[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12157-12171]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF RONNIE L. WHITE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                    THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Ronnie L. 
White, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Missouri.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:15 a.m. will be controlled as follows: 10 minutes for the 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley; 10 minutes for the Senator from Texas, 
Mr. Cornyn; 10 minutes for the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. 
Shaheen; and any remaining time under the control of the Senator from 
Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate will vote today to try to end 
the unjustified filibuster against Judge Ronnie White, who has been 
nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Missouri. Many Senators will remember Judge White from 15 years ago, 
when the Senate denied his confirmation by a partyline vote after an 
ugly campaign by Republican Senators to caricature him as a jurist who 
was soft on crime. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to reject that 
unjust characterization and confirm a well-qualified and principled man 
who has demonstrated his ability to be a fair judge and who is faithful 
to the law.
  Throughout his exceptional career, Judge White has been a trail 
blazer in the legal community. In 1995, he became the first African 
American to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court and later became the 
first African American to serve as its Chief Justice. He previously 
served for 2 years as a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals. Outside 
of his distinguished judicial service, Judge White has broad experience 
in the law, working in private practice as a partner in Missouri-based 
law firms both before and after his time on the bench, serving as City 
Counselor and Public Defender for St. Louis, MO and serving as a State 
representative in the Missouri General Assembly. He has been honored 
for his achievements and commitment to public service by organizations 
such as the Federal Defense Bar of the Eastern District of Missouri and 
the St. Louis branch of the NAACP.
  I supported Judge White when he was first nominated to the U.S. 
District Court and I support him now. In 1999, by the time the Senate 
voted on his nomination, Judge White had upheld the implementation of 
the death penalty 41 times as a state Supreme Court justice. Yet, then-
Senator Ashcroft of Missouri claimed Judge White was ``soft on crime'' 
and was ``the most anti-death penalty judge on the Missouri Supreme 
Court.'' These claims should have been easily dismissed years ago, and 
should be easily dismissed today.
  Judge White's nomination is supported by law enforcement, legal 
professionals, and the civil rights community. The elected President of 
the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police, Kevin Ahlbrand, wrote on behalf 
of his organization's 5,400 members: ``As front line law enforcement 
officers, we recognize the important need to have jurists such as 
Ronnie White, who have shown themselves to be tough on crime, yet fair 
and impartial. . . . We can think of no finer or more worthy nominee.'' 
I ask consent that this letter, and others, be made a part of the 
Congressional Record.
  Unfortunately, rather than admit that they made a mistake in voting 
against Judge White's nomination before, some Senators are now saying

[[Page 12158]]

they may oppose his nomination because in 2003 he joined the Missouri 
Supreme Court's majority opinion in Simmons v. Roper holding that the 
Eight Amendment prohibits the execution of individuals who commit a 
capital crime when they are under 18 years of age. In 2005, in Roper v. 
Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The criticism, I gather, is 
that Judge White's decision to join the majority opinion was contrary 
to then-existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. While I have heard some 
Members of the Senate criticize a nominee for having asserted a 
position that is ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, this 
may be the first time I have heard a nominee criticized for actually 
getting it right.
  At his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Senator McCaskill 
introduced Judge White as someone who ``continues to be a shining star 
to thousands of Missourians because of his career, which has really 
been emblematic of hard work, courage, dedication and service to public 
before self. . . . I can think of no one in the State of Missouri who 
is more deserving of this appointment to the Federal bench than my 
friend, Ronnie White.'' I thank Senator McCaskill for her leadership in 
recommending that President Obama nominate Judge White for this 
position.
  Today Senators have an opportunity to right a wrong. This chance is 
long overdue. I am confident Judge White will serve on the Federal 
bench with distinction, and with fidelity to our Constitution. I thank 
the Majority Leader for bringing this nomination up for a vote, and I 
urge my fellow Senators to vote to defeat this filibuster and to 
confirm this well qualified nominee without further delay.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                         Missouri State Lodge,

                                 Jefferson City, MO, May 13, 2014.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy, As the elected representative of over 
     5,400 law enforcement officers across the State of Missouri, 
     I am urging your committee to vote out the nomination of 
     Ronnie White for the open judicial seat in the U.S. District 
     Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
       We would then be hopeful that the Senate confirms his 
     nomination.
       We do not take such stances lightly. As front line law 
     enforcement officers, we recognize the important need to have 
     jurists such as Ronnie White, who have shown themselves to be 
     tough on crime, yet fair and impartial.
       As a former justice on the Missouri Court of Appeals and as 
     the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Ronnie White 
     has proven that he has the experience and requisite 
     attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S. District 
     Court.
       We can think of no finer or more worthy nominee.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin Ahlbrand,
     President, Missouri Fraternal Order of Police.
                                  ____

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2014.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights, we write to express our strong 
     support for the nomination of Ronnie L. White to be a U.S. 
     District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. As 
     one of Missouri's leading legal minds, Mr. White has devoted 
     his life to serving the citizens of Missouri. Throughout his 
     career, he has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to 
     enforcing the rule of law with objectivity, thoughtfulness 
     and impartiality, and he would be an outstanding addition to 
     the federal bench. We urge you to vote yes on cloture and yes 
     on his nomination.
       Mr. White is eminently qualified, as evidenced by the 
     ``Unanimously Qualified'' rating he received from the 
     American Bar Association and by his long career in service to 
     the public. After graduating from the University of Missouri-
     Kansas City Law School in 1983, Mr. White worked as a public 
     defender in St. Louis and served three terms in the Missouri 
     House of Representatives. In 1993, he was appointed as City 
     Counselor for the City of St. Louis; the following year, 
     Governor Mel Carnahan appointed him as a judge for the 
     Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals. In 1995, 
     Mr. White became the first African American to sit on the 
     Supreme Court of Missouri, and he served as chief justice 
     from July 2003 to June 2005. He retired from the bench in 
     2007.
       As a judge, Mr. White served with distinction on the 
     Missouri Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court, 
     gaining a reputation as a fair, intelligent jurist who 
     commanded the respect of his fellow judges. When President 
     Clinton nominated him in 1997 to a seat on the U.S. District 
     Court for Missouri, Mr. White received support from his 
     colleagues on the Supreme Court and many in law enforcement. 
     However, his nomination was defeated in October 1999 in a 
     disappointing party-line vote engineered by then-Senator John 
     Ashcroft.
       Mr. Ashcroft led a vigorous smear campaign against Mr. 
     White based on spurious claims about his record as a judge on 
     death penalty cases. For instance, the senator claimed that 
     White voted against the death penalty more than any other 
     judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. But the facts proved 
     otherwise. Of Mr. Ashcroft's seven appointees to the court, 
     four voted to reverse death penalty decisions more often than 
     Mr. White. In fact, Mr. White upheld the majority of death 
     penalty convictions that came before him as a judge, and in 
     the rare case in which he did vote to reverse, the majority 
     were unanimous decisions.
       Further, Mr. Ashcroft used false data and misleading 
     interpretations to solicit opposition from law enforcement 
     and to bolster his assertion that Mr. White was ``soft on 
     crime.'' Even so, two major law enforcement groups--the 
     Missouri State Fraternal Order of Police and the Missouri 
     Police Chiefs Association--endorsed White wholeheartedly and 
     refuted the ``soft on crime'' allegation. Carl Wolf, then 
     president of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, revealed 
     that Mr. Ashcroft had actively solicited opposition from law 
     enforcement groups and that any such opposition was not 
     spontaneous. It is worth pointing out that Mr. White's 
     current nomination has again garnered the endorsement of the 
     Missouri State Fraternal Order of Police.
       In the aftermath of the 1999 vote against Mr. White's 
     confirmation, many saw the vilification of him as unfair and 
     the charges against him unfounded. In ``The Smearing of a 
     Moderate Judge,'' Stuart Taylor of The Legal Times wrote: 
     ``In short, the record shows that Judge White takes seriously 
     his duty both to enforce the death penalty and to ensure that 
     defendants get fair trials. It suggests neither that he's 
     `pro-criminal' nor that he's a liberal activist. What it does 
     suggest is courage. And while White may be more sensitive to 
     civil liberties than his Ashcroft-appointed colleagues are, 
     his opinions also exude a spirit of moderation, care, and 
     candor.'' Ultimately, many in the media viewed the fight as 
     one of political expediency rather than of judging a 
     candidate on the merits. As the Washington Post wrote, ``This 
     vote was politics of the rawest sort. It was the politics of 
     an upcoming Missouri Senate race, in which Sen. Ashcroft 
     apparently intends to use the death penalty as a campaign 
     issue.''
       It is apparent that the opposition to Mr. White's previous 
     nomination was baseless and that he fell victim to political 
     posturing. The Leadership Conference believes Mr. White's 
     record makes him an exceptionally qualified nominee with the 
     ability to make objective decisions on the multifaceted and 
     prominent cases that will surely come before the court. His 
     impeccable credentials and the support he has garnered from 
     people across the political spectrum make him an excellent 
     choice for a federal judgeship on the U.S. District Court in 
     the Eastern District of Missouri. This malicious and 
     unwarranted attack on a unanimously qualified nominee must 
     not happen again.
       For these reasons, we urge you to vote in favor of cloture 
     and in favor of his nomination. Thank you for your 
     consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to 
     contact Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, at 
     Z[email protected] or Sakira Cook, Counsel, at 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       President and CEO,
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Executive Vice President.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


         Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here today to express my concerns 
with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case and 
the steps we are taking--hopefully, this week--to protect a woman's 
right to make her own health care decisions. I want to thank Senators 
Murray and Udall for their leadership on this issue and for introducing 
the Not My Boss's Business Act.
  I appreciate hearing from the Republican leader about their interest 
in supporting women's access to contraceptive care, and I hope that is 
something

[[Page 12159]]

we can all agree on. But the issue here is not just access to that 
care, it is the cost of that care. When you charge women more for 
contraceptive coverage, then you are denying them access to that care.
  The legislation that has been introduced by Senators Murray and 
Udall, and of which I am a cosponsor, will prevent employers from being 
involved in an employee's health care decisions and it will reverse the 
Supreme Court's decision.
  Throughout my career in office, I have fought to ensure that women 
have access to important contraceptive services and that women are able 
to make their own decisions about their health care with their doctors 
and with their families.
  In 1999, when I was Governor of New Hampshire, I signed into law a 
bipartisan bill that required insurance companies to cover prescription 
contraceptives--the issue we are debating right now. I signed that law 
with strong bipartisan support because both Republicans and Democrats 
knew it was the right thing to do. In fact, that legislation passed in 
the New Hampshire House with 121 Democratic votes and 120 Republican 
votes and 2 Independents.
  That law, passed in 1999, has now provided thousands of New Hampshire 
women with the ability to access the medications they and their doctors 
decide are right for them because they have that insurance coverage to 
pay for those medications. The Affordable Care Act also established 
that women would have access to prescription contraceptive services 
with no copays, just as New Hampshire did in 1999.
  Do you know what is interesting? We are having this debate about 
religious objections. Back in 1999 the legislature appointed a 
committee to look at whether there were any religious concerns about 
what we had done. They came back and reported that this was not an 
issue.
  A recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services 
reports that because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 30 million 
women are now eligible to receive preventive health services, including 
contraception, with no copays. In fact, since 2013 women have saved 
nearly $500 million in out-of-pocket costs because of the ACA's 
requirement to cover contraceptive care.
  The Supreme Court's decision has a real financial bearing on women 
and their families throughout the country because this ruling will have 
a profound impact on the health and economic security of women 
throughout this Nation. As noted by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in 
the Hobby Lobby case, when high cost is a factor, women are more likely 
to decide not to pursue certain forms of health care treatments that 
involve contraceptive care.
  There are many reasons why a doctor may decide to prescribe 
contraceptives for a woman's health care needs. Contraceptives can be 
used to treat a broad range of medical issues--hair loss, 
endometriosis, acne, irregular menstrual cycles. Contraceptives have 
also been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers. But just a few 
weeks ago the Supreme Court jeopardized that access to affordable 
preventive health care for too many women. As a result of the Hobby 
Lobby case, some employers now have the ability to claim religious 
objections as a justification for not providing contraceptive health 
care with no copay.
  I understand the host of issues employers face on a daily basis. I 
appreciate the complexity they face when they decide to offer health 
insurance coverage to their employees. For example, take Jane Valliere, 
who owns Hermanos Mexican restaurant in Concord, NH. I recently had the 
opportunity to sit down with Jane and to discuss the Hobby Lobby case. 
Jane made it clear that while she has many choices and decisions to 
make on a daily basis to keep her business running, she never expected 
to be put in a position where she could be responsible for making a 
health care decision for her employees at the restaurant.
  Like Jane, I do not think it makes sense for employers to make those 
personal, private health care decisions for their employees. Critical 
health decisions are simply not an employer's business. Where a woman 
works should not determine whether she gets insurance coverage that has 
been guaranteed to her under Federal law.
  While we do not yet know the full extent of the impact from this 
ruling, we do know the Supreme Court's decision turns back progress 
women across the country have fought for years to achieve.
  We must ensure that women have access to the health care services and 
medications they need. That means making them affordable, that they are 
able to make their own decisions about their care with their doctors 
and their families.
  Thankfully, we have an opportunity this week to correct the Supreme 
Court's shortsighted decision. This week the Senate can stand for women 
and pass the Not My Boss's Business Act. A woman's health care decision 
should be made with her doctor, with her family, with her faith, not by 
her employer and with her employer's faith. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, later we will be voting on a judge for 
the Eastern District of Missouri. I come to the Senate floor today to 
explain why, regrettably, I am unable to support the nominee.
  As my colleagues know, Justice Ronnie White was originally nominated 
by President Clinton during the 105th Congress. This body voted on and 
rejected his nomination in 1999. After careful consideration of his 
record, I voted against Justice White's nomination at that time. Since 
1999, Justice White completed a term as chief justice of the Missouri 
Supreme Court and has returned to private practice. So today I would 
like to revisit a few aspects of Justice White's legal and judicial 
career that first led me to vote against his nomination. I will also 
discuss developments since 1999. Unfortunately, his record since that 
time has only reinforced my concerns.
  First, I begin with some troubling aspects of Justice White's record 
during his days on the Missouri Supreme Court in the 1990s. I only need 
to point to a few cases to illustrate my concerns.
  In the 1998 Johnson case, Justice White was the sole dissenter on the 
State's high court. It was a capital appeal case involving a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was heartbreaking. The 
defendant shot four people to death--three Missouri sheriffs and one of 
the sheriffs' wives. The facts were stark and very clear-cut. This was 
not a close case.
  The defendant was convicted based upon the overwhelming evidence of 
his guilt. Justice White conceded there was more than sufficient 
evidence to sustain the conviction on appeal, but he went out of his 
way to create a standard that was not based on Missouri law when he 
evaluated the conduct of the defense attorney. Unsurprisingly, not a 
single member of the State court agreed with Justice White's dissenting 
opinion. That is because it was obvious there was no reasonable 
probability that anything the defense attorney did would have changed 
the outcome of the trial. That is the applicable legal standard. It is 
straightforward--very straightforward. In that case, every member of 
the State supreme court applied it correctly, except Justice White.
  Unfortunately, Justice White's dissent in that case was not an 
isolated example. On a number of other occasions throughout his 
judicial career, Justice White misapplied standards of review or 
considered issues that were not germane to the law when he was deciding 
cases. Justice White has even admitted as much. Discussing his judicial 
philosophy, he said in 2005 that he thinks it is appropriate for judges 
to let their opinions be ``shaped by their own life experiences.'' I 
think the personal characteristics of any judge--what this nominee 
calls his ``own life experiences''--should play absolutely no role 
whatsoever in the process of judicial decisionmaking. I know my 
colleagues on our Judiciary Committee share that view as well.

