Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 458, H.R. 1528.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 503, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 504.

Mr. President, next term the Supreme Court will take up a case presenting the question whether a provision of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, which affects the official identification documents of some American citizens born abroad, is constitutional. In 2002, Congress enacted a law permitting U.S. citizens who are born in Jerusalem to have the Secretary of State specify ``Israel'' as their birthplace on their passports and other consular documents. Under existing State Department policy, passports and other documents of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem may only record ``Jerusalem'' as their place of birth, not ``Israel,'' regardless of the wishes of the child or the parents.

Although the President signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 into law, in his signing statement he stated that, if the section of the law that included that provision, section 214, were interpreted as mandatory, it would ``interfere with the President's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the Nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.'' Emphasizing that ``U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed,'' the Executive has continued to record solely ``Jerusalem'' as the birthplace on passports of all U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, regardless of their preference and notwithstanding the statute.

In accordance with the Executive's policy, the State Department declined a request to place ``Israel'' on the official documents of a young Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen despite the statutory directive. The boy's parents then sued the Secretary of State on his behalf and sought an order to have ``Israel'' recorded as their son's place of birth. Their suit has been before the D.C. Circuit three times and is now in the Supreme Court for the second time.

Both the district court and the court of appeals initially ordered the suit dismissed. The D.C. Circuit held that the parents' claim under the statute ``presents a nonjusticiable political question because it trenches upon the President's constitutionally committed recognition power,'' which the court said, includes ``a decision made by the President regarding which government is sovereign over a particular place.'' Siding with the Executive, the court explained, ``[E]very president since 1948 has, as a matter of official policy, purposefully avoided taking a position on the issue whether Israel's sovereignty extends to the city of Jerusalem. . . . The State Department's refusal to record `Israel' in passports and Consular Reports of Birth of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem implements this longstanding policy of the Executive.''

The parents sought Supreme Court review, and in 2011 the Attorney General advised Congress that the Department of Justice would defend the court of appeals' judgment that the case was nonjusticiable, but that it would also argue that, if the claim was found to be justiciable, section 214(d) of the Act unconstitutionally infringes on the President's exclusive authority to recognize foreign states. A number of Senators and Members of the House appeared as amici curiae, or friends of the court, in support of the statute.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the court of appeals' holding that the constitutional issue was a political question. The Court found that the case called for nothing more than performing the ``familiar judicial exercise'' of ``deciding whether the statute impermissibly intrudes upon Presidential powers under the Constitution.''

On remand, Members of both Houses again submitted amicus curiae briefs in defense of section 214(d). One judge on the appellate panel found that the plaintiff's argument was ``powerfully'' buttressed by briefs submitted by Members of Congress, among other amici. However, the panel majority observed, ``While an amicus brief has been submitted on behalf of six senators and fifty-seven representatives, they of course do not speak for the Congress qua the Congress.''

Based on its review of constitutional text and structure, precedent, and history, the D.C. Circuit concluded, this time on the merits, that the President ``exclusively holds the power to determine whether to recognize a foreign sovereign'' and that the statute ``plainly intended to force the State Department to deviate from its decades-long position of neutrality on what nation or government, if any, is sovereign over Jerusalem.'' The court found conclusive the Executive's view that, in so doing, ``section 214(d) would cause adverse foreign policy consequences.'' Accordingly, the court found that the law ``impermissibly intrudes on the President's recognition power and is therefore unconstitutional.''

In April of this year, the Supreme Court again granted review in the case, this time focused on the single question: ``Whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in `Israel' on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute `impermissibly infringes on the President's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him.' ''

This case, accordingly, now presents the Supreme Court with very important questions about the constitutional allocation of power between the branches over foreign affairs. The issues likely to be addressed include the claims of the Executive that the Constitution gives the President exclusive authority over recognition of foreign governments, that this law implicates such authority, and that the statute infringes impermissibly on the President's recognition power.

