as a closely held corporation. this was an activist decision by an activist supreme court. congress never intended for for-profit corporate entities to claim religious beliefs or use religious objections to deny their employees' rights guaranteed by law. for-profit corporations for the record are not people. and they are not created for religious and charitable purposes. they are created to make a profit give their owners protection from liability under law. i've been to a lot of churches. i've yet to see a corporation in a pew at church. moreover previous cases ruled

on by the supreme court have established a transition of privacy, one that permits women, not the government or their employers to make their own decisions about birth control and family planning. the ruling in hobby lobby violates that transition by empowering for-profit corporations to claim religious objections to a law that guarantees access to cost-free contraceptive coverage. as a result of this decision, women are at risk of losing access to elements of their health care coverage including coverage for prescription birth control pills and more. birth control is an important part of a woman's health care, and millions, 99% of childbearing age women millions rely on these benefits. the affordable care act and its regulations provide for insurance coverage for birth control, allowing for a woman her family and her doctor to decide what's best. as a result, about 30 million women have gained access to coverage for contraceptive

services including 1.1 million in my state of illinois, almost 10% of the population. this is coverage that nearly all women use. in 2013, the centers for disease control reported that 99% of sexually active women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used birth control at some point in their lives. so here's the bottom line -- no for-profit corporate entity should be allowed to discriminate against women and take away an insurance benefit that a woman is entitled to just because the owner of the company doesn't agree with it. a woman's personal health choices are none of her bosses' business. last week my colleagues and i introduced legislation that would ensure wintry mix affected by this decision can continue to get sceft coverage, contraceptive coverage they need. importantly, this bill being offered by senators pataki murray and mark udall prevents any corporation from using the supreme court decision to deny

women access to services guaranteed to them under federal law. although the supreme court ruling focused primarily on contraceptive coverage it left the door open for future litigation challenging other basic health care benefits, vaccines blood transfusions. this is unacceptable. and the legislation before us would stop this discrimination once and for all. this legislation is not about overriding the religious beliefs of any living person or any nonprofit charity. our legislation respects and accommodates the beliefs of individuals and nonprofits. remember the hobby lobby case involved for-profit companies which are not human beings but are legal entities that are incorporated for profit making purposes. when people decide to incorporate a for-profit entity they agree it will protect the rights of their employees including laws that prevent

discrimination and louse laws that enable women who work for them to access health care. the decision of the hobby lobby joirt are majority suddenly allows the corporations to declare themselves exempt from these basic laws and discriminate against women's health care coverage. that is a significant change in the law and as a result, untold thousands of american women will end up losing access to affordable health care that they had been guaranteed. this is a problem and it is a challenge. we need to protect women's access to affordable prescription contraception and prevent for-profit corporations from interfering with their employees' health care decisions, and this week in the senate my colleagues and i will have a chance to vote on it. i think it's a critical vote and i might add another element here. many people want to discussion discuss the issue of birth control in the context of abortion. a hot button issue and has been for years across america.

the record's pretty clear. if there are more unplanned pregnancy, this are more likely more abortions. reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies reduces the number of abortions. it's simple math. there are some who disagree on theological grounds they cannot disagree on biological grounds. standing up for family planning and birth control to avoid unplanned and and unwanted pregnancy is going the reduce the incidence of abortions in this country. i hope that we can stand together this week on a bipartisan basis tell the supreme court they're wrong,s that past this new law that takes away the power of bosses to determine the health care of the women who work for them. mr. president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request.

mr. durbin: i will. i'm sorry. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i'm honored to follow those powerful remarks of my friend and colleague from illinois and i am particularly impressed and moved by his comments on young people coming across the border that deserve better from this nation better in the care they receive when they're here, better in the due process and the justice that this country gives them once they've arrived. but i'm here to talk about the hobby lobby decision by the supreme court and to second in every single respect the remarks that senator durbin has just made. i went to the site of a new hobby lobby store in the state of connecticut being built in manchester the second in connecticut, where its goods and services will be available

to consumers in connecticut, an impressive new structure. but it wasn't a groundbreaking or a ribbon cutting. i went there to call on hobby lobby to do the right thing for its employees and for its customers in the state of connecticut. i went there to make public a letter that i've written to the chief executive of hobby lobby asking that he and his company respect the law history and policy of our state. and also of the united states. the united states supreme court has made its decision in interpreting the religious freedom restoration act. and in giving this corporation a

