Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to concur with Senator Schumer about his comments on the passage of Senator Menendez's legislation, S. 2204. This legislation is very important for America's energy needs, and I urge my colleagues to allow us to take up this legislation and let's act on it and let's move it to the other body.

There is one commodity just about everyone knows the price of: a gallon of gasoline. People will have a rough idea what a gallon of milk or a dozens eggs or a loaf of bread costs, but they will know to the penny what a gallon of gasoline costs. The price is rising, and people are understandably upset. They are upset because it costs more to fill up at the pump. But they are also upset because crude oil and gasoline price increases affect the price of every other commodity--including milk, eggs, and bread--that has to be transported from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Petroleum is a feedstock used in the production, not just transportation, of so many critical products, including fertilizer.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, the retail price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was 27 cents higher for the week ending March 5, 2012 than it was a year ago. EIA reports that vehicle fueling costs for the average U.S. household will be about $238 higher in 2012 than 2011.

According to EIA, the price of gasoline has increased dramatically every year--in 2011, higher than 2010, and 2012 is projected to be higher than 2011. This price increase is occurring despite the fact that the United States has stepped up its crude oil production considerably over the past 4 years by 1.3 million barrels per day. Production is at an 8-year high. The United States is the third largest producer of oil, behind the Saudis and Russia, and domestic oil consumption is at a 15-year low. Americans are driving 35 billion fewer miles today than they did in 2010.

If we were producing more and consuming less, then why are prices going up? Supply and demand would tell us that they should be going down. The answer is straightforward: Crude oil and all of the products derived from it, including gasoline, are fungible commodities traded on world markets. Increasing global demand for these commodities is putting a relentless upward pressure on prices.

Growing demand for oil in developing countries has reshaped the global market. Developing nations now consume 47 percent of the world's oil. In 1970, it was 25 percent. The number of cars in the world exceeded 1 billion for the first time in 2010, with one-half of the global growth occurring in China. Beijing adds 1,500 new cars every day.

Another reason for price increases is market uncertainty over crude oil supplies. Much of the world's crude oil is produced in the Middle East and North Africa, regions plagued with turmoil. Right now, the United States accounts for about 9 to 11 percent of the world's crude oil production. This is despite the fact that we have less than 2 percent of the world's total proven oil reserves. We have 2 percent of the world's reserves and we are producing 9 to 11 percent. We are, in fact, drilling here and drilling now, with more oil rigs in operation than the rest of the world combined, according to the Baker-Hughes rig count.

According to economist Steve Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, even if U.S. production could be increased by one- third overnight, that would increase world supply by 3 percent which would lower the price of oil by 7 to 8 percent. As Baker notes:

This is not trivial, but it is not the difference between

$2 a gallon gas and $4 a gallon gas.

T. Boone Pickens said it best:

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency

we can't drill our way out of.

A recent Associated Press fact check analysis found that there is no correlation between domestic oil production and the price at the pump. I am for reasonable oil production. We need as much as we can get in a reasonable manner. As reported in the Washington Post of March 28:

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-

adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by

The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between

how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the

pump . . . More oil production in the United States does not

mean consistently lower prices at the pump . . . U.S. oil

production is back to the same level it was on March 2003,

when gas cost $2.10 a gallon when adjusted for inflation. But

that's not what prices are now. That's because oil is a

global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny

influence on supply . . . Factors far beyond the control of a

nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

The United States is incapable of having a significant impact on world crude oil and gasoline prices from the supply side of the equation, but domestic oil production does play an important role in bolstering our energy and economic security. We should produce where we can, in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.

While increasing domestic production and decreasing domestic demand may not be lowering world prices, it does have a significant effect on imports. Our dependence on foreign oil is at its lowest level in 16 years. As a share of total consumption, oil imports declined from nearly 60 percent in 2005 to 45 percent last year, the lowest level since 1995. And nearly one-half of our imports come from the Western Hemisphere nations such as Canada and Mexico, while the Persian Gulf countries account for only 18 percent of our net imports.

The biggest impact the United States could have on oil and gasoline prices is not on the supply side, it is on the demand side. We account for close to 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption, even though we account for less than 5 percent of the world's population. The best way to continue reducing our demand for crude oil and gasoline would be to: Promote fuel efficiency with higher CAFE standards. We have made progress. We are doing better. We know we can do better than our current standards; Replace conventional fleet fuels with alternative fuels such as propane, natural gas, and biofuels. That will help us consume less oil; Electrify transportation, focusing on hybrid and plug-in electric technologies. Here you get jobs in the United States helping our economy as well as helping our energy security; Boosting transit ridership by increasing funding for the Federal Transit Administration. People don't like to be stuck in traffic jams. Let's have a modern transit system that can help move our people;

Eliminating the tax expenditures that benefit Big Oil could generate over $20 billion over the next 10 years. This is the bill we are talking about, S. 2204, the Menendez bill. It takes the revenues we are giving to the oil industry and uses them to help pay for these green energy measures. This makes a lot of sense. It will hardly be noticed by the big five oil companies--BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, or Shell. They made record profits in 2011, $137 billion. I talked about $20 billion over 10 years. They made $137 billion in 1 year. That was up 75 percent from 2010. From 2001 through the last year, Big Oil has made more than $1 trillion in profits. Every penny increase in the pump increases their profit by another $200 million. So as we are suffering with prices going up, the big oil companies are making more and we are still giving them the subsidies, where we could be using those subsidies to help America develop alternative energy sources.