[[Page 12160]]

  Let me get back to the nominee's judicial track record. Justice White 
was the sole dissenter in another case that the Missouri Supreme Court 
decided in 1997. That case raised the question of whether the defendant 
was entitled to an additional evidentiary hearing. In his dissent, 
joined by none of his colleagues, Justice White again ignored a 
straightforward standard of review and wrote that the defendant should 
have the hearing because Justice White thought it would cause ``little 
harm.'' Here again we see Justice White's personal preferences creeping 
into what should be objective, law-based decisionmaking--something 
pretty elementary to being a judge at any level, Federal or State, in 
our system of jurisprudence.
  Those are just two examples of what led me, after consideration of 
the nominee's record as a whole, to vote against his nomination in 
1999.
  Unfortunately, my concerns about Justice White's first nomination 
have only been reaffirmed by his subsequent record. For instance, I am 
troubled by Justice White's concurrence in the Eighth Amendment case of 
Roper v. Simmons. That case was first heard by the Missouri Supreme 
Court, was appealed to the Supreme Court, and was eventually affirmed. 
But the affirmance is not what my colleagues should focus on. What 
should concern my colleagues is the opinion that Justice White 
concurred in, which ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. That 
precedent was the Stanford v. Kentucky case. I will explain.
  In 2003, when Justice White's court decided Roper, binding Supreme 
Court precedent at that time permitted applying the death penalty to 
individuals if they committed their crimes when they were under 18. 
Nonetheless, Justice White concurred in the State court opinion that 
simply ignored that precedent. Justice White concurred even though the 
Supreme Court had reaffirmed the Stanford principle twice in 2002, the 
year before Justice White's state court decision.
  Moreover, in 2003 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal raising legal 
arguments that were identical to the ones Justice White endorsed. That 
is the very same year Justice White's court ruled in Roper and ignored 
Stanford outright.
  My colleagues on our Judiciary Committee often ask nominees about 
their commitment to Supreme Court precedent and their faithfulness to 
the doctrine of stare decisis. Nominees who appear before us routinely 
repeat the mantra that they will unfailingly apply precedent and 
nothing else--in other words, leave out personal views. Justice White 
did as much at his hearing as well. But--and this is what I find so 
troubling--when I asked him about the Stanford case, he admitted that 
Stanford was, in fact, binding on his state court at the time he 
concurred in Roper. What he did not explain--what he could not 
explain--was why he ignored that binding precedent as a State supreme 
court justice. He could not explain why he thought it was appropriate 
for him to concur in a State court opinion that, in effect, overruled 
U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
  I do not doubt that Justice White has always done what he thought was 
right and that he ruled the way he thought best to achieve justice for 
the litigants before him. But in my view that is not 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. From the careful look I 
have taken at Justice White's 13-year track record as a judge, I have 
too many questions about his ability to keep his personal 
considerations separate from his judicial opinions.
  Finally, it is 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 I am wrong about Justice White, and I reluctantly 
vote no on the nominee.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Missouri Sheriffs' Association Training Academy and National Sheriffs' 
Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[From the Missouri Sheriffs' Association and Training Academy, May 10, 
                                 2014]

Missouri Sheriffs' Association Opposes Confirmation of Ronnie L. White 
                          to the Federal Bench

       On behalf of the 115 Sheriffs in the State of Missouri, the 
     Missouri Sheriffs' Association vehemently opposes the 
     confirmation of Ronnie L. White to the federal bench.
       Victims of crime, families of victims and law enforcement 
     deserve a better federal judge than Ronnie L. White. As we 
     explained to Senators Blunt and McCaskill last year, Ronnie 
     L. White proved himself an activist judge who sought 
     protection for criminals from punishment given to them by a 
     jury even in cases where criminals performed unforgiveable 
     acts of violence against our fellow citizens and law 
     enforcement.
       Ronnie L. White's actions and beliefs doomed his 
     confirmation in 1999. In 1999, fifty four Senators knew 
     Ronnie L. White was not the right person for the job based on 
     the merits of his decisions on the bench. Nothing has changed 
     since 1999 warranting Ronnie L. White's confirmation this 
     year.
       Senators who want to protect our citizenry from activist 
     judges like Ronnie L. White should vote against confirmation 
     just as was done in 1999.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 2, 2014.
     Hon. Claire McCaskill,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt: I write on behalf 
     of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and the more than 
     3,000 elected Sheriffs nationwide to express our support for 
     the efforts of the Missouri Sheriffs' Association to prevent 
     the nomination of Ronnie L. White to a federal judgeship in 
     St. Louis. The Missouri Sheriffs' Association was outspoken 
     in its opposition to Judge White's previous nomination by 
     President Bill Clinton and continues to be outspoken against 
     any further consideration to the federal courts. I 
     respectfully request that, as you examine candidates for the 
     federal judgeship in St. Louis, you carefully consider the 
     concerns presented by the Missouri Sheriffs' Association 
     regarding any judicial nomination of Ronnie L. White.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                 Michael Leidholt,
                                            Sheriff NSA President.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.


                             Border Crisis

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, I have spoken 
about the ongoing crisis on our southern border--the President has 
acknowledged as a humanitarian crisis--with tens of thousands of 
unaccompanied minors making a perilous journey from Central America and 
ending on our doorstep, most often in my State, the State of Texas.
  In this year, the numbers are skyrocketing again. Starting in 2011 we 
saw the numbers, roughly, about 6,000 unaccompanied minors. They 
doubled from 2011 to 2012, they doubled again from 2012 to 2013, and 
they look as though they are going to double again from 2013 to 2014. 
We can only wonder at 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, Guatemala, 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. Thus, the transnational criminal organizations, the 
cartels--the people who make money from transporting these children and 
other migrants across Mexico and the United States--have

[[Page 12161]]

discovered an effective business model. In other words, they are able 
to deliver these children to their families--at least the ones who 
survive--from Central America through Mexico and into Texas.
  The majority of them will make it, because they will be placed with a 
family member or some other relative, and never appear at the court 
hearing for which they have been notified to appear.
  For children detained from bordering nations such as Mexico or 
Canada, the process is different than it is from noncontiguous 
countries such as Central America. Border Patrol, under the 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, such as I witnessed in McAllen, TX, that have capacity for 
a few hundred people, but they are 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 are 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 are given a notice to appear 
before an immigration judge if they wish to make a claim for relief 
under our immigration laws.
  Those who show up will not see a judge, on average, for more than 1 
year--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 to 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 HUMANE Act. It would amend the William 
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 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 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. But 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 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 
HHS 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 such as 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 are a victim of human trafficking, you may be 
eligible for a T-visa. If you have a colorable claim to asylum, you can 
make that claim to an immigration judge under our legislation. But if 
you don't have a claim to relief under our current immigration laws, 
you will be returned safely to your home country.
  Tackling this crisis is a significant challenge that requires 
Presidential leadership. But, in the meantime, these children are 
sleeping in overcrowded cells, Texas communities are reeling from the 
impact, and we need action. With this legislation we try to target 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 as if the House of Representatives is probably going to be 
moving next week. I know there is a lot of controversy anytime we talk 
about circumstances such as this. Some people think it should be 
tougher, others think it is too tough to enforce current law. But the 
fact is, the drug cartels, the transnational criminal organizations, 
have created a business model based on a loophole they found 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 continue to see these numbers 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 every 
circumstance can qualify to come to the United States and stay. That is 
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.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is not often 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 Senate for a position on the eastern district court 
of the Federal bench in Missouri.
  At that time there was 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 percent of the time. 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 
percent of the time.

[[Page 12162]]

  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 is 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 in the Supreme Court after he was defeated on the 
floor of the Senate, retired from the Supreme Court, and has gone on to 
be an 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. I look 
forward to finally righting the wrong and allowing Ronnie White his 
well-deserved place on the Federal bench.
  I ask all my colleagues to support the confirmation of Ronnie White.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Claire McCaskill, Tim 
           Kaine, Angus S. King, Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Bill 
           Nelson, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Christopher Murphy, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Tom 
           Udall.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yes are 54, the nays are 43. 
The motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the time until 12:20 p.m. will be divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             Women's Health

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on an 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 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 beliefs 
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 actual person will be denied their rights because 
the views of a corporation have been given priority under the U.S. 
Constitution as interpreted by this Supreme Court.
  Instead of ``we the people,'' it is now ``I the CEO 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 have continued 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 are 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 their employer doesn't have to cover it 
or they say the ruling doesn't mean a boss is imposing his or her 
religious views on their employees. That is just wrong. It says that 
the boss doesn't have to subsidize health care that violates the boss's 
religious views.
  What happens when the religious views of a CEO 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 is part of their pay, and they depend on insurance to pay for their 
health care--including contraception--for themselves and their 
families. If that employer'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 is--just as 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 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 between an 
individual and their country.
  If a corporation's insurance doesn't cover any contraception because 
all contraceptives violate the employer's religious beliefs, then their 
employee's religious views are especially burdened, and she will have 
to pay for contraception out of her own pocket. Keep in mind that the 
average woman makes 77 cents on the dollar to a man, but if you are an 
African-American woman, then it is 66 cents on the dollar, and Latina 
women earn 59 cents on the dollar compared to what a white man makes in 
the United States of America.
  In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court transformed religion from 
a personal choice into a corporate decision, and the corporate world--
in real life--can impose its religious views on its employees. That is 
why I am an original cosponsor of S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health 
from Corporate Interference Act, or as supporters call it the Not My 
Boss's Business Act.
  Let's be clear. Corporations are not people, period. For-profit 
corporations