for-profit entity, the right to tell its women employees that they have no access to certain kinds of contraceptive care approved by the f.d.a. that's a legal decision that can't be overturned by my speaking here on the floor of the senate or my writing to the c.e.o. of hobby lobby but it can be overturned by a law that changes that opinion changes the opinion in effect by overruling it, and that's the purpose of the not my boss's business act as well as the protect women's health from corporate interference act and that's the reason i'm going to

vote for it because i feel that women should be making these decisions with their doctors and that neither politicians nor business executives nor their corporate entities should be interfering and intruding in that decision. we can debate whether or not corporations ought to have these rights under the law whether they're entitled to use the law in effect to assert legal claims whether to the first amendment or to the religious freedom restoration act. this decision was a statutory one, we can disagree with it all we want, but the way to overturn it is to legally adopt a new statute here. and that's why i am so ro strongly supporting this change in the law that i hope will be adopted on a bipartisan basis because there ought to be

nothing partisan about women's health care, about preventing unnecessary abortion, as senator durbin as said so well and about providing a form of health care that really is in the interest of families as well as women. it's in all of our interests. i called on hobby lobby to put aside the technical distinctions that it can assert and the legal principles that it may invoke because it's a self-funded plan under the law but simply do the right thing and follow connecticut's law policy, and history. connecticut has a law. it's a state statute that was adopted in 1999. i vigorously advocated for it. it requires that contraceptive

care be covered by insurance plan any contraceptive method approved by the f.d.a. that's the law of connecticut well established, long accepted. and strongly supported. and hobby lobby is flouting it. maybe in letter it has a leg to stand on but in spirit it is thumbing its nose at the people of the state of connecticut. my message to hobby lobby is, if you want connecticut customers, respect connecticut's law. now, this principle of privacy, of women following their conscience and their conviction making these decisions on their own one way or the other to use contraceptives or not after consulting with their doctor or

other medical experts and their families their clergy personal advisors, this principle of personal privacy is enshrined not only in connecticut law but in our history. in fact, connecticut has led the nation in asserting and respecting the right of privacy. grizz griswold v. connecticut which struck down a prohibition on the sale of contraceptives arose in connecticut, argued by a great renowned connecticut lawyer katherine norville. the right of privacy as one of our supreme court justices said, is essentially and fundamentally the right to be let alone. it is the right to be let alone from unwarranted government interference and intrusion and this interpretation, the

religious freedom restoration act by the supreme court contravenes that basic principle embodied and enshrined in connecticut history as well as law, and i called on hobby lobby to respect that history and law. and our policy of respecting that right of privacy that is embedded and respected in the way that law enforcement as well as our statutes and our courts interpret their roles in connecticut and their authorities and their power. the fundamental principle here is that religious liberty should be respected. it's the religious liberty of those executives at hobby lobby its owners, and private corporation shareholders, for-profit entity owners. they deserve respect for their

religious liberty but religious liberty is about the right to practice your religion. it is not the right to impose your religion on someone else. this country was founded on that fundamental principle of religious liberty and the right of privacy the right to be let alone from unnecessary and unwarranted interference. i.t. the righti.t.it's the right of privacy and religious liberty that are at stake here in this erroneous supreme court decision which we have the power to overturn here and to restore religious freedom, truly restore the liberty of conscience and

conviction that is so fundamental to american life and the american exceptionalism. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. bhiewmbhiewm bhiewm i ask that the quorum call -- mr. blumenthal: can i stay the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. bliewsm blume i ask that the senate proceed it a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. blume i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 461, senate 517. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 461, s. 517, a bill to promote consumer choice in wireless competition and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. blumenthal: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amend be read a third time and pass and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or

debate. the presiding officer: without objection. blume i understand there are two bills at the desk and i scw for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills. the presiding officer: s. 260 the a bill to restore states' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sales and use tax laws and for other purposes. h.r. 502 is an act to provide an extension of federal-aid highway and so forth and for other purposes. mr. blumenthal: now ask for a second reading and object to my own request, en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. blumenthal: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate -- when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 16, 2014, and that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be

deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of executive calendar number 850, with the time until 10:15 controlled as follows: ton minutes for senator grassley ten minutes for senator cornyn, ten minutes for senator shaheen and any remaining time under the control of senator mccaskill. further, that at 10:15 a.m., the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination and that if cloture is invoked the time until 2:20 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees at 2:20 p.m. all postcloture time be expired the senate proceed to vote on confirmation

