an appropriate role for a federal district judge. judicial decisionmaking requires a disinterested and objective approach that never takes into account the judge's life experiences or policy preferences. and from the careful look that i've taken at justice white's 13-year track record as a judge, i just have too many questions about his ability to keep his personal considerations separate from his judicial opinions. finally, it's worth noting that there continues to be opposition to this nominee from law enforcement. specifically, both the national sheriffs association and the missouri sheriffs association oppose this nominee. i always try to give judicial nominees the benefit of doubt

when i have questions about their records, but in this nominee's case, i simply can't ignore so many indications that the nominee isn't the right person to occupy a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. i sincerely hope that i'm wrong about justice white, and i reluctantly vote no on the nominee, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: over the last several weeks i've spoken about the ongoing crisis on our southern border, something the president has acknowledged as a humanitarians crisis with tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors making a perilous journey from central america and ending up on our doorstep, most often in my state, the state of texas. this year the numbers are skyrocketing again. starting in 2011, we saw the

numbers roughly about 6,000 unaccompanied minors. they have doubled from 2011 to 2012. they doubled again from 2012 to 2013, and they look like they're going to double again from 2013 to 2014. and we can only wonder what might happen thereafter unless we come up with a solution to the problem. a majority of these children, as i indicated, come from central america: el salvador, guatamala, and honduras. under current law, when these children are detained by the border patrol, they are processed by the border patrol and then given a notice to appear at a future court hearing and turned over to the department of health and human services for safekeeping. health and human services tries to identify a guardian to pick up the child, and not surprisingly most of them are never heard from again. certainly they don't show up for

this court hearing in response to the notice to appear. and thus, the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, the people who make money off of transporting these children and other migrants across mexico into the united states, they discovered an effective business model. in other words, they're able to deliver these children from their families, at least the ones that survive, from central america through mexico into texas, and the majority of them will make it because they'll be placed with a family member or some other relative and never appear at the court hearing that they have been notified to appear for. for children detained from bordering nations like mexico or canada, the process is different than it is from noncontiguous countries like central america. border, under current law, can determine whether the children are eligible to stay in the united states or give these

children the choice to be safely transferred to officials from their home countries. our country simply does not have the current capacity to deal with 50,000, much less 90,000 or 100,000 unaccompanied minors appearing on our nation's doorstep. as a result, these children are being kept at border patrol facilities like i witnessed in mcallen, texas, that have capacity for a few hundred people, but they're currently holding well over double, many times triple and beyond their current capacity. i and other members of congress, unlike the president, have seen these facilities firsthand and talked to some of the children. the conditions they're kept in are unacceptable by any standard. babies in diapers, sleeping on cement floors and dozens of children crammed into one cell with a single toilet.

in addition to these overcrowded detention facilities, there is an overburdened judicial system. minors in custody of the department of health and human services are released to family members or guardians or sponsors in the united states, but they're given a notice to appear before an immigration judge if they wish to make a claim to relief under our immigration laws. those who show up will not see a judge for more than a year on average, leaving, as i said, plenty of incentive to simply disappear and never return for a court date. as the law is currently written, in 2008 there are few other options available. for that reason, i have, along with my friend and colleague from texas, henry cuellar, from the house of representatives, introduced a clear, commonsense change in the 2008 law to address the immediate crisis. this is, i hasten to add, not a complete fix to our broken immigration system, but it does

target this particular crisis and offers a commonsense solution. we call this the helping unaccompanied minors and alleviating national emergency act or the humanely act. it would amend the william wilberforce trafficking conditions protection law in 2008. that law had good intentions because it was focused on the victims of human trafficking, and we preserve those protections for the victims of human trafficking. but it needs to be improved so that thousands of children who now make this perilous journey in the hands of these criminal organizations up these smuggling corridors from central america to the united states, we must make sure that they are deterred from making this life-threatening journey. our changes to the law maintain all of the safeguards built into the 2008 law. and so there should be no objection on that basis.