[[Page 12163]]

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 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 will protect employees from having their health care 
restricted by bosses who want to impose their religious belief on 
others.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to restore true liberty by voting to 
pass S. 2578. I thank all of my colleagues.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. This is a guarantee 
that Americans have enjoyed for the entire history of our country. It 
is the first freedom in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The 
first sentence has the words ``freedom of religion.''
  In the very recent past, the Congress of the United States voted for 
a bill that protected freedom of religion unless there was some 
extraordinary reason not to have freedom of religion in our country. It 
is important to try to maintain some sense of good humor and be willing 
to work with people on other issues. As it is, people come to the floor 
and just say the same things over and over 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. If we were 
dealing with the facts as they truly exist right now, this would be a 
much different debate.
  In fact, just a couple of days ago the Washington Post Fact Checker 
said that what the Senate Democrats are saying in their rhetoric is 
just wrong. He said: They are simply wrong. He said the court ruling 
does not outlaw contraceptives. The court ruling does not 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 
that although many people are exempted from this law, we are going to 
find a way to have people's religious rights upheld.
  In America you should not be forced to choose between giving up your 
business for your faith or giving up your faith for your business. 
Under the Constitution and under the political heritage of this country 
and the foundation this country was built on, the government has no 
right to ask people to make that choice. 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 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 Senator Ted Kennedy. They were the people who 
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--the 
vote was 97 to 3 in the Senate. This was in 1993, not 1893. This was a 
dozen years ago when the understanding was clear that there was a 
principle in our country that if you are going to violate that 
principle, you better have taken every step possible not to violate the 
principle of religious freedom. People on the other side would say it 
was only a handful of years ago when the bill passed and they didn't 
know that was what it meant.
  Of course they knew that was what it meant. One of the reasons they 
know that is what it meant is because they knew at the time that this 
principle was a principle the government would adhere to.
  In fact, 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 
Consumer's Bill of Rights Act in 1997 exempted the protected religious 
faith. It says that based on the religious or moral convictions of the 
issuer, the issuer didn't have to do things they thought were wrong.
  In the 103rd Congress Senator Moynihan introduced the Clinton health 
care package--sometimes called Hillary care--which said that nothing in 
this title should be construed to prevent any employer from 
contributing to the purchase of a standard 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. It can't get much clearer than that.
  According to Senator Schumer--when the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act was introduced it said the government shall not substantially 
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from 
a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates such a burden 
is, one, in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest or, 
two, is the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental 
interest.
  This is not a law--the Affordable Care Act--that people are not 
exempted from. In fact, every woman and man in America who works for an 
employer that has fewer than 50 people employed is exempted from this 
act. There are entire religious faith groups exempted from this act if 
they don't believe in government health care. There are waivers the 
President has issued over and over that exempt people from this act--
many of whom were employees of fast-food restaurants and other places 
that had minimal packages. The President said we are going to exempt 
them for a while.
  People who work for employers with under 50 employees are exempted 
forever until the law changes. There are millions more people who work 
for employers with under 50 employees than work for employers that will 
have a sincere faith-based interest in not doing the wrong thing.
  The majority of people who worship in this country in a given week go 
to worship in a church where they say this practice is wrong. It 
doesn't mean it is illegal. It doesn't mean anybody who hears them or 
appreciates them can't do whatever they want to do. But it does mean 
you can easily go to church and be told this is the wrong thing to be a 
part of.
  The companies involved in the court case have a great tradition of 
following their faith. When you get a full-time job at Hobby Lobby, 
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, procedures, and birth control pills 
would cost. They are closed on Sunday. They close earlier at night than 
their competitors so people who work there can have a family life. In 
fact, the government conceded these were companies that were clear in 
their belief.
  Now, if you have millions of people who are not 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 did the government say? The government said: Well, you have a way 
out; you don't have to provide insurance at all. So if you are an 
employer of faith and you want to do everything you can to provide the 
best benefit--probably in excess of the government-required benefits in 
almost all areas you want to provide--your choice is to not provide 
insurance at all.
  In fact, the suggestion was made that they would save money by not 
providing insurance at all because it

[[Page 12164]]

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.
  They said: Why not just pay the penalty? You don't have to violate 
your faith. You can just violate your belief to take special 
responsibility for your employees. You can pay the $2,000 penalty and 
save money.
  While I'm on the $2,000 penalty, I will say that one of the egregious 
overreaches of what the government was trying to do here is to say if 
you don't provide insurance at all, your penalty is $2,000. If you 
don't provide the exact insurance the government says you have to 
provide--whether it is based on your faith or otherwise--your penalty 
is $36,500 per employee.
  You can provide better insurance in every other area than what the 
government says, you can provide insurance in areas that the government 
didn't even require you to provide insurance, you can do anything you 
want to do beyond what the government says to do, but if you don't do 
everything the government says, you have to pay $36,500 per employee 
per year. And that was in the regulation.
  That is the law that Members of the House and Senate voted for. I was 
not one of them. I was against this law. But the law said you have to 
pay $2,000 if you don't do anything at all. But the Obama 
administration said you have to pay $36,500 if you didn't do exactly 
what they said you have to do. It is the wrong application of religious 
freedom. The idea that people could not have access to any FDA-approved 
product is just wrong. Somehow if your employer can keep you from 
having access to anything you want to have access to that has been 
approved by the FDA is wrong as the millions of women and men who work 
for companies who aren't covered under the law prove every day. They 
prove it every day. If we listen to our friends on the other side, one 
would think we would be driven backward--we are talking about on behalf 
of religious freedom, being driven back into the dark ages of December 
2013--when everybody who could buy a product in December of 2013 can 
buy that same FDA-approved product today.
  This is about religious freedom. It is not about money. In fact, this 
bill proposed in the last Congress--I had a provision in that bill that 
a few Democrats voted for--more Democrats voted for the bill than 
Republicans voted against it. There was bipartisan support for the 
bill. I offered 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 the government 
requires that they don't want to offer. That is an easy way to say 
there is no economic motive at all. Maybe the government doesn't 
require mental health coverage, and if an employer can offer that 
mental health coverage of equal value to a benefit the employer's faith 
prohibits being a part of--the bill that most Democrats in the Senate 
voted against had that provision in there.
  This is not about our pocketbooks. This is not about what something 
costs. This is about whether the government has done everything 
possible to accommodate people's deeply held religious beliefs. The 
first freedom in the first sentence in the First Amendment to the U.S. 
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.
  I hope 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.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
Protect Women's Health Care from Corporate Interference Act.
  I thank my colleague Senator Murray from Washington and my colleague 
Senator Udall from Colorado for introducing this bill and Senator 
Murray for her long championed efforts on women's health. I am 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 
contraception is to women and the fact that it is not an add-on to our 
health care but, rather, 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 employee benefit 
packages.
  I hope I and my colleagues will get a chance to vote on this 
legislation because I think the Supreme Court's ruling in this case 2 
weeks ago really set us on a slippery slope. In a 5-to-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.
  I know my colleagues think, why don't we just make this product more 
available so that women can pay an out-of-pocket amount for it?
  It is an essential part of women's health and should be part of an 
employee's package and should not have to be a component she has to add 
on later.
  This precedent by the Court is a troubling precedent. The decision 
threatens access to critical preventive 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.
  Many of my colleagues have come to the floor and 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 are going to provide when you are 
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?
  I am getting a lot of letters. I have heard from several people from 
the Northwest. In fact, this one individual wrote to me saying, ``I am 
terrified that 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 because you are discriminating against what my health care 
services are. She said, ``I am 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 are hearing from a lot of people that the decision 
imperils the ability of women to access evidence-based, clinically 
effective contraceptive methods in their health care plans. These are 
health care plans they pay for through their hard-earned wages as part 
of their benefit package when they sign on to work for a company.
  We know this is a vital component of health care, and it helps women 
with everything from family planning to reducing risks of ovarian 
cancer and other medical conditions. So we want to make sure these 
recommendations, such as the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force, which says to include reproductive health care 
methods as preventive 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 FDA-approved contraceptive 
methods as part of a preventive services package. These services