Contrary to the Executive's claim and the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit,

this statutory provision does not usurp any constitutional power of the President. In particular, it does not infringe on the President's exercise of the power to recognize foreign governments and to voice positions on matters of international sovereignty on behalf of the United States.

In legislating the content of identification documents available to American citizens born abroad, Congress is exercising its plenary powers over immigration and naturalization and its constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. The law does not alter the position of the United States on the status of Jerusalem. Rather, it continues Congress's century-and-a-half-old exercise of legislative authority over the contents and design of identification documents, such as passports, held by U.S. citizens. Congress does so in this case to respect the prerogative of American citizens to identify themselves as American citizens with a birth connection to the State of Israel, should they choose to do so.

Mr. President, Title VII of the Ethics in Government Act authorizes the Senate to appear as an amicus curiae in any legal action in which the powers and responsibilities of the Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue. Appearance as an amicus curiae in this case would enable the Senate to respond to the Executive's contention that this law infringes on the President's constitutional power to recognize foreign governments and to present to the Court the basis for the Senate's conviction that the law is consistent with the Constitution.

This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to appear in this case in the Senate's name as amicus curiae to support the constitutionality of the statute.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, July 17; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 438, S. 2244, as provided under the previous order, and I ask that that be approved.

Mr. President, at 12 noon tomorrow there will be up to five votes in relation to the TRIA bill. We anticipate three rollcall votes in relation to the Coburn and Flake amendments and then on passage of the bill. There will be two voice votes on the Vitter and Tester amendments. We also expect to lock in an agreement to vote in relation to a circuit judge nomination at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, there will be a period of morning business until 12 noon today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half.

At 12 noon today the Senate will proceed to executive session and to a series of two rollcall votes on the following nominations: cloture on Norman C. Bay to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and cloture on Cheryl A. LaFleur to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Following the second vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. If cloture is invoked on either of the nominations, the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 3 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the two nominations.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to both of these bills.

Mr. President, later today, as I have just mentioned, the Senate will hold two rollcall votes to confirm nominations to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--Norman Bay and Cheryl LaFleur.

I am aware of the important nature of these two nominations, and I realize that their confirmations have significant consequences.

Upon her confirmation, Cheryl LaFleur will remain at the FERC as chair for 9 months. Following that period of time, Norman Bay will then assume the position of FERC chair.

I appreciate very much the work done by a number of Senators to get us to the point where we are. The chair of the energy committee, Senator Mary Landrieu, has done really hard work, and it has been a bipartisan effort to move these nominations forward.

I have been assured by both nominees that the issue which the Wall Street Journal editorialized about yesterday--and they called it ``the federal takeover of New York's electric grid''--will be addressed. I have spoken to both nominees, and they will take a hard look at that. When it came out yesterday, I directed attention to that, and that will be addressed by both of them, and they have said so.

Hobby Lobby Decision

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

We've come a long way in pay equity and there are a ton of

women CEO's now running major companies. . . . I could be

wrong, but I think most of the barriers [for American women]

have been lowered.

The Republican leader seems to be suggesting the obstacles preventing women from receiving equal treatment under the law have been conquered--the struggle for equality for women is over.

The only things missing from the Republican leader's declaration would be an aircraft carrier and a large ``MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'' sign hanging in the background. We all remember that. Remember, that was President Bush declaring the war in Iraq was basically over. Well, it was not. And the war regarding women is not over.

The Republican leader suggested that the notion of ensuring equal rights for American women is tantamount to ``preferential treatment.'' That was his opinion. That is as shocking as it is troubling.

The truth is, regardless of what Republicans in Congress may say, the barriers of inequality for American women are very real and very substantial. Take this as an example. There are many examples, but let's try this one: The Republican leader mentioned pay equity. American women are paid an average of 77 cents for every $1 their male colleagues make for doing the exact same work. It is not fair. But instead of working with Senate Democrats to give working women a fair shot at equal pay for equal work, Republicans refuse to even let the legislation be debated. This was one of their multitude of filibusters.