on the nomination understand that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. i want to correct a know -- notation -- an air that i remember made in reciting the time l. when i said the thyme time until 2:20 be equally divided shive said ^+12:20 be equally divided between the it two leaders or their designee and at 12:20 p.m., all postcloture time be spierksd the senate proceed to vote on confirmation on the nomination and that if the nominee in addition is confidence, the notion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

further, upon disposition of the white nomination, the senate resume legislative session and proceed to -- and the motion to proceed on calendar 459 senate 5278 with the time until 2:00 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and the time from 2:00 p.m. until 2:10 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, finally that at 2:10 obama, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to senate 2578. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: this agreement sets up as many as three roll call votes tomorrow as 10:15 a cloture vote on the white nomination at 12:20 a vote on confirmation of the white nomination if cloture is

invoked, and at 2:10 p.m. a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to 2578, the protect women's health from corporate interference act of 2014 bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask had a it adjourning under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m 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 come a long way and pay equity and there are women now in the major corporations. i would be wrong but i think most of the barriers have beeneventing lowered. "-end-double-quote. >> republican leader seems to be suggesting that they are preventing women from seeking equal treatment of the law and conquered the struggle for equal pay for women is over. the thing missing a declaration would begin aircraft carrier. we all remember that. remember that was president bush declaring the war in iraq was

basically over with. in the war regarding women is not over. a republican leader suggested the notion of ensuring rights can amount to preferential treatment. that was his opinion. they are very real and very substantial there are many examples but let's try this one. the republican leader mentioned pay equity they are paid an average of 77 cents for every dollar the callings make -- colleagues do for doing the

exact same work. it's not fair but instead of working with the democrats that give a fair shot and equal pay for equal work republicans refuse to let the legislation be debated and this was the multitude of the filibusters. the republican leader also spoke at the growing number of ceos of the major companies. try this one is her president currently among the fortune magazine listing of the 500 companies in the world there are 24 chief executives who are women. that is 4.8% of all of the ceos in the fortune 500. if anyone believes it including my friend the republican leader believes fewer than one and 20 is good enough, this illustrates republicans antiquated beliefs concerning working women. and american women generally. perhaps the most disturbing reminder of the barriers to women face is the supreme

court's hobby lobby decision. just a few weeks ago five men on the united states supreme court gave corporate bosses the right to interfere with decisions about control with. and it's hobby lobby decision those five justices ruled for profit companies objections to deny their employees who may not share the same religious views and contraceptive coverage required by law. that's what the court said. the court's decision was stunningly wrong. the courts misguided decision effectively takes away the right of american women inside their own health care institute board rooms to make final decisions on employees access to birth control. how is it possible in the 21st century that we are debating whether or not bosses should be able to dictate family planning clinics it is 2014.

it's not 1906. it is a compensation for employers. there is a strike going on in new york for the largest short-haul railroad. 300300 people write about everyday. every day. what is the sticking point? healthcare is a big deal to everybody. healthcare is a form of payment compensation for employees. should the religious belief be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck and days off? of course not. so why would we let bosses decide something so personal and so private as the use of contraceptives? .. 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 as the personal or religious beliefs of some corporate loss. otherwise where will it end? has just as through spader ginsberg stated, with the exemption antidepressant said medication and there are medications derived from swine that help people get well including dennis tegea intravenous fluids him and

vaccinations. that is what she said. mom the court decision is a very slippery slope. endless possibilities. that is why i support him this bill which clearly establishes a woman's right to health care. the united states senate cannot impose a significant barrier. regardless of what republican congressman tell you we have a long long long way to go before american women are legal in all aspects of the law as they should be. the bill will for us is a step in the right direction. more importantly not my boss's business act will help insure american women have access to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to by law.