[[Page 12165]]

are covered free of coinsurance, free of copays, and free of 
deductibles.
  Now we are basically saying that because a person is a woman and even 
though this is an essential part of health care, all of a sudden, 
because of the Supreme Court decision, a woman might work for an 
employer who is going to ask her to pay for that instead out of her own 
pocket.
  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, women in my State have been fighting for decades.
  In 1999 Jennifer Erickson was supervising as a pharmacist at Bartell 
Drugs in Bellevue, WA. 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. 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 Lasnik--held that Ms. Erickson 
had the legal right to access birth control under the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964. What is more, the decision was based on a Supreme Court 
precedent.
  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 don't want him to offer those 
coverages.
  As Justice Ginsburg said, would the exemption the Court holds that 
has been used on contraceptives based on religious grounds--would there 
be other examples, such as blood transfusions because they are a 
Jehovah's Witness or antidepressants because they are a Scientologist 
or medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia and other 
things, because certain other ethnic groups--Muslims, Jews, or Hindus--
said they didn't want to provide those services?
  Does it set us up for a lot of medical necessities not being covered 
by corporations simply because the CEO or many owners of that company 
decide it is in their religious beliefs not to offer those important 
services?
  It is very important that we vote to make sure we speak on behalf of 
these women who are writing to us now, that we give them the kind of 
coverage for health care they deserve and that ensures every employer 
who sponsors a health care plan has these same benefits included in the 
package.
  The good news is that 60 percent of working women in Washington State 
get their coverage through their employers. But we need to make sure 
the employers--just because the CEO all of a sudden has now become the 
judge of whether they want to cover important health care services, we 
have to make sure we pass this legislation to protect those employees.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I ask that the time during 
the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. 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 decision. We have seen a misrepresentation of the case, I think 
to divide the American people, and I find these scare tactics very 
disappointing.
  It is time to move away from the overheated rhetoric and it is time 
for us to discuss the facts. The Washington Post Fact Checker has 
systematically rebutted a series of misleading claims from my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. The Fact Checker concluded that, 
``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. 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. An employer cannot prohibit 
a woman from purchasing any form of contraception. Moreover, women can 
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 percent 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 is 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 is 
who pays for what. Those of us who believe that life begins at 
conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy 
fertilized embryos.
  The Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, have similar objections. 
They do not want to use their money to violate their religious beliefs. 
I think most Americans would believe that is reasonable. In fact, the 
Greens offered health coverage that pays for 16 out of 20 forms of 
contraception, including birth control pills.
  The Court narrowly ruled that the Green family's decision was 
protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill led by 
Democrats and passed with overwhelming support by both the Senate and 
the House of Representatives. The bill requires the government to show 
a high level of proof before it can interfere with the free exercise of 
religion. The Court ruled that 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 views, I do believe 
all Americans understand the importance of preserving religious 
liberty. Indeed, our Nation was largely founded by men and women 
seeking that religious freedom. The Court's decision was a narrow one, 
applying only to closely held, mostly family-owned companies. Some have 
suggested the 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. None of those 
fears have been realized.
  Finally, I would like to state my strong support for the legislation 
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. I would 
especially like to commend Senator Ayotte for her strong

[[Page 12166]]

leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with her to push back 
against those misleading claims about the Hobby Lobby ruling and 
ensuring that women across America know the truth.
  I yield the floor.
  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 a majority of our Supreme Court in 
recent weeks. It is unfortunate and frankly shocking that in the year 
2014 we are still debating the issue of access to birth control. But 
here we are. Millions of Americans are looking to the Senate today and 
counting on us to stand for women's rights. They are counting on us to 
put health care back between a woman and her doctor. They are counting 
on us to stand 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's business.
  In short, they are counting on us to right this huge wrong from the 
Supreme Court. 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. Now Congress can respond. 
Congress can pass a new law that says: That is not what the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act was meant to mean. The Court got it wrong. We 
are going to make it right. We should all remember that the act was set 
up to protect the religious choices of employees. 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 other's viewpoints, listen to each other. We have to be willing to 
vote. But we cannot 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 has prevented 
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 is formally titled The Protect Women's 
Health from Corporate Interference Act or, as it is commonly known, the 
Not My Boss's Business Act.
  I hope we will all join collectively in saying 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 such as endometriosis, birth control is 
essential health care for millions of Americans. While some are trying 
to say 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. One-third of women in America say they have struggled 
with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. For 
working families, 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, add up. They can 
put contraception out of reach.
  A loss of insurance coverage can certainly make certain types of 
contraception totally unaffordable. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her 
dissent, the upfront cost of an IUD is equivalent to nearly a month's 
wages for a minimum wage worker. In the blue-collar community I live 
in, in working America, a month's wage is a very big deal.
  Not having insurance coverage equals not having access. Although our 
Republican colleagues would have you believe otherwise, this dangerous 
precedent could apply to all sorts of basic, essential health care. 
What is to stop a boss from claiming a religious objection to 
vaccinations under the theory espoused in this decision or from access 
to a blood transfusion or to surgery or to HIV and AIDS, because all of 
those fit the same pattern in that various religions have a strong 
religious objection to those health care benefits.
  I am not sure what is more troubling, the path charted by five 
Justices that allows a boss to trump essential personal, preventive 
health care choices or the Court's notion that it is okay to single out 
women's health care in this decision.
  The bottom line is this: The bill before us that we would go to on 
the vote this afternoon, the Murray-Udall bill, is about putting women 
back in charge of their own health care. Women do not want politicians 
interfering in their health care. They certainly do not want their 
bosses and CEOs interfering in their health care. Bosses belong in the 
boardroom. They do not belong in 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 are ready to put women back in charge of their own health care 
and get the bosses out of the exam rooms.
  I urge my colleagues to join in voting yes to open debate on this 
bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, whenever any Americans' religious 
liberty is infringed, every American should be concerned. Religious 
liberty is a part of the American character. Before our Constitution 
was adopted, religious freedom 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 
paying 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.
  The Bill of Rights begins with guarantees of religious liberty. They 
are emblazoned on the wall at the Newseum at the corner of Pennsylvania 
Avenue and 6th, the guarantees of liberty. They were spoken by 
President 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 is why I am so disappointed 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. Twenty-one years ago 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 beliefs.
  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 there is a compelling national interest and that burden must be 
as light as possible.
  That bill passed nearly unanimously. It became law nearly 
unanimously, with support from many in the Senate today, many on the 
other side of the aisle who are supporting this carve-out for religious 
freedom.
  When he signed the bill into law, President Bill Clinton was eloquent 
and said:

       We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the 
     most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.


[[Page 12167]]


  President Clinton continues:

       Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a 
     ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent 
     legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic 
     quality because of our ability together 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 debating a Democratic proposal to gut the law 
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, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the law 
meant what Congress and the President said it did when it was enacted.
  They held that the Federal Government could not order the owners of a 
closely held corporation 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 in law schools 
across the country as the great case of Hobby Lobby because of its 
importance and because of its name--is owned by the Green family, who 
make their faith central to their business. They close their stores on 
Sunday. They refuse to engage in profitable transactions that 
facilitate or promote alcohol use. They contribute profits to Christian 
missionaries and ministries.
  No one doubts those are sincerely held religious beliefs. The Green 
family offers health insurance which covers 16 of 20 forms of 
contraception. It does not cover four forms of contraception that 
prevent implantation of the embryo but employees 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 for the four forms of contraception that 
violate the faith of the owners of the business.
  Obamacare regulations tried to mandate 20 forms of contraception, but 
recognizing this violated the beliefs of those who believe in life at 
conception, they created a carve-out for several organizations, 
Catholic hospitals for example. They could have created a similar 
carve-out for closely held companies, but they did not.
  Instead, the Green 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.
  In 1993, the passage of the legislation was hailed as a momentous 
achievement of religious freedom. The New York Times editorialized in 
support of it. My friend Senator Reid from Nevada--now the majority 
leader--said:

       I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. 
     I congratulate the authors and the committee for creating a 
     fine bill.

  The distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer--then a Member 
of the House and the lead Democratic sponsor--said: ``This is a good 
moment for those of us who believe in the flower of religious freedom 
that so adorns America. . . . ''
  But here we are debating a bill that would fundamentally undermine 
that very act spoken of so eloquently by the Democratic leaders of 
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 proclaim? Because the 
Democrats ``believe they have a powerful campaign weapon'' in this 
issue, according to a report in Politico.
  The Democrats charge that under the Supreme Court decision, an 
employer's personal views can interfere with women's access to 
essential health care services.
  They say that under this decision corporations can limit their 
employees' health care options and restrict their freedoms. That is not 
true. It is patently false. It is absurd. It is wrong.
  In the words of the Washington Post's nonpartisan Fact Checker Glenn 
Kessler:

       Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from 
     getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives . . .

  Second, the Fact Checker says:

       Democrats need to be more careful in their language about 
     the ruling. All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that 
     are not warranted by the facts at hand. 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.

  Today, women have the same rights they did before Obamacare--at least 
in terms of religious freedom. The Supreme Court decision did nothing 
to change or alter a woman's ability to access birth control or other 
contraceptive care.
  Hobby Lobby's insurance today already covers 16 of 20 forms of 
contraception for the company's employees. A Hobby Lobby employee who 
wishes to use a drug or device not covered by the company's insurance 
is in no way prohibited from purchasing it. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby 
decision prevents a woman from making her own decisions about 
contraception. The only effect of the decision is that certain 
employers cannot be forced to include it in their insurance coverage 
against their religious objections.
  The Supreme Court decision covered certain closely held, for-profit 
companies--meaning they are controlled by five or fewer individuals--
where the owners have sincere religious beliefs. The Court's decision 
does not mean all Americans of faith who own businesses and ask for 
religious exemption from a general law will receive that exemption.
  The Court's decision does not mean employers will be able to use the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a reason to refuse to cover 
critical health services, such as vaccines, blood transfusions, and HIV 
treatment. In fact, such fears were raised by opponents of the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act before it became law in 1993. The 
Democrats didn't believe those objections then, and they shouldn't 
believe them now because 21 years later these doomsday predictions have 
not come true. Courts are well-equipped to dispel spurious or frivolous 
claims.
  I think the Democrats know all of this. I think they are just trying 
to win an election.
  This Supreme Court decision was about individual freedoms that do not 
disappear if you decide to open a business. It was not about 
contraceptive rights.
  What is really happening is my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are trying to change the subject. They want to talk about health care, 
but they don't want to talk about Obamacare and what it is doing to the 
women of this country. Let me tell a story that gives an example of 
what it is that really concerns me.
  First, what concerns me is the destruction of anyone's religious 
freedom.
  While we are talking about women and health care, let me talk about 
Emilie of Lawrenceburg, TN. She is 39 years old. She came to see me. 
She has lupus. Under Tennessee's laws, she had an insurance policy 
granted by something called CoverTN. It was created by our then-
Democratic Governor and Blue Cross. It gave her the policy she needed 
at a cost of about $50 a month. When Obamacare arrived, it canceled 
Emilie's policy. She went on the exchange to try to replace it, 
according to Washington's wisdom.
  This is Emilie. This is a real woman in Tennessee who is really hurt 
by the Obamacare law. We should be talking

[[Page 12168]]

about her. This is what she wrote to me:

       I cannot keep my current plan because it doesn't meet the 
     standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty. CoverTN has 
     been a lifeline [for me]. . . . With the discontinuation of 
     CoverTN, I am being forced to purchase a plan through the 
     Exchange. . . . My insurance premiums alone will increase a 
     staggering 410 percent. My out-of-pocket expenses will 
     increase by more than $6,000 a year--that includes subsidies. 
     Please help me understand how this is ``affordable.''

  Here is an American woman who has been hurt by ObamaCare. She lost 
her policy--a policy that she could afford, that fit her health care 
needs and her budget--but all of the wise people in Washington said: 
This is the policy you need. So she got the policy Obamacare says she 
should have, and her insurance premiums went up to approximately $400 a 
month, and she got an insurance policy that does not fit her budget and 
does not fit her health care needs. She is the one who has been hurt.
  Unfortunately, Emilie is not the only one experiencing rate shock. 
Millions of Americans are losing their insurance plans. They are being 
forced to buy new plans, many of them with higher premiums, many with 
higher deductibles, many of them with coinsurance.
  Let me talk about a Tennessee woman whose name is Carol, a single mom 
with a son starting at Austin Peay University in the fall. She is an 
office administrator in an office that used to have CoverTN insurance 
that cost less than $100 a month in premiums and covered all of her 
health care needs. Carol said:

       Now, thanks to Obamacare, I must pay over $300 per month 
     [compared to $100 a month] in insurance premiums for a policy 
     that has a $2,500 deductible and a $4,000 out of pocket 
     limit.

  If we want to talk about a war on women, let's talk about the war on 
Emilie and Carol in Tennessee and millions of other women who are hurt 
by ObamaCare. Carol earns too much to qualify for a subsidy, so now she 
puts a big chunk of her income toward her premiums--such a big chunk 
that now she can't afford to help pay for her son's education.
  These are the kinds of stories all of us hear from people who are 
being harmed by Obamacare. These are the kinds of stories our friends 
on the other side don't want repeated, so they even go so far as to 
bring up carving big chunks out of America's character by trampling on 
religious freedom--the freedom that is talked about in the First 
Amendment.
  We have proposals to help Americans like Carol and Americans like 
Emilie. We have offered them on the Senate floor repeatedly since 2010 
when the ObamaCare law was passed. They would move our country in a 
different direction toward health care as rapidly and as responsibly as 
we could go--a direction toward more freedom, more choices, and lower 
costs for Emilie and Carol and for millions of women and millions of 
men and millions of younger people across this country.
  Our bills would allow Americans to keep more of their insurance 
plans, as the President promised.
  Our bills would allow people to buy insurance in another State if it 
fits their budget and fits their needs. Let's say Emilie, who has 
lupus, finds a policy regulated in Kentucky that fits her budget and 
fits her needs. We would allow Emilie to buy that.
  We would allow small business employers to combine purchasing power 
with other employers and offer their employees lower cost insurance. 
More freedom, more choices, lower costs.
  We would allow Americans to buy a major medical plan to insure 
themselves against a catastrophe--today, some Americans can, but under 
Obamacare all Americans cannot--buy a major medical plan to insure 
against catastrophe--that is what a lot Americans would like to do--and 
then open a health savings account that is expanded to pay for everyday 
health expenses. More freedom, more choices, lower costs.
  We would like to repair the damage Obamacare has done. We would like 
to prevent future damage. Republicans want to move in a different 
direction that provides more freedom, more choices, lower costs. We 
trust Americans to make decisions for themselves. That is the American 
way. That is what we believe in. Religious freedom and health care 
freedom--that is the American way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the article from the Washington Post by the Fact Checker.
  In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an 
excellent editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed by two 
of my colleagues, the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Nebraska, Senators Ayotte and Fischer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From The Washington Post--Fact Checker, July 14, 2014]

  Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ``Misspeaks'' ``Opinion'' and Overheated 
                                Rhetoric

                           (By Glenn Kessler)

       ``Really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys 
     who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let's 
     not even go there.''--Houe Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-
     Calif.), at her weekly news conference, on July 10.
       In the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling that, as a 
     closely held company, Hobby Lobby was not required to pay for 
     all of the birth-control procedures mandated by the 
     Affordable Care Act, Democrats have rushed to condemn the 
     court. But in some cases the rhetoric has gotten way ahead of 
     the facts.
       Here's a round-up of some of the more noteworthy claims. In 
     some cases, lawmakers concede that they make a mistake; in 
     others, they are argue that they are offering what amounts to 
     opinion, even though the assertion was stated as fact.
       Statements on Supreme Court cases are notoriously difficult 
     to fact check because rulings are open to interpretation--and 
     the full impact is often difficult to judge until lower 
     courts begin to react to the ruling. Both Democrats and 
     Republicans use adverse Supreme Court rulings to rally their 
     respective bases, but lawmakers have a responsibility not to 
     succumb to overheated and inaccurate rhetoric.
       Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from 
     getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives, but 
     that salient fact is often lost as lawmakers jump to 
     conclusions that the cost will be prohibitive. That may or 
     may not be the case depending on circumstances. Moreover, it 
     is worth remembering that when the Affordable Care Act was 
     passed, 28 states already had laws or regulations that 
     promote insurance coverage for contraception. The law sought 
     to extend that across the country--and even with this ruling, 
     that will remain the case for the vast majority of workers.
       ``Really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys 
     who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let's 
     not even go there.''--Pelosi
       This is a very odd statement from the House Democratic 
     leader, given that the majority opinion flatly states that 
     ``under our cases, women (and men) have a constitutional 
     right to obtain contraceptives,'' citing the 1965 ruling in 
     Griswold v. Connecticut, which under the right to privacy 
     nullified a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
       Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesman, acknowledged that she 
     ``misspoke.'' ``Obviously the impact of the court's decision 
     is not to make these four contraceptive methods illegal--i.e. 
     no longer allowed to be sold'', he said. ``But the overriding 
     point here is that the decision does in fact limit access, 
     which is the key point Pelosi made.''
       Hammill cited Justice Ruth Ginsburg's dissent that women 
     have a compelling interest in being able to plan their 
     pregnancies and that they need reliable birth control.
       Later, in the same news conference, Pelosi decried that 
     ``five men could get down to specifics of whether a woman 
     should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or 
     her boss.''
       Hobby Lobby involved the owners' objection to four types of 
     birth control but not diaphragms, but here Pelosi adhered 
     closer to the essence of the case (and a related temporary 
     injunction the court awarded to Wheaton College): the 
     question of who