The Republican leader also spoke of the growing number of women CEOs at major companies. Now try this one on: Currently, among Fortune Magazine's listing of the 500 top companies in the world, there are 24 chief executives who are women. That is 4.8 percent of all the CEOs in the Fortune 500. If anyone believes--including my friend, the Republican leader--that fewer than 1 in 20 is good enough, this perfectly illustrates the Republicans' antiquated beliefs concerning working women and American women in general.

But perhaps the most disturbing reminder of the inequality barriers that women face is the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision. Just a few weeks ago, five men on the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporate bosses the right to interfere with their employees' decisions about birth control.

In its Hobby Lobby decision, those five Justices ruled that for- profit companies can assert religious objections to deny their employees--who may not share their same religious views--the contraceptive coverage required by law. That is what the Court said.

The Court's decision was stunningly wrong. The Court's misguided decision effectively takes away the right of American women to decide their own health care, instead empowering boardrooms to make final decisions on their employees' access to birth control.

How is it possible that in the 21st century we are debating whether or not bosses should be able to dictate their employees' family planning? It is 2014. It is not 1906 or 1907 or 1915.

Health coverage is a form of payment or compensation for employees.

There is a strike going on in New York--they are going to start Monday, I am told--for the largest short-haul railroad. Mr. President, 300,000 people ride that every day. What is the big sticking point? It is health care. Health care is a big deal to everybody. Health care is a form of payment or compensation for employees. Should employers' religious beliefs be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck and your days off? Of course not. So why would we let bosses decide something so personal and so private as the use of contraceptives?

Last week Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall introduced the Not My Boss's Business Act to fix the Hobby Lobby decision. This legislation would make it illegal for any company to deny their workers specific health benefits, including birth control, as required by Federal law.

The Murray-Udall bill preserves the exemption for houses of worship and the accommodation for religious nonprofits that have religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

The decision to use birth control is private--and it should be--and it should not be subject to the personal or religious beliefs of some corporate boss; otherwise, where is it going to end? As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissenting opinion:

Would the exemption . . . extend to employers with

religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions;

antidepressants; medications derived from pigs--

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

including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated

with gelatin; and vaccinations?

That is what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

As Justice Ginsburg points out, the Court's decision is a very, very slippery slope. It opens the door to endless possibilities in which corporate boardrooms trump employees' health coverage.

That is why I support this bill, which clearly establishes a woman's right to quality health care. By passing the Not My Boss's Business Act, the U.S. Senate can knock down a significant barrier to women's equality. Regardless of what Republicans in Congress will tell you, we have a long, long way to go before American women are equal in all aspects of the law, as they should be.

The bill before us is a step in the right direction. It will help undo the damage done by the Supreme Court. But, more importantly, the Not My Boss's Business Act will help ensure American women have access to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to by law.

Recognition Of The Minority Leader

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 842, the Senate remain in executive session and consider Calendar Nos. 894, Nealon; 704, Wood; and 508, Jaenichen; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that any rollcall votes, following the first in the series, be 10 minutes in length; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

For the information of all Senators, we expect the nominations considered in this agreement to be confirmed by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if any, there will be a period of morning business until 6 p.m. this evening, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. The reason for that is last week we were able to get a few things done. We were able to do some things around here the way we used to do them.

I know my Republican colleagues lament how things used to be. Well, I was there. I know how things used to be. One of the things we used to do is we would work out pieces of legislation, as we did on terrorism insurance. We have a number of people who worked hard on that: Chairman Johnson, Senator Schumer--he worked with Ranking Member Crapo--and they came up with a way forward on an important piece of legislation. There will be some amendments. We will finish that legislation this week-- very important, important to our country, important to our economy, important to the construction industry. So I was very happy to see that done. So there are no votes tonight, and that is the reason for that.