Big Oil has been getting big subsidies for 100 years. It is time to use that money for developing alternatives to oil. That is the best and most sustainable way to address the high cost of gasoline at the pump. S. 2204 will help us bring down the cost at the pump. It is good for our economy, good for our environment, and good for our national security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the tragic death of Trayvon Martin and the larger issue of racial profiling. On Monday I spoke about this issue at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore. Joining me were representatives from various faith and civil rights groups in Baltimore, as well as graduates from the center's program.

This weekend we saw numerous rallies take place across the United States, including rallies called Million Hoodie Marches where individuals wore hoodies in solidarity with Trayvon Martin.

I was touched by what President Obama said on Friday about this case. He said:

If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And I think every

parent in America should be able to understand why it is

absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of

this. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to

figure out how something like this happened.

That is why I am so pleased that the Justice Department, under the supervision of Attorney General Eric Holder, has announced an investigation into the avoidable shooting death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012. As we all know from the news, an unarmed Martin, 17, was shot in Sanford, FL, on his way home from a convenience store by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

I am pleased that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department will join the Federal Bureau of Investigation in investigating the tragic, avoidable shooting death of Trayvon Martin. In particular, I also support the Justice Department's decision to send the Community Relations Service to Sanford to help defuse tensions while the investigation is being conducted.

I join all Americans in wanting a full and complete investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to ensure that justice is served. There are many questions we need the Justice Department to answer. One is whether Trayvon was the victim of a hate crime by Zimmerman. One is whether

Trayvon was a victim of racial profiling by the police. In other words, was Trayvon targeted by Mr. Zimmerman because he was Black? Was Trayvon treated differently by local law enforcement in their shooting investigation because he was Black and the aggressor was White? Would the police have acted differently with a White victim and a Black aggressor?

The Department of Justice has the authority to investigate the potential hate crime as well as whether this is a pattern or practice of misconduct by local law enforcement in terms of applying the law equally to all citizens and not discriminating on the basis of race. Tom Perez is the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. I want to make sure we have both Federal and State investigations that ultimately prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law as well as make any needed policy changes, particularly to local police practices and procedures.

Trayvon's tragic death also leads to a discussion of the broader issue of racial profiling. I have called for putting an end to racial profiling, a practice that singles out individuals based on race or other protected categories. In October of last year, I introduced legislation--the End Racial Profiling Act, S. 1670--that would protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials.

The bill would prohibit State and local law enforcement officials from using race as a factor in criminal investigations, including in ``deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure.''

The bill would mandate training and provide grants on racial- profiling issues and data collection by local and State law enforcement.

Finally, the bill would condition the receipt of Federal funds by State and local law enforcement on two grounds. First, under this bill, State and local law enforcement would have to ``maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling.'' Second, they must ``eliminate any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling.''

The legislation I introduced is supported by the NAACP, the ACLU, the Rights Working Group, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and numerous other organizations. I look forward to the April 18 advocacy day these civil rights groups are planning on Capitol Hill to lobby on racial-profiling issues and raise awareness about this issue and the legislation I have introduced.

Racial profiling is bad policy. Given the state of our budgets, it also diverts scarce resources from real law enforcement. Law enforcement officials nationwide already have tight budgets. The more resources spent on investigating individuals solely because of their race or religion, the fewer resources we have to actually deal with illegal behavior.

Racial profiling has no place in modern law enforcement. The vast majority of our law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day handle their job with professionalism, diligence, and fidelity to the rule of law. However, Congress and the Justice Department can and should still take steps to prohibit racial profiling and finally root out its use.

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law to all Americans. Racial profiling is important to that principle and should be ended once and for all. As the late Senator Kennedy often said, ``Civil rights is the great unfinished business of America.'' Let's continue to fight here to make sure we truly have equal justice under law and equal protection of law as guaranteed by our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the states' ratification of the equal rights amendment, ERA. I thank Senators Boxer, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harkin, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Mikulski for joining me as original cosponsors.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by \3/4\ of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress,

but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982.

Congress can and should give the States another chance. In 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires ``equal protection of the laws,'' and the Supreme Court has so far held that most sex or gender classifications are subject to only ``intermediate scrutiny'' when analyzing laws that may have a discriminatory impact. In 2011 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave an interview in which he stated that ``certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' Ratification of the ERA by state legislatures would provide the courts with clearer guidance in holding gender or sex classifications to the ``strict scrutiny'' standard.

The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect two years after ratification by the States.

March is Women's History Month. And today is the 40th anniversary of passage by the Senate of the joint resolution to extend the ERA ratification timeline on March 22, 1972. Today, nearly half of the States have a version of the ERA written into their State constitution. My own State of Maryland's constitution reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.''

I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, which is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the National Organization for Women, and the American Association of University Women. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the states' ratification of the equal rights amendment, ERA. I thank Senators Boxer, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harkin, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Mikulski for joining me as original cosponsors.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by \3/4\ of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress,

but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982.

Congress can and should give the States another chance. In 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires ``equal protection of the laws,'' and the Supreme Court has so far held that most sex or gender classifications are subject to only ``intermediate scrutiny'' when analyzing laws that may have a discriminatory impact. In 2011 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave an interview in which he stated that ``certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' Ratification of the ERA by state legislatures would provide the courts with clearer guidance in holding gender or sex classifications to the ``strict scrutiny'' standard.

The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect two years after ratification by the States.

March is Women's History Month. And today is the 40th anniversary of passage by the Senate of the joint resolution to extend the ERA ratification timeline on March 22, 1972. Today, nearly half of the States have a version of the ERA written into their State constitution. My own State of Maryland's constitution reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.''

I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, which is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the National Organization for Women, and the American Association of University Women. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Madam President, I know there are a lot of us who want to pay our tribute and respect to the senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. I want to make sure everybody has their opportunity. Are we operating under a consent order?

