[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11955-11957]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROTECT WOMEN'S HEALTH FROM CORPORATE INTERFERENCE ACT OF 2014--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 
2578, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, a bill to 
     ensure that employers cannot interfere in their employees' 
     birth control and other health care decisions.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, there will be a period of morning business until 12 
noon today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 
minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the 
two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first 
half, the Republicans the final half.
  At 12 noon today the Senate will proceed to executive session and to 
a series of two rollcall votes on the following nominations: cloture on 
Norman C. Bay to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission and cloture on Cheryl A. LaFleur to be a member of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Following the second vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to 
allow for our weekly caucus meetings. If cloture is invoked on either 
of the nominations, the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3 p.m. will be 
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees. At 3 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation 
of the two nominations.


         Measures Placed On The Calendar--S. 2599 and H.R. 4718

  Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are two bills at the 
desk due for a second reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will read the bills by 
title for the second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2599) to stop exploitation through trafficking.
       A bill (H.R. 4718) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with 
respect to both of these bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The bills will be placed on the calendar.


                            FERC Nominations

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, later today, as I have just mentioned, the 
Senate will hold two rollcall votes to confirm nominations to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--Norman Bay and Cheryl LaFleur.
  I am aware of the important nature of these two nominations, and I 
realize that their confirmations have significant consequences.
  Upon her confirmation, Cheryl LaFleur will remain at the FERC as 
chair for 9 months. Following that period of time, Norman Bay will then 
assume the position of FERC chair.
  I appreciate very much the work done by a number of Senators to get 
us to the point where we are. The chair of the energy committee, 
Senator Mary Landrieu, has done really hard work, and it has been a 
bipartisan effort to move these nominations forward.
  I have been assured by both nominees that the issue which the Wall 
Street Journal editorialized about yesterday--and they called it ``the 
federal takeover of New York's electric grid''--will be addressed. I 
have spoken to both nominees, and they will take a hard look at that. 
When it came out yesterday, I directed attention to that, and that will 
be addressed by both of them, and they have said so.


                          Hobby Lobby Decision

  Mr. President, last week my friend, the Republican leader, 
essentially declared victory for American women in their struggle for 
equality by saying:

       We've come a long way in pay equity and there are a ton of 
     women CEO's now running major companies. . . . I could be 
     wrong, but I think most of the barriers [for American women] 
     have been lowered.

  The Republican leader seems to be suggesting the obstacles preventing 
women from receiving equal treatment under the law have been 
conquered--the struggle for equality for women is over.
  The only things missing from the Republican leader's declaration 
would be an aircraft carrier and a large ``MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'' sign 
hanging in the background. We all remember that. Remember, that was 
President Bush declaring the war in Iraq was basically over. Well, it 
was not. And the war regarding women is not over.
  The Republican leader suggested that the notion of ensuring equal 
rights for American women is tantamount to ``preferential treatment.'' 
That was his opinion. That is as shocking as it is troubling.
  The truth is, regardless of what Republicans in Congress may say, the 
barriers of inequality for American women are very real and very 
substantial. Take this as an example. There are many examples, but 
let's try this one: The Republican leader mentioned pay equity. 
American women are paid an average of 77 cents for every $1 their male 
colleagues make for doing the exact same work. It is not fair. But 
instead of working with Senate Democrats to give working women a fair 
shot at equal pay for equal work, Republicans refuse to even let the 
legislation be debated. This was one of their multitude of filibusters.
  The Republican leader also spoke of the growing number of women CEOs 
at major companies. Now try this one on: Currently, among Fortune 
Magazine's listing of the 500 top companies in the world, there are 24 
chief executives who are women. That is 4.8 percent of all the CEOs in 
the Fortune 500. If anyone believes--including my friend, the 
Republican leader--that fewer than 1 in 20 is good enough, this 
perfectly illustrates the Republicans' antiquated beliefs concerning 
working women and American women in general.
  But perhaps the most disturbing reminder of the inequality barriers 
that