There will be no rollcall votes during today's session, as I mentioned. The next rollcall votes will be tomorrow at noon. Those will be two cloture votes on nominees to be members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Suing The President

Mr. President, the Republicans have made a decision on a lawsuit against President Obama. It is difficult to understand how they have become so desperate that now they are talking about: Our issue of the day is not the minimum wage. Our issue of the day is not that women and men get the same amount of money for doing the same work. The issue of the day is not the crippling debt that is staggering this country; that is, student loan debt. Extended unemployment benefits--that is nothing they are focused on. I could go through a long list of what is important to the middle class that they simply are ignoring. So what are they doing to solve the problems of this country? Suing the President.

Mr. President, listen to what they are suing him about. They have been broadcasting for weeks their intention to sue the President, but they just did not know why. That is what they said, not I. Now, after misstep after misstep after misstep, they know why they are suing the President; they want to litigate ObamaCare.

The Acting President pro tempore has done a remarkably good job of calling out Republican Senators when they come to the floor and make these ridiculously false statements, and I appreciate that. I think everybody in the country, if they do not, should appreciate what the junior Senator from Connecticut has done.

House Republicans have identified President Obama's delayed enforcement of employer obligations in the

Affordable Care Act as the centerpiece of that frivolous lawsuit. This provision, which affects companies with 50 or more full-time employees, ensures that employers pay their fair share if their employees receive health subsidies. But listen to this: The irony, of course, is that this specific provision, which is in the bill that became law, came about as a result of the Republicans wanting to put it in the bill. Senator Grassley, Senator Enzi, and former Senator Snowe--this was something they worked on with Senator Baucus and other Members to come up with this bill. They placed it in the bill. It became law.

Even more absurd is the fact that Republicans in Congress have long targeted this specific provision of comprehensive health reform. In fact, just after President Obama announced the delay of the employer provision, House Republicans voted on legislation to do the exact same thing--delay the so-called mandate. So they are suing the President of the United States because he did what they wanted him to do--delay the mandate.

Every word I have spoken I wrote down in my own handwriting. That is what they wanted to do. They wanted him to do this. He did it and they sued him for doing what they wanted him to do. They could have applauded him.

House Republicans are trying something worthy of daytime television's ``The People's Court'' on one of those channels you do not watch very much. There are a lot of court channels, but this would be one where you would really have to be desperate to watch. They would not put it on a channel that made any common sense.

So, to sum it up, Republicans create an employer obligation provision in the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act becomes law. Republicans vilify the employer provision they themselves authored. Republicans demand that the employer provision in ObamaCare be delayed. President Obama agrees to delay the employer provision, and House Republicans sue President Obama for delaying the employer provision. Is this weird? Is this weird? I can answer my own question. Yes, it is weird.

This is the behavior we have come to expect from the Republican Party that is determined to do one thing: undermine this President. No matter the issue, even when they ask him to do it, they oppose him on it. They sue him this time.

We have seen this so often in the Senate. It is not just in the House. Last week the Republicans filibustered a bill on which there were 26 Republican cosponsors. That is a new one. More than half of the Republican Senators put their names on a bill and then turned around and voted against it.

With this provision in the health care law, House Republicans are ignoring the fact that they gave President George W. Bush a pass for doing the exact same thing--delaying a specific provision of a congressionally passed health care law. Then President Bush, through Executive order, waived Medicare Part D penalties for seniors enrolled after the deadline. He did this by Executive order. Republican leadership in the House did not consider suing President Bush for his administration's delay of health care law. So they chose now to do this. Why? Because it is President Obama.

While Republicans accuse President Obama of Executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer Executive orders than any two-term President in the last 50 years. President George W. Bush issued 291 Executive orders. President Clinton issued 364 Executive orders. President Reagan is the record holder; he issued 381 Executive orders. President Obama is not close to their records. He is 109 behind President Bush. He is 182 behind President Clinton. He is 199 behind President Reagan. What is the President's tally to date? As I have indicated, he is behind them all--an 8-year President. He has issued only 182.

Republicans' disdain for President Obama and health care reform has prevented them from accepting the obvious: ObamaCare is proving more and more successful every day. It seems as if every week--sometimes every other day--there is some new study or survey showing how good ObamaCare is, how it is helping American families.