what we would go further to do is the humane act would treat all unaccompanied minors the same and ensure an orderly legal process. a majority of these children would be reunited with their parents in their home countries. those who choose to appear in front of an immigration judge will have every opportunity to do so on an expedited basis. in those cases where they qualify for relief from removal under our current laws, they would be placed in safekeeping with federally screened sponsors while additional hearings are scheduled. this expedited process would alleviate overburdened border patrol and h.h.s. facilities as well as the local officials who have been disproportionately affected. although i would add that i read newspaper stories about officials in places like massachusetts, arizona, california, and others expressing concern about these large numbers of unaccompanied children who are being

warehoused in their states. most importantly, this legislation would send a message to people in central america that the dangerous journey to the united states in the hands of ruthless smugglers and cartel operatives is simply not worth it. central american families would hear loudly and clearly that not only will the journey place their children at risk of sexual assault and even death, they will by and large not be permitted to stay in the united states once they arrive under current law. some will. if you're a victim of human trafficking, you may be eligible for a t-visa. if you have a claim to asylum, you can make that case in front of an immigration judge under our legislation. but if you don't, you don't have a claim to relief under our current immigration laws, you will be returned safely back to your home country. tackling this crisis is a significant challenge. it requires presidential

leadership. but in the meantime, these children are sleeping in overcrowded cells and texas communities are reeling from the impact, and we need action. this legislation, we try to target as a commonsense solution that will take immediate steps to help stem the tide of the growing crisis. i hope my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation. it sounds like the house of representatives is probably going to be moving next week. and i know there's a lot of controversy. any time you talk about circumstances like this, some people think it should be tougher. others think it's too tough to enforce current law. but the fact of the matter is the drug cartels, the transnational criminal organizations, they have created a business model based on the loophole they filed in the 2008 law. our bipartisan, bicameral legislation seeks to fix that and to give these children the benefit of the law if they

qualify under the law as currently written. but to continue to leave the law as it exists now with this loophole in it and continue to see it exploited by the zetas and other cartels that traffic in human beings is simply an invitation to see these numbers continue to double year after year and our capacity to deal with these children on a humane basis further diminished. we need to have immigration laws that protect these children and all of us, and it does not mean that anybody and everybody under any circumstances can qualify to come to the united states to stay. that's simply an invitation to chaos. we can treat these children humanely. we can give them the benefit that the law allows as written. but if they don't qualify, we need to return them home. mr. president, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that my intern haley be given privileges to the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, it's not often in the united states senate -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. mccaskill: i ask the quorum be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, it's not often that the senate has a chance to go back and fix a grievous error that occurred in our history, and that error occurred in 1999 when a good and qualified man was defeated in the united states senate for a position on an eastern district court of the federal bench in missouri. at that time there was a, an

attack on ronnie white for being soft on crime. the record as it stands today flies in the face of that assertion. at the time of his defeat, he had voted to uphold the death penalty almost 70% of the time. and in fact, in his career on the missouri supreme court, being the first african-american appointed to the supreme court, he voted with the majority on death penalty cases 90% of the time. this is a mainstream jurist. this is not someone who is outside of the mainstream. that is why the fraternal order of police has endorsed his nomination. that's why he is considered in the state of missouri as an iconic leader in the legal community. he went back to missouri, was

the chief justice of the supreme court after he was defeated on the floor of the senate, and retired from the supreme court and has gone on to be a established and respected lawyer in the st. louis community. frankly, part of many big cases, especially the appellate work, because he served on both the court of appeals and the supreme court. i think ronnie white handled what happened to him with as much character as could possibly be required of any individual. and i look forward today to finally righting the wrong and allowing ronnie white his well-deserved place on the federal bench. thank you, mr. president. i ask all my colleagues to support the confirmation of ronnie white. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate,

hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of ronnie l. white of missouri to be united states district judge for the eastern district of missouri, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of ronnie l. white of missouri to be united states district judge for the eastern district of missouri shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 54, the nays are 43. and the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the time until 2. 20 p.m. -- excuse me, 12:20 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: what yields time? -- who yields time?

the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. the senate will come to order. mr. markey: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, lisa foster, be granted floor privileges until the end of september of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: madam president, i rise on the issue of vital importance to all who value true liberty in the united states. last month the supreme court issued its decision in the hobby lobby case. in 2010, in the citizens united case, the court said that corporations have a first amendment right to participate in elections. in the hobby lobby ruling, the court took it a step further and said that since a corporation can be a person, it can also have religious views. and because a corporation is a person, it can impose its religious belief on an employee and deny a woman insurance that protects her health by providing contraception. so the folly of the supreme

court has come full circle, where an annual person will be denied their -- where an actual plern be deniede denied their rights because a corporation has been given priority over them by the united states constitution, as interpreted by this supreme court. instead of we the people, it is now i, the c.e.o. of a corporation, who has the right to exercise their constitutional privileges as interpreted by this supreme court that truncates the right of individual women in america to exercise theirs. the supreme court majorities continue to extend our basic constitutional rights, the inalienable rights held by individuals to corporations. corporations are not people. supporters of the hobby lobby ruling have accused democrats of hyperbole. they say we're making the hobby lobby case seem more dire than