[[Page 11956]]

women face is the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision. Just a 
few weeks ago, five men on the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporate bosses 
the right to interfere with their employees' decisions about birth 
control.
  In its Hobby Lobby decision, those five Justices ruled that for-
profit companies can assert religious objections to deny their 
employees--who may not share their same religious views--the 
contraceptive coverage required by law. That is what the Court said.
  The Court's decision was stunningly wrong. The Court's misguided 
decision effectively takes away the right of American women to decide 
their own health care, instead empowering boardrooms to make final 
decisions on their employees' access to birth control.
  How is it possible that in the 21st century we are debating whether 
or not bosses should be able to dictate their employees' family 
planning? It is 2014. It is not 1906 or 1907 or 1915.
  Health coverage is a form of payment or compensation for employees.
  There is a strike going on in New York--they are going to start 
Monday, I am told--for the largest short-haul railroad. Mr. President, 
300,000 people ride that every day. What is the big sticking point? It 
is health care. Health care is a big deal to everybody. Health care is 
a form of payment or compensation for employees. Should employers' 
religious beliefs be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck and 
your days off? Of course not. So why would we let bosses decide 
something so personal and so private as the use of contraceptives?
  Last week Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall introduced the Not My 
Boss's Business Act to fix the Hobby Lobby decision. This legislation 
would make it illegal for any company to deny their workers specific 
health benefits, including birth control, as required by Federal law.
  The Murray-Udall bill preserves the exemption for houses of worship 
and the accommodation for religious nonprofits that have religious 
objections to contraceptive coverage.
  The decision to use birth control is private--and it should be--and 
it should not be subject to the personal or religious beliefs of some 
corporate boss; otherwise, where is it going to end? As Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissenting opinion:

       Would the exemption . . . extend to employers with 
     religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions; 
     antidepressants; medications derived from pigs--

  And there are medications derived from swine that help people get 
well--

     including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated 
     with gelatin; and vaccinations?

  That is what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
  As Justice Ginsburg points out, the Court's decision is a very, very 
slippery slope. It opens the door to endless possibilities in which 
corporate boardrooms trump employees' health coverage.
  That is why I support this bill, which clearly establishes a woman's 
right to quality health care. By passing the Not My Boss's Business 
Act, the U.S. Senate can knock down a significant barrier to women's 
equality. Regardless of what Republicans in Congress will tell you, we 
have a long, long way to go before American women are equal in all 
aspects of the law, as they should be.
  The bill before us is a step in the right direction. It will help 
undo the damage done by the Supreme Court. But, more importantly, the 
Not My Boss's Business Act will help ensure American women have access 
to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to 
by law.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we hear the President is planning to 
spend the week calling for Congress to pass highway funding legislation 
that Congress is already planning to pass. It seems odd for the 
President to be focusing so intently on something that is inevitable 
while ignoring other issues that really should be addressed--issues 
such as ObamaCare.
  So many middle-class families in my State and across the country 
continue to suffer from the impact of this law. One thing that becomes 
increasingly clear with each passing day is the extent--the extent--to 
which ObamaCare is particularly hard on women.
  Research shows that women make about 80 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 and liked. When 
these women first spoke out about the betrayal they felt when they lost 
their plans, many of the law's supporters simply waved their concerns 
away or said they were making it up. They said they were lying or that 
their plans were ``junk''--because, of course, the critics knew better. 
It is a pattern that seems to have continued ever since.
  American women also now have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals 
under ObamaCare. The bill's supporters have continually waived those 
concerns aside too.
  Millions of Americans use flexible spending accounts to pay for out-
of-pocket health care expenses. But ObamaCare imposes arbitrary limits 
on how much of a family's own hard-earned money can be set aside, and 
the law also prevents people who have come to depend on FSAs from using 
them to pay for common expenses such as allergy medicine or cold 
medication.
  ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage and other regulatory actions 
could reduce the average benefit for women and men who rely on this 
program by more than $1,500 a year. Concerns such as these are all 
simply brushed aside by ObamaCare's supporters.
  Washington should also be looking for ways to grow economic 
opportunities for women, but ObamaCare, of course, does just the 
opposite. I have heard from businesses large and small in Kentucky that 
fear they will not be able to cope with the higher costs of coverage 
under ObamaCare. They do not want to cut hours for their staffs or 
eliminate jobs, but many may no longer really have a choice.
  Many of them are worried about new mandates that place millions of 
Americans--nearly two-thirds of them women--at risk of having their 
hours and wages reduced. One of my constituents from Somerset recently 
wrote to tell me what this new ObamaCare mandate has meant for her.