>> we hear that the president is planning to spend a week calling for congress to pass highway funding legislation that congress was already planning to pass. it seems odd for the president to be focusing so intently on something that is inevitable while ignoring other issues that really should be addressed issues like obamacare. so many middle-class families across the country continued to suffer from the impacts of this long. one thing that becomes increasingly clear with each passing day is the extent of which is particularly hard on women. research shows that women make about 80 percent of the health care decisions for their families in our country. yet obamacare has caused countless women to lose the health care plans they had liked when these women first spoke out about the the trail they fell one that lost their plan.

many of the law's supporters simply waved their concerns saying they were making it up. their plans were job because, of course, the critics knew better. it is a pattern that seems to have continued ever since. american women have fewer choices and doctors and hospitals under obamacare. the bill's supporters said continually waived those concerns. millions of americans using flexible spending accounts to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses. obamacare imposes arbitrary limits on how much of a family's hard-earned money can be set aside and the law also prevents people who come to depend on fsa from using them to pay for common expenses. obamacare cuts to medicare 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 brushed aside by obamacare supporters. look at ways to grow economic opportunities for women. obamacare of course, does just the opposite. i have heard from businesses large and small in kentucky who feel they will not appeal to cope with the high cost of coverage under obamacare. they do not want to cut hours for staff or eliminate jobs but many may no longer really have a choice. many are worried about new mandates that place millions of americans nearly two-thirds of the moment, at risk of having their hours and wages reduced. one of my constituents from somerset recently wrote to tell me what this new obamacare has meant for her.

this particular obamacare mandate. i am 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 per month less in wages. obamacare is causing us to lose hours and wages and at the same time expecting us to spend more. let me repeat that. obamacare is causing her to lose hundreds of thousands a month and 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 office the people who supported this law when it passed continue to defend it now we kept warning them that obamacare would hurt the office and increase costs. they had to know that obamacare would reduce charges for women and limit access to certain

doctors and hospitals. washington democrats voted for obamacare anyway new. they created these problems. and that is why they should be working with republicans now to start over with real patient- centered reform at lower cost and that women and men in this country actually want. of course they refused. they're doubling down on obamacare. now they're trying to convince people of another untruth. somehow is not possible to preserve our nation's long tradition of tolerance and respect for people of faith while at the same time preserving a woman's ability to make her own decisions about contraception. washington democrats are going is based on the claim that in the words of the "washington post" non-partisan fact checker is some simply 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 some. well, i think that is a shame and it takes a pretty dim view of what we are capable of as a country. the goal here should not be to protect the freedoms of some while denying the freedoms of other small. the goal here and always should be to preserve everyone's freedoms. we can do both and that is 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 self abuse that is why we are trying to introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any employee from the last access to the fda approved contraceptives. there is no disagreement on a fundamental point. the american people know that. they know that democrats are just attempting to offer another false choice here.

"we are saying is, 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 is hurting millions of american men. it is not too late. work with us to increase jobs among wages, opportunity and a time when american women are experiencing some much hardship as a result of this administration's policies especially obamacare. >> earlier today federal reserve chair janet yellen testified before the senate banking committee on a semiannual monetary policy report to congress. she also looked at monetary policy goals and future interest rates. here's a look. >> the fomc is committed to

policies that will promote maximum employment and price stability consistent with our dual mandate from the congress. given the economic situation that i just described, we judge that a high degree of monetary policy accommodation remains appropriateness. consistent with that assessment we have maintained that target range for the federal funds rate at zero until 1/4% and have continued to rely on a large-scale asset purchases and forward guidance about the path of the federal fund rate to provide the appropriate level of support for the economy. in light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment that has occurred since the inception of the federal reserve asset purchase program in september to off and the fonc assessment that labor market conditions would continue

to improve the committee has made measured reductions the monthly pace of asset purchases at each of our regular meetings this year. >> a portion of the hearing held earlier today with federal reserve chair janet yellen piquancy the entire event tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span2 or any time on line at c-span.org. >> tomorrow on washington journal california congresswoman karen bass will join us to look at legislation aimed at ensuring the child care welfare has in sentiment -- incentives in place then texas congressman michael burgess will talk about the lawsuit filed by the speaker of the house against president obama. after that allan sloan of fortune magazine will discuss how some u.s. companies are reincorporation overseas to avoid paying u.s. corporate taxes. we will take phone calls facebook comments and tweets.

washington journal live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. also tomorrow the house rules committee will meet to consider legislation that would grant authority to begin litigation action begins president obama for what they say our decisions and consistent with his duties as outlined in the constitution says. you can see that live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3m. >> president obama was in virginia earlier today to hear about innovations for transportation programs and bring the federal highway trust fund which was approved by the house leader in the day. introducing the president is transportation secretary anthony fox. this is 20 minutes. [applause] >> hello everyone. how is everybody doing? it is just another day in the office right?