it truly is. the corporate personhood supporters say the ruling doesn't mean women can't use the contraception of their choice, just that the insurance provided by an employer doesn't have to cover it. or they say that the ruling doesn't mean a boss is imposing his or her religious views on their employees. that is just something that is wrong. it says that the boss doesn't have to subsidize health care that violates the boss's religious views. but what happens when the religious views of a c.e.o. are imposed on the real life of a working woman? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. markey: in real life, working women earn their insurance coverage. it's part of their pay, and they

depend on insurance to pay for their health care, including contraception for themselves and for their families. if that employee's choice of insurance doesn't pay for a particular type of contraception, a woman will be forced to give up her right to use it. if one form of contraception costs, as justice ginsburg explained in her dissent, $1,000 and insurance won't cover even a penny, a working woman is going to be forced to make medical decisions based on the religion of her employer, the religion her employer practices. not on what she and her doctor determine is best for her from a medical perspective. the religion of the employer trumps the recommendation of a physician to a woman. and this is just a step that changes the whole relationship

twean an vipped and their country -- between an individual and their country. if a corporation's insurance doesn't cover any contraception because all contraception, all contraceptives violate the employer's religious beliefs, then the employee's religious views are especially burdened. she will have to pay for contraception out of her own pocket. and that's after the average woman already makes 77 cents on the dollar to a man. 77 cents. unless you're an african-american woman, when it's 66 cents on the dollar. or unless you're a latina woman where it's 59 cents on the dollar that a white makes in the united states of america. and the hobby lobby case, the supreme court transformed religion from a personal choice into a corporate decision, and the corporation can in real life impose its religious views on

its employees. that's why i'm an original cosponsor of s. 2578 to protect women's health from corporate interference act, or as its supporters call it, the not my boss's business act. let's be clear, corporations are not people, period. for-profit corporations do not have religious views. for-profit corporations should not be able to deny their employees critical health care or force american taxpayers to pay for it because of the owner's personal religious views. the not my boss's business business act will fix the hobby lobby decision by making it illegal for corporations to deny their employees health care benefits, including contraception, that are required to be covered by federal law. it would protect employees from having their health care restricted by bosses who want to impose their religious beliefs on others. i urge my colleagues to vote to restore true liberty by voting

to pass s. 2578, and i thank all of you, and i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, last month as my friend from massachusetts just mentioned, the supreme court ruled that the obama administration's health and human services mandate infringes on the first amendment guarantee of religious freedom, and this is a guarantee that americans have enjoyed the entire history of the country. the first freedom in the first amendment to the constitution, the first sentence is freedom of religion. and in a very recent past, the congress of the united states voted for a bill that protected that freedom of religion unless there was some extraordinary reason not to have freedom of religion in our country. you know, it's important to try to maintain some sense of good humor and be willing to work

with people on other things as people come to the floor and just over and over again say that i think is that are not true. -- say things that are not true. everybody is entitled to their own opinion on religious freedom. everybody is entitled to their own opinion on the president's health care bill. everybody is not entitled to their own facts. and if we were dealing with the facts as they truly exist right now, this would be a much different debate. in fact, "the washington post" fact checker just a couple of days ago said this about what senate democrats are saying in their rhetoric. he said they're simply wrong. he said the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives. the court ruling does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control. the court ruling does not take away a person's religious freedom. in fact, all the court ruling does is say of the many people that are exempted from this law, we're going to find a way to

have people's religious rights upheld. in america, you shouldn't be forced to choose between giving up your business for your faith or giving up your faith for your business. the government has no right under the constitution, under the political heritage of the country, under the things that this country was built to stand for and designed to stand for, the government has no right to ask people to make that choice. and there are plenty of protections in the religious restoration freedom act that passed just a few years ago, that don't allow this to be taken to some unacceptable extreme. religious freedom has historically been a bipartisan issue. in fact, the law that the court based their decision on was introduced in the house by then-congressman chuck schumer, now senator schumer, who sits right over there, and the late

u.s. senator ted kennedy. they were the people that proposed this legislation. president clinton signed the bill into law. the vice president of the united states, joe biden, voted for the bill. the minority leader of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi, was a cosponsor of the bill. and this was just considered something that was easily done. it was unanimously passed in the house. it got three no votes. it was 97-3 in the senate. this was in 1993. it's not in 1893. this is a dozen years ago when the understanding was clear that there was a principle in our country that if you're going to violate that principle, you better have taken every step possible not to violate the principle of religious freedom. now, i think our, people on the side would say, well, it was only a handful of years ago when the bill pass passed but we