       I'm employed at a major chain putting these rules into 
     effect now. This is causing us to lose up to eleven hours per 
     week averaging $440.00 . . . [less] per month less in wages. 
     Obamacare [is] causing us to lose hours [and] lose wages, yet 
     expecting us to spend more.

  Let me repeat that. She says ObamaCare is causing her to lose 
hundreds of dollars a month in lost wages and at the same time causing 
health care costs to skyrocket. This is simply not right.
  Yet despite these terrible stories that keep pouring into our 
offices, the people who supported this law when it passed continue to 
defend it now. We kept warning them that ObamaCare would hurt jobs and 
increase costs. They had to know ObamaCare was going to reduce choices 
for women and limit their access to certain doctors and hospitals. But 
Washington Democrats voted for ObamaCare anyway. They created these 
problems. That is why they should be working with Republicans now to 
start over with real, patient-centered reform that lowers costs and 
that women and men in this country actually want, but of course they 
refuse. They are just doubling down on ObamaCare.
  Now they are trying to convince people of another untruth--that 
somehow it 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 doing this based on a claim 
that, in the words of the Washington Post's nonpartisan Fact Checker, 
is ``simply wrong''
  I realize Democrats may think the best way to keep people from 
focusing on the impact of ObamaCare on middle-class families is to just 
make things up and to attempt to divide us. Well, I think that is a 
shame. It takes a pretty dim view of what we are capable of as a 
country. The goal here

[[Page 11957]]

should not be to protect the freedoms of some while denying the 
freedoms of others; the goal here and always should be to preserve 
everybody's freedoms. We can do both. 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 herself. That is why we plan to 
introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any 
employee from legal access to her FDA-approved contraceptives. There is 
no disagreement on that fundamental point. The American people know 
that. They know Democrats are just attempting to offer another false 
choice. What we are saying is that of course you can support both 
religious freedom and access to contraception.
  Look, if Washington Democrats really wanted to help women, they would 
work with us to do so. We have been imploring them to work with us to 
deliver relief to middle-class women for years now, to work with us on 
a new approach to the health care law that is hurting millions of 
American women. It is not too late. Work with us to increase jobs, 
wages, and opportunity at a time when American women are experiencing 
so much hardship as a result of this administration's policies--
especially ObamaCare.


                             Bay Nomination

  I would like to voice my opposition to the nomination of Norman Bay 
to be a Commissioner of and eventually lead the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, or FERC. I fail to see what qualifies Mr. Bay to 
be Chairman of the Commission, especially when the Acting Chair of 
FERC, whom he would displace, is much more qualified to hold the 
position. Unlike most FERC Commissioners in the last decade, he has 
never served as a State utility regulator, he has never served on the 
Commission and does not possess the background in policy areas that 
FERC is charged with overseeing.
  In contrast to Mr. Bay, the current Acting Chair of FERC, Cheryl 
LaFleur, is much more qualified to hold the Chair position. Ms. LaFleur 
came to FERC with more than two decades of experience in the electric 
and natural gas industries, including roles as chief operating officer, 
general counsel, and acting CEO of National Grid USA and its 
predecessor. I find it shameful that this administration would seek to 
displace a well-qualified woman in favor of a male nominee with less 
experience.
  More importantly and of utmost concern to my home State, there are 
factors that lead us to believe Mr. Bay would reliably serve as a 
rubberstamp for this administration's extreme anticoal agenda. This 
agenda harms the people of Kentucky and is one I most strenuously 
oppose.
  As the current head of FERC's enforcement office, he has shown a 
history of targeting carbon-intensive businesses. Who is to say that if 
installed as the next head of FERC, he will not come after Kentucky 
businesses relying on the coal industry for electricity, which is 90 
percent of my State.
  Moreover, during his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee this past May, Bay cited his home State of New 
Mexico as an example of a real-life ``all of the above'' approach to 
energy. He mentioned his State's reliance on solar, wind, oil, and gas 
for its energy mix. Notably left out of this supposed ``all of the 
above'' approach, however, was any mention of coal--which, by the way, 
provides 70 percent of the electricity in New Mexico.
  For all of these reasons--because he is not qualified, because he 
holds an anticoal agenda, and because he will be only too willing to 
implement this administration's anticoal policy--I will be opposing 
Norman Bay's nomination to FERC. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________