Madam President, I am glad we could get that straight.

Let me first thank all of our colleagues who are here to pay honor to the senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

This is March Madness in basketball. Sweet 16 is starting. We are very proud in Maryland of our Lady Terps. They are in the Sweet 16. But I want you to know that we are all getting our fantasy teams, and I want Senator Mikulski on my fantasy basketball team because she is a true leader, she understands the importance of working together, and she is a winner.

We are proud of her roots in Maryland. She is the great-granddaughter of Polish immigrants who owned a bakery. She began her public service in

high school, where she helped deliver groceries to seniors who were locked in their apartments and she helped the homebound seniors get the food they needed. She went to the University of Maryland School of Social Work because she wanted to be a social worker. She wanted to help other people. She knew that she was good at that and she could make a difference in people's lives. She worked for Catholic Charities and dealt with children at risk and helping seniors with Medicare.

As you have heard from several of my colleagues already, she gained her reputation by taking on a highway that was scheduled to be built that would have gone through Canton and Fells Point, disrupting a neighborhood in Baltimore. This was a 16-lane highway. It was considered to be a done deal; it was going to happen. The powers that be said we are going to have a highway coming through downtown Baltimore. The powers to be did not know Barbara Mikulski. That highway never happened. Senator Mikulski stopped that highway from being built.

She then went on to serve in the Baltimore City Council with great distinction. Then in 1976 she was elected to the Congress for the Third Congressional District, a seat that was vacated by our esteemed colleague Paul Sarbanes, who then came into the Senate, and Barbara Mikulski followed in the great tradition of Senator Paul Sarbanes. In 1986, when Senator ``Mac'' Mathias's seat became vacant, Senator Barbara Mikulski was elected to the Senate.

She has many firsts: The first female Democrat elected in her own right to serve the United States Senate. At the time she was elected to the Senate, she was only one of two female Senators. Today, we have 17 female Senators in the Senate in large part because of Senator Barbara Mikulski. I know the Presiding Officer was part of that expansion. You will hear how Senator Mikulski was not only a role model and an inspiration but an incredible help to get more women elected to the Senate.

Last year we joined in this body to celebrate Senator Mikulski becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the Senate, surpassing Margaret Chase Smith from the State of Maine. Then on this past Saturday, on St. Patrick's Day, she became the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress, replacing Edith Nourse Rogers from Massachusetts who served, as the majority leader pointed out, from 1925 to 1960.

Marylanders understand longevity records. We are very proud of Cal Ripken and the record he held in baseball. Senator Mikulski's, like Cal Ripken's, legacy is what she has done in office to make a difference, not the length of her service. She is a fierce and effective advocate for so many causes. We have heard about her accomplishments in education and health care, what she has done to advance sensible health care to improve quality for the people of this country. That was her mission in the Affordable Care Act, to make sure that we had the delivery systems in place that would deliver quality health care, and Senator Mikulski's leadership was critical in that regard.

She has been a leader in women's health care issues. I will never forget her reminder to all of us in the caucus: Don't forget women's health care issues when you bring that bill to the floor. And we didn't. We put that in under Senator Mikulski's leadership. We talked about breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings. Senator Mikulski has been in the leadership on all those issues.

We in Maryland are proud to be where the National Institutes of Health is headquartered. Its growth in large measure has been the result of Senator Barbara Mikulski. We are proud of HOPE VI and housing. Senator Mikulski has been in the forefront of that program, making it possible for many people in our community to have decent, affordable, and safe housing.

Senator Mikulski has been critically important to America's space program. I have been with her many times at Goddard and seen firsthand the results of her advocacy and what it has meant. The Hubble space telescope is another legacy of which Senator Mikulski can be rightly proud.

We in Maryland are also proud to house NSA, the National Security Agency, with its new mission with the cyber command located in Maryland. Senator Mikulski, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, has been one of the real leaders on national security issues. We can't issue press releases on this. She is a member of the intelligence committee. She works behind closed doors to keep us safe. But we all know that she is one of the key leaders in this Nation on national security issues.

We know about pay equity and the Lilly Ledbetter law, the first bill signed by President Obama. It was Senator Mikulski's leadership that got that bill to the President's desk, recognizing that we are still not where we need to be on gender pay equity in America.

In our region, the Chesapeake Bay is center to our way of life and our economy. Senator Mikulski has been one of the real champions on water quality and the Chesapeake Bay. She understands the respect for State and local government, that we have to work together as a team. I know the Governor of Maryland, Governor O'Malley, would agree with me that there is no better friend to the people of Maryland working with the State than Senator Barbara Mikulski, getting the Federal Government on the same page as the State and local governments to get things done for the people of Maryland. That is true with what she has been able to do for all of us working across the Nation.

I think the Baltimore Sun put it best when it said:

There is nobody more feisty, more willing to take on big

business, big government, or anyone when it is time to look

out for the interests of her constituents.

I think all of us would agree.

On a personal note, I thank Senator Mikulski for her friendship, I thank her for being my buddy and my adviser. Whether she is with Presidents or Kings or the patrons at Jimmy's Restaurant in Fells Point, you get the same common sense, the same down-to-earth person-- you get Senator Barb. We are so proud of her.

Thank you, Senator Barb, for what you have done to make this Nation a better place to live. Thank you for being such a role model for young people, especially young women, to get involved, to make a difference. Thank you on behalf of my two granddaughters. Their future is much brighter, their opportunities are much greater because of you, Senator Barb.

Congratulations. Your colleagues here want to express our love and respect and admiration for your incredible service.

President Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island in Florida as the first national wildlife refuge on March 14, 1903. He was responding not only to an urgent need to conserve our vulnerable natural resources but also to the passionate advocacy of Americans who understood that our Nation's strength lies in the conservation of our wild lands and unique species.

Over the course of his Presidency, Roosevelt established 53 wildlife refuges, from Key West's mangrove islands and sand flats to Flattery Rock along Washington State's coast.

Today, on the refuge system's 109th birthday, the National Wildlife Refuge spans more than 150 million acres, across 556 wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the Nation's premier network of public lands dedicated to the conservation of America's land and waters, its fish, wildlife, and plants.

From the Arctic to the Caribbean, the Atlantic to the Pacific, America's wildlife refuges are in every State and U.S. territory. Wildlife refuges conserve habitat that is essential to more than 700 species of birds, 220 types of mammals, 250 varieties of reptiles and amphibians, more than 1,000 species of fish, and uncounted invertebrates and plants. They sustain nearly 300 of the Nation's more than 1,300 endangered or threatened species.

The National Wildlife Refuge System does not only benefit wildlife. The refuges also play a critical role for our communities. By protecting wetlands, grasslands, forests, wilderness, and other natural habitats, wildlife refuges improve air and water quality, relieve flooding, improve soil quality, and trap greenhouse gases. Wildlife refuges also benefit local economies, drawing visitors to local communities and supporting jobs tied to conservation and outdoor recreation.

I am especially proud of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in my home State of Maryland. Blackwater contains roughly one-third of all of the tidal wetlands in the State of Maryland and provides critical storm protection to lower Dorchester County, MD. Home to one of the largest breeding populations of American bald eagles on the east coast, Blackwater Refuge is recognized as a ``Wetlands of International Importance'' by the Ramsar Convention and has been called one of the ``Last Great Places'' by the Nature Conservancy. Blackwater also plays a critical economic role in Maryland, attracting approximately 200,000 visitors annually and providing an important economic engine for our Eastern Shore communities.

The Blackwater Refuge is a place of great ecological and economic value, but more than that, it is a place of deep historic value. One of the most important heroes in our Nation's history lived and bravely worked within the boundaries of Blackwater. To commemorate this history, I have introduced legislation to create two national historical parks--one within the Blackwater Refuge and one in New York to honor the legacy of Harriet Ross Tubman for her work on the Underground Railroad. Harriet Tubman was born within the Blackwater boundary and conducted much of her courageous work there leading other slaves northward to freedom. I am deeply committed to ensuring that her legacy is celebrated within the Blackwater Refuge. This is part of the beauty of the National Wildlife Refuge System: by preserving the ecological integrity of our treasured lands, we also preserve an important link to our Nation's past.

In an increasingly urban and high-speed world, our national wildlife refuges--islands of natural beauty--offer Americans priceless places to soothe or stir the soul, educate the mind, and invigorate the body. I am pleased today to recognize the anniversary of this valuable system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, let me concur in everything Senator Stabenow said in opposition to this amendment.

There are many reasons to oppose it, but let me add one additional reason, in that it violates the agreement we reached on the debt ceiling on the budget caps for this year and does it on the backs of our Federal workers. Once again, the Republicans are coming forward with another attack on the Federal workforce. Enough is enough. Every amendment, they are picking on the Federal workforce.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for her comments, and I concur in her observations. What we have seen on women's health care issues in this body is how some are trying to turn the clock back on the progress we have made. I was listening to my colleague talk about ultrasounds. Virginia just enacted an ultrasound bill this week. The Governor signed it into law, so this is spreading to other States. We talk about big government, but the government mandating ultrasounds for pregnant women? This is outrageous and something that on International Women's Day, it is right that we bring this to the attention of our colleagues. We have seen the same type of action taken against family planning, contraceptives, those who want to repeal Roe v. Wade. We have to stand strong with women and women's health care issues as we in America lead the international community.

Around the world, International Women's Day is an occasion to honor and praise women for their accomplishments. On this International Women's Day, I stand with my colleagues to celebrate women who are making a difference both in America and around the world, in countries where they lead in the fight for justice, equality, and fairness for all women. All of us, women and men alike, can help by supporting women's efforts to claim their legal rights, live free from violence, earn a decent income, get an education, grow food for their families, and make their voices heard in their communities and beyond.

I believe in the power of women to change the world and to help them hasten that change. U.S. international assistance policies should address and remove barriers between women, women's rights, and economic empowerment. Empowering women is one of the most critical tools in our toolbox to fight poverty and injustice. Integrating the unique needs of women into our domestic and international policies is critical. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection, I can attest that this must be the bedrock of our foreign assistance programming if it is to be successful.

I defy anyone's assertion that women's empowerment should take a backseat to so-called more important priorities. Decades of research and experience prove that when women are able to be fully engaged in society and hold decisionmaking power, they are more likely to invest their income in food, clean water, education, and health care for their children. This creates a positive cycle change that lifts entire families and communities and nations out of poverty. Simply put, when women succeed, we all do.

Accordingly, I was very pleased by last week's release of the new USAID ``Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment,'' which makes integrating gender and including women and girls central to all U.S. international assistance. This policy, which updates guidelines that were over 30 years old, recognizes that the integration of women and girls is basic to effective international assistance across all sectors such as food, security, health, climate change, science, technology, economic growth, democracy and governance and humanitarian assistance. It aims to increase the capacity of women and girls and decrease inequality between genders and also decrease gender-based violence. This new policy is as welcomed as it is necessary. As Secretary Clinton declared earlier this year:

Achieving our objectives for global development will demand

accelerated efforts to achieve gender equality and women's

empowerment. Otherwise, peace and prosperity will have their

own glass ceiling.