didn't know that's what it meant. of course they knew that's what it meant and one of the reasons they knew that's what it meant is it was totally understood at the time that this principle was a principle that the government would hold, would adhere to. and in fact, i'm going to submit in my remarks today without objection, i'm going to add into my remarks a couple of things i will not read. one is the specific language in the respect for rights of conscience act that i introduced in the 112th congress. plus the specific language that senator kennedy put in the health insurance bill of rights in 1997 that exempted the protected rdgesz faith. they -- religious faith. they use the words based on religious or moral convictions of the issuer, the issuer didn't have to do things they thought were wrong. senator moynihan in the 103rd

congress when he introduced the clinton health care package sometimes called hillarycare, here's what it said. nothing in this title should be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standards benefits package which excludes coverage for abortion or other services if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction. can't get much clearer than that. the government, according to senator schumer, when the religious freedom restoration act was introduced, said the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results in a rule of general reliability unless it states that one, it is in the furtherance of compelling governmental interest. or, two, is the least

restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. this is not the law, the affordable care act, that people aren't exempted from. in fact, every woman in america and every man in america that works for an employer who has fewer than 50 people is exempted from this act. their entire -- there are entire religious faith groups that are exempted from this act if they don't believe in government health care. there are waivers that the president has issued over and over again that exempt people from this act, many of which were employees of fast food restaurants and other places that had minimal packages but the president said we're going to exempt them at least for awhile. but the people who work with employers with less than 50 are exempted forever. there are millions of workers who work with workers under 50

than those who have a sincere faith-based interest in just not doing the wrong thing. a majority of people that go to, that worship in this country in a given week go to worship in a church where they say that this practice is wrong. taxpayer doesn't mean that it's illegal. it doesn't mean that anybody thats hears them or appreciates them can't do whatever they want to do. but it does mean that you can go easily to church and be told this is the wrong thing to be part of. the companies involved in the court case have a great tradition of following their faith. hobby lobby specifically starts people, if you have a, when you get a full-time job there your starting wage is $14 an hour, almost twice the minimum wage. you have to work a couple of hours to have the extra $10 a month that some of these particular medicines and procedures and birth control

pills would cost. they close on sunday. they close earlier at night than their competitors so people can have a family life. in fact, the government conceded that these were companies that clearly were sincere in their belief. so now if you've got millions of people who aren't even covered by the law, why can't you find a way to exempt people from providing a small portion of health coverage that they feel is the wrong thing to do. what does the government say? the government said, well, you have a way out. you just don't have the right insurance at all. if you're a employer of faith and you've wanted to do everything you could to provide the best benefit probably in excess of the government-required benefits in almost all areas that you want to provide, your choice is not to provide insurance at all. in fact, the suggestion was made that you'd actually save money by not providing insurance at all because it would only cost about -- it would cost $2,000

per employee not to provide insurance at all. that was the penalty in the law. and the government suggested that was probably a lot less than these companies were paying for insurance. why not just pay the penalty? you don't have to violate your faith. you can just violate your belief that your faith leads you to take special responsibility for your employees. and you could pay the $2,000 penalty and save money. while i'm on the $2,000 penalty, madam president, i would say that one of the egregious overreaches of what the government was trying to do here is if you don't provide insurance at all, your penalty is $2,000. if you don't provide exactly the insurance the government says you have to provide, whether you agree with it, faith-driven or otherwise, your penalty is $36,500 per employee. $36,500 per employee if you don't do exactly what the

government says. you could provide better insurance in every other area than the government says. you could provide insurance in areas the government didn't require you to provide insurance in. you could do anything you wanted to do beyond what the government says to do, but if you don't do everything the government says, you'd have to pay $36,500 per employee per year. if you don't provide insurance at all -- that was in the regulations. the law that the members of the house and senate voted for -- i wasn't one of them. i was against this law. but the members for the law said you would have to pay $2,000 if you didn't do anything at all, but the obama administration said you would have to pay pay $36,500 if you didn't do exactly what they said you would have to do. it is the wrong application of religious freedom. the idea that people couldn't have access to any

f.d.a.-approved product is just wrong. somehow that your employee can keep you from having access to anything you want to have access to that has been approved by the f.d.a. is wrong as the millions of women and men who work for companies who aren't covered under the law prove every day, prove every day. if you listen to our friends on the other side, you would think we would be driven backward. we're talking about on behalf of religious freedom, being driven back into the dark ages. the dark ages of december, 2013. when everybody that would buy a product in december, 2013, can buy that same f.d.a.-approved product today. this is about religious freedom. it's not about money. in fact, in the bill i proposed in the last couple -- last congress, i had a provision in that bill that a few democrats voted for the bill, more democrats voted for the bill than republicans voted against it. there was a bipartisan vote for the bill.