[[Page 12169]]

     should pay for contraceptives. (The court also vacated a 
     decision by an appeals court that had ruled against a 
     Michigan company that objected to providing any 
     contraceptives under its employee health plan, so that would 
     include diaphragms.)
       Ginsburg's dissent pointed out that it costs $1,000 for the 
     office visit and insertion procedure for intrauterine devices 
     (IUDs)--``nearly the equivalent to a month's full-time pay 
     for workers earning the minimum wage.''
       Our colleagues at PolitiFact gave Pelosi a rating of 
     ``false'' for her comments, and we certainly agree, though we 
     generally do not award Pinocchios when politicians fess up to 
     a mistake.
       Still, we note that despite her office's admission of a 
     mistake, the transcript of the news conference had not yet 
     been corrected three days later. ``It will be,'' Hammill 
     said. ``We're migrating to a new site in the next two weeks, 
     so everything is a little slow.''
       ``The one thing we are going to do during this work period, 
     sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are 
     not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby 
     decision is outrageous, and we are going to do something 
     about it.''--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), 
     remarks to reporters, on July 8
       The Hobby Lobby decision was written by Justice Samuel 
     Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices 
     Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. That's 
     certainly five men, but Thomas is African American.
       ``That was a mistake, and he knew it right away,'' 
     spokesman Adam Jentleson said. He noted that on other 
     occasions Reid has simply said ``five men.'' (The four 
     dissenters included three women.)
       ``This is deeply troubling because you have organized 
     religions that oppose health care, period. So if you have an 
     employer who is a member of an organized religion and they 
     decide, you know, I wouldn't provide health care to my own 
     family because I object religiously, I'm not going to allow 
     any kind of health-care treatment.''--Rep. Debbie Wasserman 
     Schultz (Fla.), Democratic National Committee chair, 
     appearing on MSNBC, June 30
       While there are some religions that object to certain 
     medical procedures, Wasserman Schultz goes to quite an 
     extreme to suggest that employers could block an employee 
     from seeking any kind of health-care treatment. (Again, the 
     issue was who would pay for contraceptives, not whether 
     someone was barred from getting contraceptives.)
       ``The Chair was referring to the Justice's ruling which 
     puts employers' religious beliefs ahead of the medical needs 
     of employees,'' spokesman Michael Czin said. ``We 
     fundamentally disagree with the logic behind that ruling.''
       ``[In Griswold v. Connecticut,] the Supreme Court said that 
     the right of privacy of individuals and families trumped any 
     state right to ban contraceptives. It was a breakthrough. 
     They found privacy, at least the inference of privacy, in the 
     Constitution. I asked that question repeatedly of Justice 
     Roberts and Justice Alito to make sure that they would honor 
     that same tradition of privacy. The Hobby Lobby decision 
     violates that fundamental premise. [While both justices were 
     careful in their answers before confirmation,] they both said 
     they stood by the Griswold decision.''--Sen. Dick Durbin (D-
     Ill.), quoted in ABC's ``The Note,'' July 10
       Durbin serves on the Judiciary Committee and is the second-
     ranking Democrat on the Senate. Here, he appears to come 
     close to saying what Pelosi asserted--that the ruling 
     signaled a possible ban on contraceptives. He specifically 
     mentions the Griswold decision, which as we noted was cited 
     by Alito in the majority opinion as settled law.
       But a Durbin spokeswoman said he was not trying to say the 
     court was on a path to overturn Griswold. ``He was saying 
     Hobby Lobby was out of line with the general `tradition of 
     privacy' that permitted women to make their own choices about 
     birth control,'' she said, asking not to be identified. ``He 
     was critiquing this ruling and its impact on women's access 
     to contraceptive coverage, not making a prediction about 
     future cases.''
       ``The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the 
     door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private 
     lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to 
     ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms 
     of birth control.''--Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), in a news 
     release, July 9
       Udall's remarks were contained in a news release he issued 
     with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) about a bill that seeks to 
     overturn the Hobby Lobby decision. There is a bit of an irony 
     here: Udall voted for the Affordable Care Act, which built 
     upon the employer-based health-care system in the United 
     States and thus led to a ruling by the Supreme Court in the 
     first place. So it's a chicken-or-egg question about how the 
     door was opened in the first place.
       Again, the issue is not whether women will have access to 
     birth control, but whether the health plan will cover the 
     cost. Spokesman Mike Saccone argues that this is, in effect, 
     ``a permission slip.''
       ``Following the court's decision, women will need to 
     effectively ask their employers if they will continue to 
     cover contraception,'' Saccone said. ``They will need to 
     determine if their boss will give permission for their 
     insurance plans to cover birth control.''
       He added: ``Without insurance coverage, IUDs (what Hobby 
     Lobby objects to covering) cost up to $1,000, which poses a 
     huge barrier for women, especially if she is making the 
     minimum wage. Without her boss's permission to get coverage 
     for that service in her health plan, it becomes much more--
     potentially prohibitively--expensive for that woman.''
       ``Before the Hobby Lobby decision, the fight against 
     corporate influence was mainly about making sure real people 
     and their ideas were in charge of elections. But now it is no 
     longer just about a democracy; it is about keeping 
     corporations out of our private lives, out of our bedrooms, 
     and out of our religious decisions.''--Sen. Jon Tester (D-
     Mont.), statement in the Congressional Record, July 10
       Here again, a lawmaker mixes up the question of paying for 
     contraceptives with a broader prohibition against all 
     contraceptives.
       ``If an employer doesn't cover contraceptive care, for many 
     women access to birth control is effectively blocked because 
     it becomes cost-prohibitive,'' argued spokesman Dan Malessa. 
     ``If an employer refuses to cover contraceptives based on its 
     religious views, then its religious views trump the religious 
     views of its employees.''
       ``You know, what I am objecting to is that these bosses 
     should not be able to tell their employees that they cannot 
     use birth control. Motherhood is not a hobby. That is what I 
     am objecting to.''--Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.), speaking on 
     MSNBC, July 1
       Moore also falls into the trap of claiming that corporate 
     bosses can now dictate whether women can have access to birth 
     control. No boss under this ruling has the right to tell an 
     employee that they cannot use birth control. That's simply 
     wrong, but Moore's spokeswoman argued this is open to 
     interpretation.
       ``Congresswoman Moore was referring to the Supreme Court 
     decision that now allows certain employers to deny 
     contraceptive coverage to their employees through employer-
     sponsored health care plans. By denying this coverage to 
     their employees, many workers may not have the financial 
     means to access this health care necessity,'' spokeswoman 
     Staci Moore said. ``To your point on the Hobby Lobby decision 
     concerning only certain forms of contraceptive coverage, the 
     congresswoman would argue that the ruling opens the door for 
     employers to challenge other vital health-care coverage, not 
     limited to the four contraceptives you mentioned.''
       ``What they've done, Chris, is taken away the religious 
     freedom of their employees. They have to comply with the 
     religious freedom of their employers.''--Rep. Louise 
     Slaughter (D-N.Y.), interview on MSNBC, June 30
       Is Slaughter really saying that the court has taken away an 
     employee's religious freedom because some contraceptives may 
     not be covered by insurance? Eric Walker, her spokesman, says 
     this is a matter of opinion.
       ``By forcing an employee to live with the religious choices 
     imposed on them by their employer, the employee's own 
     religious freedom is infringed upon,'' Walker said. ``I think 
     it's fair to say that `freedom from religion' goes hand in 
     hand with `religious freedom.' The first amendment protects 
     Americans from having religion thrust upon them by others--a 
     standard the court failed to uphold, in the congresswoman's 
     opinion.''