Unfortunately, as we know, there are still places this glass ceiling exists and there are major obstacles to women. Worldwide, one in three women will experience some form of violence in her

lifetime. Women and girls in emergencies, conflict settings, and natural disasters often face extreme violence, including being forced to exchange sex for food. The World Health Organization has reported that up to 70 percent of women in some countries describe having been victims of domestic violence at some stage in their lives.

The United States has the potential to be a true leader in preventing and responding to violence against women and girls--an issue that is inextricably linked to U.S. diplomacy, development, and national security goals.

What many people fail to realize is that violence against women and girls is both a major consequence and cause of poverty. Violence and poverty go hand in hand. Violence prevents women and girls from getting an education, going to work, and earning the income they need to lift their families out of poverty. We know that one in three women will be the victim of sexual abuse in her lifetime. But we also know that women have the potential to lift their families and communities out of poverty.

Violence against women and girls is an extreme human rights violation, a public health epidemic, and a barrier to solving severe challenges such as extreme poverty, HIV/AIDS, and conflict. It devastates the lives of millions of women and girls--in peacetime and in conflict--and knows no national and cultural barriers.

Today let's reaffirm our commitment to end gender-based discrimination in all forms, to end violence against women and girls worldwide, and to encourage the people of the United States to observe International Women's Day. On this day and every day, I am proud to stand in support of women across America and worldwide.

Investing in and focusing on empowering women and girls is one of the most efficient uses of our foreign assistance dollars and one of the best ways to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. As Secretary of State Clinton pointed out more than 15 years ago, ``Women's rights are human rights''--and nothing is more fundamental, in my opinion.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, the first chartered chamber in the United States. When the United States Chamber of Commerce was formed at a conference held by President Taft in April 1912, four delegates from the Maryland's Frederick County Board of Trade were in attendance. Inspired by the conference, the Frederick County Board of Trade applied for membership to the newly formed chamber the very next day.

The newly renamed Frederick County Chamber of Commerce committed itself to serving the business interests of Frederick County. During the ravages of the Great Depression, the chamber was a beacon of hope, advocating for Federal work programs and organizing the Community Chest, now known as the United Way of Frederick County.

Over the past 100 years, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce has successfully promoted economic vitality in Frederick, and has been a crucial partner to countless local businesses and organizations. The Frederick Arts Council and the Tourism Council of Frederick County were both chamber initiatives that grew into independently successful organizations. The Chamber has also been a leader in promoting women and minority-owned businesses. In 1969, the chamber worked with the NAACP to form the People's Opportunity and Information Center, and in 1997 they welcomed their first female president.

Today, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce works with nearly 1,000 member businesses to expand Frederick County's economy and improve the quality of life for Frederick County residents. By bringing business leaders together to tackle challenges and proactively plan for the future, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce has strengthened the community and the region.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce on 100 years of leadership and advocacy on behalf of the businesses and citizens of Frederick County.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the ministry of Bishop John R. Bryant, senior bishop and presiding prelate of the Fourth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal, AME, Church. Bishop Bryant is a native of Baltimore and a graduate of Baltimore City College and Morgan State University. From a young age, he learned the importance of spiritual and civic leadership from his father, Rev. Harrison Bryant, who was a Baltimore pastor and civil rights activist.

After John Bryant graduated from Morgan State, he served in Liberia with the Peace Corps, beginning his lifelong involvement in Africa. He returned to the United States and earned graduate degrees in theology and ministry and served as a pastor in Boston before returning to Baltimore in 1975, where he took on the mantle of leadership at Bethel AME Church, where his father had been pastor. At age 31, he was the youngest pastor in the church's history. He brought incredible energy to the pulpit and the congregation grew by the thousands. He was

committed to both spiritual leadership and community development and transformed the church's Labor Day celebration into a job fair for the unemployed. He created an outreach center for the poor, 40 specialized ministries, and a Christian day school for children from kindergarten to fourth grade.

In 1988, Rev. Dr. Bryant was named Bishop of the AME Church's 14th Episcopal District, which included 101 churches in West Africa and shortly added the 10th District, including Texas and the Southwest. In 2000, he was named bishop of the Fifth District, which included 200,000 church members in 14 Western States. In 2008, he was appointed senior bishop and president prelate of the Fourth Episcopal District, which includes much of the Midwest and Canada.

Bishop Bryant's wife, the Reverend Dr. Cecilia Bryant, has been an integral partner in his ministry. She founded the AME Church in the Republic of Ivory Coast, cofounded the AME Church in India, and is currently serving alongside her husband as supervisor of the church's Fourth Episcopal District. Their children, the Reverend Dr. Jamal Harrison Bryant, pastor of Baltimore's Empowerment Temple, and Dr. Thelma Bryant-Davis, a psychologist, poet, dancer, and minister, continue the family tradition of spiritual leadership.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bishop John R. Bryant on 50 years of ministry in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He has built a legacy of outstanding leadership, and he has delivered a message of social reform and economic justice in Baltimore, in Maryland, throughout our Nation, and around the world.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the outstanding leadership and accomplishments of Mary Pat Seurkamp, Ph.D., president of Notre Dame of Maryland University.

The College of Notre Dame of Maryland was founded in Baltimore by the School Sisters of Notre Dame to educate women and the poor. The institution was chartered in 1895 and was known as the College of Notre Dame of Maryland until September of 2011, when it was officially renamed Notre Dame of Maryland University. The undergraduate Women's College of the School of Arts and Sciences remains at the heart of the university and is the only women's college in Maryland. Under Dr. Seurkamp's leadership, Notre Dame of Maryland has flourished as one of the Nation's strongest women's institutions, fully embracing its role in preparing young women to understand and meet society's challenges.