i had a provision in the bill that offers an amendment that said if the department of health and human services wants to, they can promulgate a rule that requires an employer to add a benefit of equal value for any benefit that the government doesn't -- requires that they don't want to offer. that's an easy way to say there is no economic motive at all. maybe the government doesn't require mental health coverage, and if you can offer that mental health coverage of equal value to something that your faith leads you to believe you shouldn't be part of, the bill that most democrats in the senate voted against had that provision in there. this is not about your pocketbook. this is not about what something costs. this is about whether or not the government's done everything possible to accommodate people's deeply held religious beliefs. the first freedom in the first sentence in the first amendment to the united states

constitution mattered when it was put in there, it mattered when 16 or so of the current members of the senate voted for the religious freedom act, it mattered when ted kennedy and senator moynihan put this exact same ability in the health care laws they proposed less than 20 years ago, and it matters today, and i hope that we move on to solving problems based on the real facts rather than continuing to talk about facts as my friends would like them to be rather than facts as they really are, and i would yield back. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. i rise in strong support of the protect women's health care from corporate interference act, and i want to thank my colleague, senator murray from washington, and my colleague, senator udall, from colorado for introducing this bill, and senator murray

for her long champion efforts on women's health. i'm very proud to support this bill. i guess i would say to my colleague who i know feels passionately about these issues that the issue is really how important prescription benefits are to women's health and particularly how important prescription birth -- contraception is to women and the fact that it's not an add-on to our health care. it's an essential part of our health care. so i hope it doesn't really take us getting a majority of women on the supreme court to convince people how central this issue is to the health care of women and why we don't want to deal with a boss who decides to say i don't want to cover that in your employee benefit package. so i hope that my colleagues get a chance to vote on this legislation because i think the supreme court ruled in this case two weeks ago that really set us on a slippery slope. in a 5-4 decision, they held

that corporations can deny contraceptive coverage for women who are their employees if the owner, if the owner professes a religious objection. so i know my colleague thinks well, why don't we just make this product more available so that women can pay an out-of-pocket expense for it. it's an essential part of women's health and should be part of an employee's package and not have to be something that she has to go and add on later. so this precedent by the court is a troubling precedent. the decision threatens access to critical preventative health services for women, and it opens the door for employers to deny other health care services just because of the owner's religious beliefs. now, many of my colleagues have been down here to the floor and have articulated how this is not about the religious exemption part of the affordable care act

that can be sought by churches and religious organizations. this is about employers who are corporations, so those exemptions for people who do have religious beliefs and don't want to offer these health care services are still preserved, but what is not preserved is a woman's ability to say to her employer why are you discriminating against me and my health care insurance that you're going to provide when you're not providing the full range of benefits for women? so as i said, it really is a slippery slope, and the question is how many other things are going to be thrown into this same area? well, i'm getting lots of letters. in fact, i have heard from several people from the northwest. in fact, this one individual wrote to me saying i'm terrified that the affordable access, affordable access, not an add-on, just because i am a woman and i work for an employer, now i have an add-on

health care because you're discriminating against what my health care services are. she said i'm terrified that affordable access to my medically indicated preferred method of birth control may be in jeopardy due to the recent supreme court decision. so yes, we're hearing from a -- lots of people that the decision imperils the ability of women to access evidence-based clinically effective contraceptive methods in their health care plans. and these are health care plans that they pay for through the hard wages in part of their benefit package when they sign on to work for a company. so we know that this is a vital component of health care and it helps women from everything from family planning to the reducing risks of ovarian cancer and other things, and so we want to make sure that these recommendations like the recommendations of the u.s. preventative services task force which says include productive

health care methods as preventative services, we want those services to be offered. as a result of those recommendations, about 675,000 women in washington state now have robust access to a set of 20 f.d.a.-approved contraceptive methods as part of a preventative services package. so these services are covered free of coinsurance, free of co-pays and free of deductibles. so now you're basically just saying because you're a woman and even though this is an essential part of health care, all of a sudden because of the supreme court decision, you might work for an employer that's going to ask you to pay for that instead out of your pocket. so i think this decision threatens real progress for our health care delivery system. we know this well because in washington state, employers denying women basic health coverage is not a new issue.