                           The Pinocchio Test

       The Fact Checker generally does not award Pinocchios for 
     ``misspeaking'' or for statements of opinion. And we 
     obviously take no position on the Supreme Court opinion. But 
     this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to 
     be more careful in their language about the ruling. All too 
     often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted 
     by the facts at hand. 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.
       Certainly, a case can be made that perhaps this is a 
     slippery slope (as Ginsburg argues in dissent) or that the 
     cost of some contraceptives may be prohibitively high for 
     some women who need them. But the rhetoric needs to be firmly 
     rooted in these objections--and in many cases the Democratic 
     response has been untethered from those basis facts.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2014]

              The Hobby Lobby Decision and Its Distortions


  Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent ruling denies women access to 
                             birth control.

                   (By Kelly Ayotte and Deb Fischer)

       In the days since the Supreme Court's June 30 Burwell v. 
     Hobby Lobby decision, we have been troubled by those who seem 
     eager to misrepresent both the facts of the case and the 
     impact of its ruling on women--all

[[Page 12170]]

     to divide Americans and score political points in a tough 
     election year.
       The biggest distortion: the #NotMyBossBusiness campaign on 
     which falsely suggests that under the ruling employers can 
     deny their employees access to birth control.
       That's flat-out false. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby ruling 
     stops a woman from getting or filling a prescription for any 
     form of contraception. Those who distort the court's decision 
     insist that one cannot support religious liberty and also 
     support access to safe, affordable birth control. But these 
     are principles that we, and millions of others, support. 
     Americans believe strongly that we should be able to practice 
     our religion without undue interference from the government. 
     It's a fundamental conviction that goes to the very core of 
     our character--and dates back to the founding of our nation. 
     The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which 
     protects rights of conscience, reaffirmed our centuries-old 
     tradition of religious liberty.
       Contrary to the misleading rhetoric, the Hobby Lobby ruling 
     does not take away women's access to birth control. No 
     employee is prohibited from purchasing any Food and Drug 
     Administration approved drug or device, and contraception 
     remains readily available and accessible for all women 
     nationwide. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 
     prior to ObamaCare over 85% of large businesses already 
     offered contraceptive coverage to their employees. And the 
     ObamaCare mandate under review in the case doesn't even apply 
     to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. For lower-income 
     women, there are five programs at the U.S. Department of 
     Health and Human Services that help ensure access to 
     contraception for women, including Medicaid.
       The court's decision applies to businesses whose owners 
     have genuine religious convictions. In the Hobby Lobby case, 
     the company's owners--the Green family--offered health-care 
     plans that provide coverage for 16 of the 20 FDA-approved 
     contraceptive drugs and devices, including birth-control 
     pills, required under the Affordable Care Act.
       The Greens only had moral objections to the remaining four 
     methods, which they consider to be abortifacients. The family 
     felt strongly that paying for insurance that includes these 
     methods would compromise their deeply held religious belief 
     that life begins at conception.
       In its narrow ruling, the court agreed, basing its decision 
     on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was 
     introduced in the Senate by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-
     Mass.) and in the House by then-Congressman Charles Schumer 
     (D-N.Y.), and supported by over a dozen current Democratic 
     senators, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State 
     John Kerry.
       Kennedy and Mr. Schumer sponsored this bipartisan law in 
     the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in 
     Employment Division v. Smith, which held that ``generally 
     applicable laws'' that have nothing to do with religion could 
     effectively prevent Americans from fully exercising their 
     religious rights.
       The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed the 
     Democratic-controlled House by voice vote and was approved by 
     the Democratic-controlled Senate in an overwhelming vote of 
     97 to 3.
       When President Clinton signed the bill, he said: ``What 
     this law basically says is that the government should be held 
     to a very high level of proof before it interferes with 
     someone's free exercise of religion.''
       In the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 
     the government failed to make that case.
       With misinformation now swirling, it's important to 
     understand what the court's decision doesn't mean.
       The court's majority opinion explicitly states that the 
     ruling does not ``provide a shield for employers who might 
     cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.'' 
     Additionally, the court said that ``our decision should not 
     be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must 
     necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious 
     beliefs''--meaning, you must show a legitimate religious 
     objection.
       While some Americans may disagree with the Green family's 
     views, nearly all Americans believe that religious freedom is 
     a fundamental right that must not be abridged. When President 
     Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, he 
     said: ``Our laws and institutions should not impede or 
     hinder, but rather should protect and preserve fundamental 
     religious liberties.''
       Congressional Democrats used to share that view. What's 
     changed? We can preserve access to contraceptives without 
     trampling on Americans' religious freedom.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Ronnie White to serve on the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of Missouri. I was proud to chair Justice White's 
nomination hearing before the Judiciary Committee in May.
  Justice White has the experience, the integrity, and the 
qualifications to be an outstanding district court judge.
  He came from humble beginnings. He was born in St. Louis to teenage 
parents and grew up poor in a segregated neighborhood. He has worked 
since age 11 to help make ends meet and to put himself through college 
at St. Louis University and law school at the University of Missouri-
Kansas City.
  Justice White went on to accomplish great things in his legal 
career--most notably, becoming the first African-American Supreme Court 
Justice and Chief Justice in Missouri's history. It was a powerful 
moment when Justice White was sworn in to the Missouri Supreme Court. 
The ceremony took place at a courthouse where slaves were once sold on 
the steps.
  I am pleased that the Senate is voting today on Justice White's 
nomination to the Federal bench.
  It is not often that the Senate gets the chance to correct a historic 
mistake, But by confirming Ronnie White to the Federal bench, we will 
be able to do so.
  Justice White's previous nomination to the district court was 
defeated on the Senate floor in 1999 on a partyline vote. At the time, 
the claim was made that Justice White was ``pro-criminal.'' This was a 
grossly inaccurate claim, both then and now.
  Over his long career as an attorney and a judge, Justice White has 
been widely recognized as fair, unbiased, and committed to the rule of 
law. Just read the letter from the Missouri State Lodge of the 
Fraternal Order of Police in support of Justice White's nomination. The 
Missouri FOP said:

       As front line law enforcement officers, we recognize the 
     important need to have jurists such as Ronnie White, who have 
     shown themselves to be tough on crime, yet fair and 
     impartial. As a former justice on the Missouri Court of 
     Appeals and as the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme 
     Court, Ronnie White has proven that he has the experience and 
     requisite attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S. 
     District Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy 
     nominee.

  This is a compelling endorsement from the Missouri FOP.
  In 2001 I had the opportunity to ask Justice White in a hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee about the allegation that he was somehow 
hostile to law enforcement. Here was his response. He said:

       That is not true that I was opposed to law enforcement. 
     Senator Durbin, I have a brother-in-law who is a police 
     officer in St. Louis. I have a cousin who is a police officer 
     in St. Louis. I have served on boards and commissions with 
     police officers in the St. Louis community, and I also, when 
     I was city counselor for the city of St. Louis, was the 
     lawyer for the St. Louis City Police Department and we 
     defended police officers. As a judge, all I have tried to do 
     is to apply the law as best I could and the way I saw it.

  Overall, Justice White's track record shows that his judicial 
decisions were well within the legal mainstream and were supported by 
precedent and legal authority. His decisions showed respect for the 
rule of law, even in hard cases that involved difficult or emotional 
facts.
  The bottom line is that Justice White is a man with integrity, a 
wealth of judicial experience, and a real respect for the law. He is 
going to be an outstanding Federal judge.
  I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to put this good 
man on the Federal bench.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Ronnie White to serve as a United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Missouri.
  In the Senate, as in life, there rarely is a chance for a do-over--to 
get something right that went wrong a long time ago.
  For me, Ronnie White's nomination is a chance to do that. This year 
should have been his fifteenth as a district court judge--he would be 
close to senior status today had his nomination by President Clinton 
been confirmed in 1999.
  I was very pleased this year to see him appear once again before the 
Judiciary Committee, and I believe he will distinguish himself as a 
Federal district judge.
  Let me simply quote from a letter from the Missouri State Lodge of 
the Fraternal Order of Police, which wrote a letter on May 13, 2014 in 
support of Judge White's nomination:


[[Page 12171]]

       As a former justice on the Missouri Court of Appeals and as 
     the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Ronnie White 
     has proven that he has the experience and requisite 
     attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S. District 
     Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy nominee.

  Ronnie White's confirmation is long past due, and I really am pleased 
it is likely to come to pass. I just wanted to say that, and to urge my 
colleagues to support him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the confirmation of the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of 
Missouri, to be United States District Court Judge for the Eastern 
District of Missouri?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cardin
     Mikulski
     Schatz
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________