Under Dr. Seurkamp's leadership, the college has also found new ways to meet society's needs. The Accelerated College was founded to help working women and men earn their undergraduate degrees. Now known as the College of Adult Undergraduate Studies, this division has continued to adapt to the needs of working adults and community institutions, offering courses on the Baltimore campus and at regional higher education centers and partnering hospitals.

Dr. Seurkamp, responding to expanding job opportunities in the area of health care, worked to found the Notre Dame of Maryland University School of Pharmacy, the second pharmacy school in Maryland and the first at a women's college in the United States. The School of Pharmacy, like the new School of Nursing and the School of Education, offers professional education rooted in the Catholic tradition of the liberal arts and service to others.

As part of the implementation of the campus's 20-year master plan, Dr. Seurkamp worked not only to enhance the beauty of the university grounds but also to ensure that university buildings are environmentally sustainable.

Dr. Seurkamp has been honored with numerous leadership awards, as well as the papal honor of Dame of the Order of St. Gregory. Her work reminds us of the critical role that higher education plays in defining our country's workforce and shaping our country's future.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Seurkamp on her 15 years of outstanding accomplishments as president of Notre Dame University of Maryland and in wishing her well in her retirement.

Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to mark the fifth anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death. Deamonte was a 12- year-old who lived in Prince George's County, MD, only a few short miles from here. He died 5 years ago at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, from a brain infection caused by an untreated tooth abscess.

The Driver family, like many families across the country, lacked dental insurance. At one point his family had Medicaid coverage, but they lost it because they had moved into a temporary shelter and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would treat him.

Deamonte began to complain about headaches on January 11. Then, an evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond basic dental care to emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures, and a second operation was required. Even though he received additional treatment and therapy, and he appeared to be recovering, medical intervention came too late. By the end of his treatment, the total cost to our health care system exceeded $\1/4\ million--more than 3,000 times the $80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction.

Deamonte Driver passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. Deamonte's death was a national tragedy. It was a tragedy because it could have been prevented if he had received timely and proper basic dental care. It was a tragedy because it happened right here in the United States, in one of the most affluent States in the Nation. It happened in a State with one of the best dental schools in the Nation--the University of Maryland's. It happened in Prince George's County, whose border is less than 6 miles from where we are standing in the U.S. Capitol.

I have spoken on the Senate floor about Deamonte Driver several times since that tragedy, and in the intervening years, in both my home State of Maryland and nationally, we have made progress. When Deamonte's case was brought to light, I believe it served as a wake-up call for our Nation. It brought home what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said: ``There is no health without oral health.''

Medical researchers have discovered the nexus between tooth plaque and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. They have identified the vital connection between oral health research and advanced treatments such as gene therapy, which can help patients with chronic renal failure. They know investing in basic dental care can save money down the road in costly medical interventions for other diseases.

But for all the research findings, without insurance coverage and adequate access to providers, we know millions of children and adults will have oral health care needs that remain unmet. That is why the progress we have made over the past 5 years is so important to America's health. So I have come to the floor today to talk about what we have achieved and how we can move forward as a nation to ensure better access to oral health care.

The Maryland delegation is proud that Maryland has emerged as a national leader in this area, launching a $1.2 million oral health literacy campaign, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists, and providing some

allied health professionals and hygienists the opportunity to practice outside of clinics. Today, the Deamonte Driver Dental Project Van, which was dedicated in front of the U.S. Capitol in May 2010 provides services in underserved neighborhoods in Prince George's County, thanks to the efforts launched by members of the Robert T. Freeman Dental Society. This society, an arm of the National Dental Association, is named for Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, who in 1869 became the first Black graduate of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

Congressman Elijah Cummings and I were joined that day by Mrs. Alyce Driver and her sons; the project's cofounders Drs. Hazel Harper and Belinda Carver-Taylor; and the National Dental Association President, Dr. Walter Owens.

In 2009, 2 years after Deamonte's death, Congress took up the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a frustrating attempt to locate a dentist for her child, Deamonte Driver's mother and her advocates had to contact numerous offices before locating one who would treat him.

For a variety of reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees to find dental care, and working parents whose children qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they can't spend 2 hours a day on the phone to find a provider. So part of the CHIP reauthorization now requires HHS to include on its Insure Kids Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Also, in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. That law created the Healthy Futures Corps, which provides grants to the States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national service in low-income communities. It will allow us to put into action tools that can help us close the gap in health status--prevention and health promotion. For too long we have acknowledged health disparities, studied them, and written reports about them. With the help of the senior Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of focus.

Now the Healthy Futures Corps can help recruit young people to work in the dental profession, where they can serve in areas that we have shortages of providers in urban and rural areas. It will fund the work of individuals who can help parents find available oral health services for themselves and their children. It will make a difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who will work in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who get improved access to care.

Then, in 2010, we passed the Affordable Care Act which guarantees pediatric oral health care as part of each State's essential benefit health care package. The law also establishes an oral health care prevention education program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention targeted toward key populations, including children and pregnant women, and it created demonstration programs to encourage innovation in oral health delivery. It also significantly expanded workforce training programs for oral health professionals.

Moving forward, the States have a critical role to play in ensuring that the Affordable Care Act benefit is designed to incentivize prevention, recognize that some children have greater risks of dental disease than others, and deliver care based on their level of risk. Among the most cost-effective ways to improve children's health care are investments in prevention. Dental sealants--clear plastic coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of molars--have been proven to prevent 60 percent of tooth decay at one-third the cost of filling a cavity. So we must make sure prevention is a key part of every State's benefit package.

Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched its oral health initiative, establishing a coordinated multiagency effort to improve access to care across the Nation.

Yet for all the progress we have made, we know more must be done. In 2009, the last year for which we have complete data that is available, more than 16 million American children went without dental care. That is not acceptable.

Our Nation has made significant progress in improving children's dental care in the 5 years since the death of Deamonte Driver, but there is still much work to be done.

Case in point: Last summer, 24-year-old Kyle Willis of Ohio died from an untreated tooth infection that spread to his brain. In fact, the health of millions of Americans is jeopardized because they cannot get treatment for tooth decay.

The access problem has become so severe that many people are forced to seek treatment for tooth pain in the Nation's emergency rooms, increasing the overall cost of health care and receiving uncoordinated care in the least cost-efficient setting. In fact, more people seek treatment in emergency rooms for tooth pain than they do for asthma.

The Pew Children's Dental Campaign produces report cards that grade the States on eight policies that are evidence-based solutions to the problem of tooth decay.

Maryland received an A grade in both reports for meeting or exceeding these benchmarks, which include dental sealant programs, community water fluoridation, Medicaid reimbursement and enrollment, and collection of data on children's dental health.

This is even more striking because in the late 1990s, Maryland had one of the worst records in the Nation regarding oral health care for its underserved population. But in 2011, the Pew Center on the States ranked Maryland as the top State in the country for oral health.

However, the access issues remain. As Mrs. Driver's efforts to find care for her son showed, low-income families have great difficulty obtaining care due to a shortage of dentists willing to treat Medicaid patients.

Nationally, the National Health Service Corps addresses the nationwide shortage of primary care oral health providers in dental health professional shortage areas by offering incentives in the form of scholarships and loan repayments to primary care dentists and registered dental hygienists to practice in underserved communities.

I will continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and expand training opportunities for dentists. We do not have enough professionals who are trained and available to treat children and adults with dental problems, and it is our responsibility to fix that. We must improve reimbursement to dental providers in offices and clinics so no one who needs dental treatment will be turned away.

I conclude my remarks with congratulatory wishes to Mrs. Alyce Driver. For as painful as Deamonte's passing was for all of us, nothing can compare to the loss of one's own child. Yet Mrs. Driver has worked hard and she has been awarded a dental tech degree. She is now out there helping others with dental care. She will be going back to school next month to receive training in radiology. Yes, in Maryland and throughout the Nation, there are signs of hope for the future of oral health care.

February is National Children's Dental Health Month, and I wish to express my appreciation to the many nonprofit organizations, universities, and providers who are also working across the Nation to make sure we will never forget Deamonte Driver and never forget our responsibility to improving oral health care for America's children.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 and the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and to honor the memory of all Americans who came together in America's ``Second War of Independence,'' particularly those fallen heroes who gave their lives during the conflict.

It is important Americans recognize the service and sacrifice of all those who have worn the uniform of this Nation. On behalf of the Senate, I thank the millions of brave men and women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and risked their lives for our Nation, including during the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 confirmed America's independence from Great Britain in the eyes of the world. Before the war, the British had been routinely imposing on American sovereignty. They had impressed American merchant seamen into the British Royal Navy, enforced illegal and unfair trade rules with the United States, and allegedly offered assistance to American Indian tribes that were attacking frontier settlements. In response, the United States declared war on Great Britain to protest these violations of free trade, sailors' rights, and sanctioning raids on American land.

After 2\1/2\ years of conflict, the British Navy sailed up the heart of the Chesapeake Bay with combined military and naval forces, and in August 1814 attacked Washington, DC, burning to the ground the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and much of the rest of our capital city. Less than 3 weeks later, the British set their eyes upon the next prize: the strategic port city of Baltimore, MD.

American forces, primarily made up of citizens of Baltimore, prepared Baltimore City's defenses. Marylanders fought the British army during the Battle of North Point and helped repulse the British Navy from Fort McHenry during the now infamous Battle of Baltimore. I want to point out that the American forces during the Battle of North Point were volunteer militia. In the battle, just 250 members of the 5th Brigade of the Maryland Militia, heavily outnumbered by the highly trained British infantry, managed to delay the British forces long enough for 10,000 reinforcements to arrive, preventing a land attack against Baltimore.

The British assault also failed at sea. Following 25 hours of intense British naval bombardment at Fort McHenry, the American defenders refused to yield, and the British were forced to depart. During the bombardment, an American lawyer, Francis Scott Key, who was being held onboard an American flag-of-truce vessel in Baltimore Harbor, beheld, by the dawn's early light, the American flag still flying atop Fort McHenry.

Key realized then that the Americans had survived the battle and stopped the enemy advance. Moved by the sight of the American flag flying over Fort McHenry, he composed the poem called ``The Defense of Fort McHenry,'' which was later set to music, becoming ``The Star Spangled Banner'' that officially became the National Anthem on March 3, 1931. We will be celebrating this weekend the 82nd anniversary of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' becoming the official national anthem of our country. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry during that fateful night is now a national treasure on display at the Smithsonian Institution--an inspiration to all Americans--a very short distance from where we are today.

The War of 1812 confirmed the legitimacy of the Revolution and served as a critical test for the U.S. Constitution and our newly established democratic government. Our young Nation battled against the largest, most powerful military on Earth at the time and emerged with an enhanced standing among the countries of the world. A new generation of Americans too young to remember the victory of the Revolutionary War were inspired by Francis Scott Key's poem to take pride in our Nation's flag, which embodies

our universal feelings of patriotism and courage.