in fact, a woman in my state, many of them have been fighting for decades. in 1999, jennifer erickson was supervising as a pharmacist of bartel drugs in belle view, washington. upon starting her job, she learned that her company didn't cover one prescription that she needed, birth control pills, so she appealed to the company, asking them to cover that benefit. she was denied. so she went on to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the company's nonunionized employees. in a landmark ruling, the federal district court, judge robert glasnik, held that miss erickson had the legal right to access birth control under the civil rights act of 1964. what's more, the decision was based on a supreme court precedent. so unlike the district court, though, the supreme court has gotten this wrong, and the ruling is a dangerous precedent

to allow employers to deny other health care benefits just because the owner wants to proclaim that his religious beliefs doesn't want him to offer those coverages. as justice ginsburg said -- quote -- "with the exemption, the court holds that has been used on contraceptives based on religious grounds, would there be other examples like blood transfusions because they were a jehovah witness or antidepressants because they were a scientologist or medication derived from pigs including anesthesia and other things because certain other ethnic groups, muslims, jews or hindus, said that they didn't want to provide those services. so does it set us up to lots and lots of things not being covered by corporations simply because the c.e.o. or many owners of that company decide that it's in their religious beliefs not to

offer those important services. so it is very important that we vote to make sure that we speak on behalf of these women that are writing to us now, that we give them the kind of coverage for health care that they deserve and that insures that every employer who sponsors a health care plan has these same benefits included in the package. the good news is that for 60% of working women in washington state, they get their coverage through their employers, but we need to make sure that the employers, just because the c.e.o. all of a sudden now has become the judge on whether they want to cover important health care services, we have to make sure that we pass this legislation to protect those employees. so i hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and i thank the president and i yield the floor.

i would -- madam president, i ask that time during a quorum call be divided equally between both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you. madam president, i rise today to set the record straight. since the supreme court ruled on the hobby lobby case, a flood of misinformation has spread, distorting the true meaning of the court's decisions. we've seen misrepresentation of

the case, i think to divide the american people and i find these scare tactics very disappointing it's time to move away from the overheated rhetoric and it's time for us to discuss the facts. "the washington post" fact checker has systemically rebutted a series of misleading claims from my friends on the other side of the aisle. the fact checker concluded that -- quote -- "simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control, and does not take away a person's religious freedom. in other words, under this ruling no boss has the right to tell an employee that they cannot use birth control, and nothing in the decision, nothing, takes away women's access to birth control."

all women continue to hold the constitutional right that was first articulated in griswold v. connecticut to use contraceptives. the court's hobby lobby opinion reaffirms griswold and unequivocally states under our cases women and men have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives. discrimination based on gender continues to be illegal. employers may not punish, retaliate or discriminate against women who choose to use contraception. moreover, current privacy laws prevent employers from even asking if an employee uses birth control. the court went on to state that its decision provides no such shield against discrimination in

hiring. and employers cannot prohibit a woman from purchasing any form of contraception. moreover, women continue to have broad access to safe, affordable birth control. even before the affordable care act was passed, 28 states already had laws or regulations on the books to provide for contraceptive coverage. over 85% of large businesses provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. for women without such coverage, the u.s. department of health and human services administers five separate programs to ensure affordable access to contraception, including medicaid. the bottom line, all women continue to have the ability to purchase or use a wide variety

of contraceptives. it's both possible to stand tall for the principle of religious freedom and also to support safe access to birth control. the two are not mutually exclusive. the issue in hobby lobby is not whether women can purchase birth control, it's who pays for what. those of us who believe that life begins at conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy fertilized embassilyos. -- embryos. the green family, the owners of hobby lobby, they have similar objections. they don't do want to use their money to violate their religious beliefs. i think most americans would believe that that's reasonable. in fact, the greens offered

health coverage that pays for 16 out of 2420 forms of -- out of 20 forms of con is tra ception including birth control pills. the court narrowly ruled that the green's family decision was protected by the religious freedom restoration act a bill passed by democrat and passed with overwhelming support by the senate and the house of representatives. the law requires the government to show a high level of proof before it can inteer with the free -- interfere with the free exercise of religion. the court rules in this case the government failed to meet that burden. accordingly, it could not abridge the green family's legitimate religious views. while not all americans share these particular issues, i do