i am excited to be here today especially given year with what president obama is with us here today. pretty exciting right? [applause] the president gave an interview a few weeks global and he said that he missed a couple of things about life outside of the white house. one of them was being able to get behind the wheel of his own and cruise down lake shore drive in chicago. you know without a giant motorcade. well, i felt badly for him. while we could not let the bear loose on the freeway this morning we did come pretty close. because i know he got to do a little driving in one of our simulator ceric which tests new technology that lets cars communicate with other vehicles and even infrastructure like

stoplights. [applause] that is right. our engineers here are proving that talking cars are not just science fiction. they are right here and within reach. in cna may be on the road too. i will not go into too much detail right now but the vehicle to vehicles or what we call the to be in or vehicle to infrastructure technology or vitae i that technology is being developed right here in this facility and has the potential to stop aggressors before they happen. also can cut greenhouse emissions and help drivers bypass traffic. that sounds pretty good to me. now, i wish that i can say -- i wish i could say this kind of progress is happening in every corner of america's hesitation system, but unfortunately i cannot. it there are a lot of places

where our infrastructure is a relic of another era, and we need to fix it. in fact, yesterday the white house but a report on line so everyone can see how many of their state's roads are in less than good condition. in the answer is to many about 65 percent nationwide. so if you look at all of the structurally deficient bridges in the country and line them up and stand it would stretch from the front door of this facility to just about the president's house in jakarta. that is not who we are. so we have got a lot of work to do and what we need is a long-term bonding bill like the one this administration introduced called the grow america act. [applause] we need policies that help us cut red tape and build projects faster but there is one thing

that we need that we already have, and that is a demand to help us see it through. president obama may not have been behind the wheel of a real car but he knows the direction we need to go. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you the president of the united states barack obama. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> hello, everybody. have a seat. have a seat. good afternoon. thank you, secretary fox for that introduction. i just got a tour of a lab where automakers and government researchers team up to create new technologies that help cars communicate with the world

around them and with each other. they can tell you if an oncoming vehicle is about to run a red light or if a car is coming around a blind corner were if a detour would help you save some time and gas. i got to test all of this in a simulator. it is sort of like a knight rider. i have to say though, it was a little disorienting. i have not driven in about six years. i am going down the highway. i think i had a little bit of a lead foot, starting to hit 90. and then right next to me the press pool is standing they're kind of traveling with me and 90 miles-an-hour. it's got me a low queasy. but i have recovered. now as a father of a daughter who just turned 16 any new

technology that makes driving safer is important to me. new technology that makes driving smarter is good for the economy. one study shows that americans spend five and half billion hours stuck in traffic each year which costs us $120 billion in wasted time and gas. $800 per commute. then you have outdated roads bridges that mean businesses pay an extra 27 billion in freight costs which are then passed on to consumers. all told transportation and eats up more of the typical family household budget and anything except rent or mortgage which means that the cutting edge of research at all of you are doing here helps save lives and money and leads to new jobs and technology and industry. that is why america has to invest more in the kind of jobs

creating research and development that you are doing right here at the highway and research center. [applause] i am also here today to talk about why americans have to invest more. it will create better jobs and better position america for the future. we know that any 21st century economy businesses will set up shop wherever they find the best roads and bridges and the fastest rail and internet the smartest airports the smartest power grids. a first-class infrastructure contracts first class jobs. and right now our investments in transportation are lagging the rest of the world. if washington were working the way it is supposed to congress would not be the 16th but investing in things that help america bring more good jobs

shores. instead here is what is going on. if congress fails to funded runs of a mine. that could put nearly 700,000 jobs at risk including nearly 17,000 right here in virginia said. more than 100,000 projects across the country projects were workers for paving roads and rebuilding bridges and modernizing the transportation system. those would slow or stop. some states have had to put projects on hold because they do not trust congress to get its act together. the last time -- rumor that the next time you see at job sites sitting idle. there are bipartisan bills in both the house and senate that would help with a short-term fix. i support that. the very least congress should

be keeping people on the job. all this does is set us up for the same crisis a few months from now. congress should not pat itself on the back for deserting -- averting disaster for a few months kicking the can down the road for a few months, careening from crisis to crisis when it comes to something as basic as our infrastructure. instead of barely paying our bills in the present we should be investing in the future, have a plan for how we will make sure that our roads bridges airports, power grid, water systems, and all of those things will be funded and do it in a responsible way so that we can start planning. that also means that we can save more money because we are not doing it in stop-gap measures. that is why earlier this year i put forth a plan to rebuild our transportation infrastructure in a more responsible wake.