As a Marylander, I am proud of the role my State played in the War of 1812, and I have been involved in legislative efforts to bring greater attention to this bicentennial celebration. My colleague Congressman Ruppersberger and I were sponsors of the Star Spangled Banner Commemorative Coin Act, signed into law by President Obama in August 2010, directing the U.S. Mint to create coins commemorating this important anniversary.

These gold and silver coin designs are emblematic of the War of 1812, particularly the Battle of Baltimore that formed the basis for the lyrics to our National Anthem. The coins are set to go on sale in March and will be sold only during this year. The surcharges from these commemorative coins will provide support to the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission to conduct bicentennial activities, assist in educational outreach, and preserve sites and structures relating to the War of 1812.

I am also planning to introduce with my colleagues Senator Portman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Mikulski a resolution to mark this occasion, to celebrate the heroism of the American people during the conflict, and to recognize the various organizations involved in organizing commemorative events in Maryland and throughout the United States in the coming years, including the U.S. Armed Forces, the National Park Service, and the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission.

As we recognize all these ongoing efforts during this commemorative period, I encourage all Americans to remember the sacrifice of those who gave their lives to defend our Nation's freedom and democracy, and to join in the bicentennial celebration of our victory in the War of 1812.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from Missouri as he talked about his amendment. I know he is very sincere in his efforts to protect the first amendment, and if that is what this amendment was about, he would have my support. But let me try to go over the amendment and put in context how it is drafted, because this amendment goes well beyond that.

I would agree with my colleague that the genesis of this amendment was because of contraceptive services and the request from religious institutions not to have to provide coverage for those services. The amendment we have before us, however, would allow an employer--any employer--or any insurance company to deny essential medical services coverage based upon a religious or moral objection. So the concern with this amendment is that it would allow any employer in this country to deny coverage of essential medical services in the plan that employer provides. And that could cover women's health care issues; it could cover contraceptive issues, mammography screenings, prenatal screenings, cervical cancer screenings. An employer could very well say, I am against the moral issue concerning providing that coverage.

I don't believe the historical interpretations my colleague went through apply to those types of circumstances. This amendment would go well beyond one particular service and would cover any medical service. In fact, it says if an employer or insurance plan had any religious or moral objection to a service it can choose to exclude that service from the essential benefit package or the preventive services provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it would affect women's health care. There is no question about that. It would also affect the health care of men and of children.

The Affordable Care Act guarantees that all plans offered in the individual small group market must cover a minimum set of essential health benefits, including maternity and newborn care; pediatric services, including oral and vision care; rehabilitative services and devices; and mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.

Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could say, look, I don't want to cover rehabilitative services, for whatever reason--I have a moral objection to it--and they could exclude that service. Preventive care would be at risk, prenatal care would be at risk, life-saving immunization could be at risk, developmental screening, mental health assessments, and hearing and vision tests. Any employer could make it a judgment not to cover any one of those services. Any insurance company could, based upon a ``moral objection.'' That is a very broad standard.

That is why pediatricians and advocates for children across the Nation oppose it. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians oppose it, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the Children's Dental Health Project, Easter Seals, Genetic Alliance, the March of Dimes, and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners oppose it. These are not political groups, these are health care groups. They know this amendment could put at risk what we were attempting to achieve in the Affordable Care Act, and that is to make sure we have coverage for essential health services for all the people in this country.

Well, what if an employer could say, I don't want to cover preventive services based on a moral objection? That could happen. This amendment would allow employers to decline to offer life-saving screenings for prostate cancer screenings by simply citing a moral objection, even though one in six men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. Last year, 33,000 Americans died from prostate cancer.

An employer who claims a moral objection to cigarette smoking could, under the Blunt amendment, deny employees coverage for smoking cessation programs or treatment for lung cancer. I have a moral objection to smoking; I am not going to cover in my health care plans treatment for lung cancer. More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. More than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year and more than 150,000 die from it. Last year, 85,000 were men.

An employer who claims a moral objection to alcohol consumption could, under the Blunt amendment, deny coverage for substance abuse or rehabilitation or for medical treatment for liver disease, if it is found to be the result of alcohol abuse.

Nowhere in the Affordable Care Act does it stipulate any American must take advantage of the expanded preventive health services. Here is where we have an agreement. We have an agreement that we are not trying to tell anyone what they have to do. I have been a defender of the first amendment my entire legislative career. If you have a religious objection to this, then don't use the services. Nowhere in the Affordable Care Act does it require a woman to use contraception or a man to have cancer screening or a child to receive well-baby visits. What the Affordable Care Act requires is that every American have access to these services so they can decide for themselves, with the advice of their physician, whether they are appropriate and healthy to utilize. If the Blunt amendment were used by employers to deny access to care, we are denying the people in this country the right to make that choice themselves.

I agree it is not just contraceptive services, it is the choice to be able to have preventive services--to take care

of your children, to have the screenings for early detection of cancer or to have treatment for serious diseases. All that could be put at risk. The Affordable Care Act views health care as a right, not a privilege, and it expands the freedoms available to American workers and their families rather than limits them.

I understand the intentions may be very pure. And if we want to have a resolution saying we support the first amendment, you will have all of us in agreement on that. But when you say you are using that to remove from the Affordable Care Act the essential health coverage for services that I think all of us agree should be available to every person in this country, to make a decision whether he or she wants that health care, then this amendment could be used to deny them that ability to get that health care. Whether it is women's health care issues, which was the genesis of this amendment originally, in the debate we had a couple of weeks ago, or whether it is the care of our children or the care of each American, this amendment puts that at risk by allowing an individual employer or insurance company to make a decision to eliminate essential health service coverage. I don't believe we want to do that, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Blunt amendment.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.