believe that all americans understand the importance of preserving religious liberty. indeed, our nation was largely founded by men and women seeking that religious freedom. madam president, the court's decision was a narrow one, applying only to closely held, mostly family-owned companies. some have suggested this ruling could open the door to objections over blood transfusions or vaccines. we heard similar fears when the religious freedom restoration act was passed over 20 years ago, and none of those fears have been realized. finally, i would like to state my strong support for the legislation that i introduced with senator kelly ayotte and

senator mitch mcconnell that reaffirms the dual principles of religious freedom and safe access to contraception for all women. rather than seeking to divide americans, our legislation brings people together around ideas that we all can support. and i would especially like to commend senator ayotte for her strong leadership on this issue. i've enjoyed working with her to push back against those misleading claims about that hobby lobby ruling, and ensuring that women across america know the truth. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i rise today to talk about the assault on women's health that has come from the majority on our supreme court in recent weeks. it's unfortunate and, frankly, shocking that in the year 2014, we are still debating the issue of access to birth control. but here we are. and millions of americans are looking to the senate today and counting on us to stand up for women's rights. they're counting on us to put health care back between a woman and her doctor. they're counting on us to stand up for millions of americans' access to affordable preventive health care of every kind.

they are counting on us to say that birth control is not your boss' business. in short, they're counting on us to right this huge wrong from the supreme court. and we have that ability to right this wrong. we have that ability here in this room. the court in its decision lays out a structure in which congress does have the power to overturn this misguided decision. the court based its decision on an act of congress, the religious freedom restoration act, and now congress can respond. congress can pass a new law that says that's not what the religious freedom restoration act was meant to mean. the court got it wrong, and we're going to make it right. we should all remember that the

act was set up to protect the religious choices of employees and the supreme court has stood that on its head. but for us to right the wrong, we have to be willing to debate. we have to be willing to go to the bill. we have to be willing to consider each others' viewpoints. listen to each other and we have to be willing to vote. but we can't get to the bill if the majority is thwarted by a minority which uses its filibuster power in a way never envisioned in the past, never utilized until recent history which is to prevent congress from actually debating bills. so let's all join together and say wherever you stand on this issue, this issue is important enough to debate, women's health care is important enough

to debate, access to contraceptive care is important enough to have that issue before this body so let's all say yes to debate this bill. the bill formally titled the protect women's health from corporate interference act, or as commonly known, the not my boss's business act. i hope that we'll all join collectively in saying that this is an important issue because it really is about women's access to fundamental health care. whether contraceptives are used for family planning or for painful medical conditions like endometriosis, birth control is essential health care for millions of americans. and while some are trying to say that this case has nothing to do with access to birth control, that is simply not true.

for most working families, affordability is access. without insurance, birth control can cost tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. a third of women in america say they have struggled with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. for a working family getting by month to month, often paycheck to paycheck, these costs, though they might be dismissed by washington pundits and even politicians here across the aisle, those costs add up and they can put contraception out of reach. a lack of insurance coverage can certainly make seven types of contraception totally unaffordable. as justice ginsburg noted in her dissent, the up-front cost of an i.u.d. is equivalent to nearly a month's wages for a minimum wage worker.

in the blue collar community that i live in in working america, a month's wages is a very big deal. not having insurance coverage equals not having access. and though our republican allies, colleagues would have you believe otherwise, this dangerous precedent could apply to all sorts of basic essential health care. what's to stop a boss from claiming a religious objection to action nations under the theory expounded in this decision? or from access to blood transfusions, or to surgery, or to h.i.v. and aids because all of those fit the same pattern in which various religions have a strong religious objection to those health care benefits. i'm not sure what's more

troubling, the path charted by five justices that allow a boss to trump essential personal preventive health care choices, or the court's notion that it's okay to single out women's health care in this decision. the bottom line is this -- the bill before us or that we would go to on the vote this afternoon, the murray-udall bill, it's about putting women back in charge of their own health care. women don't want politicians interfering in their health care. and they certainly don't want their bosses and c.e.o.'s interfering in their health care. bosses belong in the boardroom. they don't belong in the employees' bedrooms or their exam rooms.