support millions of jobs and give cities and states and private investors a certainty that they need to plan ahead and hire more workers. it would help small businesses ship goods faster help parents get on to their kids faster mean less where and tear on your car mean less money on gas save people money support cutting edge research like the work you are doing here which could end up cutting back on the number of traffic fatalities. and my plan would not add to what is already a rapidly shrinking deficit. we have cut our deficit by the way, by more than half since i came into office. [applause] and we would not be adding to the deficit because we pay for this transportation project in part by closing lap top tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas so far house

republicans have refused to act on this idea and have not presented their own ideas. i think that is wrong. we should not be protecting tax loopholes for a few companies and ship massive profits overseas but creating jobs rebuilding roads and bridges that help businesses right here in the united states. that is a question of priorities and what i keep hearing from votes all across the country is that if congress would just shift its priorities a little closer to working american priorities would get up a lot of families right now. this is not an abstract issue. it should not even be a partisan issue. republicans, democrats independents everyone uses the roads. after this last winter we have puddles everywhere how many people here have the experience driving along and suddenly your

car is racked. you pay for that out of pocket when you are and traffic congestion because of poor planning and bad infrastructure when you could be at home reading to your kid or catching the ball game. that is a cost to you. everyone cares about that. it does not matter your political persuasion. after the worst economic crisis since the great depression our businesses have created nearly 10 million new jobs over the past two months. the unemployment rate is at its lowest point since september 2008. we have made huge strides in energy independence for the first time in more than a decade . business leaders around the world are saying the best place to invest is not china but the united states of america. but you still have a lot of middle-class families all across the country who are working harder than ever just to get ahead and need a break, need some help and having better

roads endless delays and helps. meanwhile republicans in congress keep blocking or voting down some of the bills that would have the biggest impact. they said no to raising the minimum wage to equal pay, fixing our broken immigration system. i want to work with everyone go republicans and democrats to move this country forward but i cannot just stand by while politics threatens all of the hard work that millions of americans do because we have gridlock in washington. so what i try to do is take a range of actions this year to help working americans from from speeding up the infrastructure projects are raising wages. i am waiting for congress to act but in the meantime i have to go ahead and do what i can do and in response their plans so far has not been to join me and say all right, mr. president

you are right. we need to a rebuild our roads spruce up our airports, but their big idea has been to soon be. that is what they are spending time on. a political stunt that wastes americans time and taxpayer dollars. keep in mind it is your money that they will be spending on these ridiculous pursuits instead of just getting work done. and i am not interested in playing political games. i am interested in making sure the economy grows and we are creating more jobs and helping middle-class families to the head. you guys are helping to show us how to do this in a smart way. we need to invest in american innovation and research and development invest in american manufacturing. we should be training more workers for new and better jobs, preparing every child for a world-class education is making sure that hard work pays off with higher wages and greater workplace flexibility and health

care and child care. all of these things will make a difference in people's day-to-day lives. the point is we can do so much more if we just rallied around a sense of economic patriotism and say, you know what the parties compete but every once in awhile we have to actually do some work instead of worrying about elections or trying to score points on cable tv. and we can start by investing in our country because historically -- you know eisenhower build the interstate highway system working with democrats and republicans. this is not a partisan issue. and when we treat some basic investment as something that we do as americans when we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people things work and no one can beat us. that is the spirit that all of

you show here. keep on fighting every single day. i am proud of you. i want you to keep on doing what you are doing. we are going to try to make sure congress actually does as good a job is there supposed to be doing as you guys to one yours. if we do then you will have parents who will get home earlier, folks to are not going to have to go to the body shop quite as often. we will be seeing millions of people across the country saving money at the pump. we are going to see airline delays reduced so that when you plan that the thanksgiving trips you are not spending the whole time at the airport. all that can make a huge difference. the american people have to demand that the folks in washington do their job do something. that is my big model for congress right now. just do something. if they don't like the transportation plan that i put forward at least put your own

plan and then we can compromise do not just sit there and do nothing. we don't have time. america is on the move. in part thanks to all of you. appreciate it. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] all right. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ..

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the federal reserve report to congress as the economic recovery is not yet complete and the fed will continue a policy of low interest rates. the