Mr. President, the Commonwealth Fund:

The uninsured rate for people ages 19 to 64 declined from

20 percent in the July-to-September 2013 period to 15 percent

in the April-to-June 2014 period. An estimated 9.5 million

fewer adults were uninsured.

That is big-time stuff.

Young men and women drove a large part of the decline: the

uninsured rate for 19-to-34-year-olds declined from 28

percent to 18 percent--

Remember when everybody said young people will run from this. They are not running from this. They are running to it--

with an estimated 5.7 million fewer young adults uninsured.

That is so important. Because of the high cost of health care previously, young people--many of them--would not do it. Mr. President, 5.7 million more would not sign up for any kind of health insurance. And what happens? Young people do not realize they get very sick also. They get into accidents also. Bad things happen to young people, as they do to middle-aged and older people. And younger people are signing up for ObamaCare.

By June, 60 percent of adults with new coverage through the

marketplaces or Medicaid reported they had visited a doctor

or hospital or filled a prescription; of these, 62 percent

said they could not have accessed or afforded this care

previously.

That is stunning. It is no wonder--it is no wonder--we have fewer and fewer Republicans coming down here giving these speeches about how bad ObamaCare is.

A Gallup survey: ``In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter.'' This deals with millions of people.

The uninsured rate in the U.S. fell 2.2 percentage points.

. . .

When you have 300 million people, 2.2 percent is a lot of people.

The previous low point was 14.4% in the third quarter of

2008.

So it is well below that.

The RAND Corporation: ``Changes in Health Insurance Enrollment Since 2013.''

. . . . overall, we estimate that 9.3 million more people

had health care coverage in March 2014, lowering the

uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.

Stunningly important numbers.

So the evidence--not the shrill statements made by my colleagues over here bemoaning the fact of how terrible things are--all the evidence indicates that the Affordable Care Act is helping millions of Americans. You can say anything you want, but facts are nasty things. They are nasty to the point that they are factual. Do not believe all these crazy statements when there is no basis for it. It is helping-- this ObamaCare--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It is helping residents of blue States, red States, and purple States.

How about the State of Kentucky, the home State of our Republican leader? Well over 400,000 Kentuckians have signed up for coverage through the Affordable Care Act. That is not a State with the population of Illinois or New York or California or Texas; it is a sparsely populated State.

Four hundred thousand Kentuckians have signed up for coverage. Even Republicans love it. The Commonwealth Fund that I referred to found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with their ObamaCare health coverage, but instead of embracing the good that ObamaCare has done and working with Democrats to address any necessary fixes, Republicans would rather file a foolish and meritless lawsuit.

Is there anyone who believes this lawsuit has some basis? It is a sham--an effort to appease the tea party radicals in the House of Representatives. One Yale law professor was questioned on why the lawsuit is receiving so much media attention. Here is what he said: ``I see this every day now, being covered as if it's, as if it's somehow not a joke.'' It is a joke.

Another law professor from Harvard said: ``The lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and it should fail, for lack of any Congressional standing.'' Imagine how many lawsuits there would be if House Republicans could sue the President every time they disagreed with him about something--or some future President--but there is no reasoning with the radical Republicans in the House or the tea party-driven Members of the Senate.

House Republicans would rather waste taxpayer dollars than accept the

fact that their constituents, their very own neighbors, are benefiting from health care reform.

This is a phony trial that will come up. It is a show trial. It is what Republicans want.

I guess that is what they want, but if that is truly what they want, they should go talk to Judge Judy. I think she would throw this case out in half a second. The Congress is no place for inane, politically motivated litigation. I think Judge Judy would agree.

It is expensive and wasteful. It is wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money on something that is without any merit. Enough is enough. The fight over ObamaCare should be long since ended. The law is here to stay and, more importantly, newly insured Americans, all who have signed up, not only those who are newly insured but those who have signed up who had insurance before, want the law to stay just where it is.

Reservation of Leader Time

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 move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 850.

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I now move to proceed to legislative session.

Is the motion to proceed to S. 2578 now pending?

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.