let's send a message to all americans who are watching this body, this great deliberative body today that the senate is listening, that we hear the concerns of millions of women across this land, and that we're ready to put women back in charge of their own health care and get the bosses out of the exam. i urge my colleagues to voting "yes" to open debate on this bill. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these requests have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. alexander: i ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. whenever any americans -- american's religious liberty is infringed, every american should be concerned. religious liberty is a part of the american character. before our constitution was adopted, religious liberty was a part of the american character. it was the reason the first europeans settled on our shores. it was a great source of the american revolution. my scotch-irish presbyterian

ancestors came here to escape religious persecution from two churches, and when they came here, they objected to the fact that they had to pay taxes to support another church. so our very foundation as a country has in it the guarantees of religious freedom. that is why after the states created our constitution, the people came back and said, wait a minute, you forgot something. you forgot the bill of rights. and the bill of rights begins with the guarantees of religious liberty. theorem blaze inned on the wall at the n -- emblazoned on the wall of the newseum on the walls. they were the guarantees spoken by franklin roosevelt when he talked about world war ii and why we were fighting that great war. so whenever any american's religious liberty is trampled upon, every american should be

concerned. that's why i'm so disappointed today that senate democrats are proposing to carve a giant hole out of america's religious freedom. this is very different than what has consistently been the attitude in this body. 21 years ago the congress voted to pass the religious freedom restoration act, an act which reflects the american character as well as any other act that congress has passed. it created a very high hurdle for government to burden a person's religious belief. that legislation says that if the government is going to take an action that creates a burden on a person's faith, the government must prove that there's a compelling national interest and that that burden must be as light as possible. that bill passed nearly

unanimously. it became law nearly unanimously. with support from many here in the senate today, many on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this carveout for religious freedom. when he signed the law into bill, president bill clinton was eloquent. the president said, "we have all shared a desire to protect perhaps the most precious of all american liberties, religious freedom." that's president clinton talking. usually the signing of an act of legislation by a president is a ministerial act, he said, "often a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together," said president clinton, "to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished. but here we are today debating a democrat proposal to gut the law

that president clinton was describing. and require americans who own businesses to provide insurance coverage for any health care item or service that is required by federal law or regulation whether or not it violates the employer's sincere religious beliefs. so what has changed? on june 30, a few days ago, the supreme court of the united states found that the law meant what congress and the president it said did when it was enacted. they held that the federal government could not order the owners of a closely held company to violate the basic tenets of their faith. the company in question in this case, hobby lobby -- and having been a law student, i know that over time this will be known law schools across the country as the great case of hobby lobby because of its importance and because of its name. the company in question is owned by the greene family who have made their faith central to

their business. they close their stores on sunday. they refuse to engage in profitable contributions that facilitate or promote alcohol use. they contribute profits to christian missionaries and ministries. no one doubts those are sincerely held religious belie beliefs. the greene family's health insurance covers 16 of 20 forms of contraception. it does not cover four forms of contraception that prevent implantation of the embryo. employers are free to purchase those four forms themselves. the company in no way interferes with its employees' lives. it does not tell them what to do with their bodies. it does not tell them how to live their lives. it simply does not offer in the company's insurance plan coverage of the four forms of contraception that violate the faith of the owners of the business. now, obamacare regulations tried to mandate 20 forms of

contraception but recognizing that this violated the faith of those who believe in life at conception, they created carveout for several organizations -- catholic hospitals, for example. they could have created a similar carveout for closely held companies but they did not. so instead, the greene family and others were forced to defend their freedoms in court which fortunately ruled that the family was entitled to protection from the government's mandates under the religious freedom restoration act. this ought to have been a victory for everyone if it is true in our country that when any american's religious freedom is upheld, all of us benefit. but in 1993, the passage of the legislation was hailed as a momentous achievement of religious freedom. "new york times" editorialized in support of it. my friend, senator reid from nevada, now the majority leader,

said he was proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. it's a fine bill. the distinguished senator from new york, senator schumer, then a member of the house and the lead democratic sponsor, said, "this is a good movement for those of us who believe in the flower of religious freedom that so adorns america." but here we are today debating a bill that would fundamentally undermine that very act spoken of so eloquently by the democratic leaders in congress and by the democratic president of the united states. what has changed? if they are successful, an american who opens a business in this country will know that he or she will forfeit their right to religious freedom. that is not consistent with the american character. that is not the american way. why would democrats who felt so strongly about this in 1993 feel so differently today? why would they be willing to do such damage to the cause of

religious freedom they so ardently proclaimed? because charge the democrats charge thawrnd the supreme court decision, an employer's personal views can interfere with women's essential health services. they say that corporations can limit their employees' health care options and restrict their freedoms. madam president, that is not true. it is patently false. it is absurd. it is wrong. in the words of the "washington post" nonpartisan fact-checker lynn kessler, nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives. second, democrats need to be more