Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. We have heard on this floor some lengthy speeches that brought a number of arguments to bear in an effort to appear learned, insightful, founded in law and founded in history, all to obscure the fundamental fact before this body, which is some on this floor today want to see a government owned and operated by the powerful, not the people. But that is exactly the opposite of what our Constitution was set up to do. The Founders of our Nation proceeded to lay out in very clear terms that the entire premise of our government would not be ruled by the few over the many. It would not be a system of government set up of, by, and for the powerful. They laid that vision out in the very first words of our Constitution. This premise is so well-known to citizens that when you say: What are the first three words of our Constitution, they will say, together: ``We the People,'' because that is what animates our system of government--``We the People.'' Those who came to argue for the government by and for the powerful are simply trying to destroy our Constitution and our vision of government. Citizens United, a court case that absolutely ignores the fundamental premises on which our Nation is founded, is a dagger poised at the heart of our democracy. It is a decision by five Justices that this framework doesn't matter. The writers of the Constitution felt this was so important to convey to every citizen that this is the meaning, the core meaning of what our government is about, that they proceeded to write those words in a font that is approximately 10 times the size of everything that comes after ``We the People of the United States. . . .'' And all that follows is to illuminate, expand on that vision. It was President Lincoln who summarized the genius of our democracy in his speech at Gettysburg: `` . . . of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' He proceeded to say that we must not let this vision perish from this Earth. Yet Citizens United, day by day, election by election, is diminishing and destroying the very vision that President Lincoln summarized in that speech on the battlefield at Gettysburg. What does Citizens United say? It says that entities that are not individuals, that have no claim to the Bill of Rights, can spend unlimited sums to inundate the airwaves and drown out the voice of the people. Imagine, if you will, the town square. Let's turn the clock back to the early phase of our democracy. There we are at the town square and everyone is supposed to have their chance to have their say in influencing the decisions that are to come. The town council says: Do you know what, Mr. Jones or Mrs. Anderson, you get 30 seconds, but now over here we are going to give 4 hours to your opponent. Would anyone consider that an exercise in democracy? Oh, yes, the individuals get 30 seconds, but the powerful entity--maybe the big landholder--gets 4 hours to make his or her case. That is not democracy. That is not ``We the People.'' That is rules that are twisted to fix the game on behalf of the powerful against the people, and that is what Citizens United represents. Our system of government is such that it is essential that citizens believe that every citizen has a fair shot to participate because if they do not believe there is a fair shot, then, in fact, the premise of democracy--``We the People''--is destroyed because why participate if the system is rigged? That is what we are talking about--the rigging of the system. I think those five Justices simply have not read the Constitution, have not read the first three words, do not understand the premise, the foundation, the heart of our system of government and what it is intended to accomplish. It is as if they scratched out the first three words of the Constitution and said: We are rewriting it. We are going to rig the system for ``We the Powerful'' over the people. That is what this debate is about. In Citizens United, these five Justices--a one-vote majority over the four who protested against this bizarre effort to destroy the premises of our democracy--said: Unlimited sums, dark money--such sums ``do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'' They could not be more wrong. Corruption in this sense is the rigging of the game such that citizens do not have a fair voice, and rigging the game is exactly what Citizens United does. It is so obvious that, of course, it gives rise to the appearance that the game is rigged because it is. Think about the situation I described where the town council says to Mr. Anderson or Mrs. Jones: You get 30 seconds; the opponent on the other side gets 4 hours. That is exactly what we are seeing in elections across the country. You may see in some elections that the average donation may be $50. Along come the Koch brothers, who in most States would be out-of-State, out-of-State oil and coal billionaires, coming in and maybe spending $3 million or $5 million or more through a variety of front groups they have set up. How many individual donations does it take to get the same time to present your case as the Koch brothers spending, say, $3 million? Well, it would take about 60,000 $50 donations to buy the same opportunity to speak. So Citizens United is very much like that town council saying: You, madam citizen, get 30 seconds, but you, mister rich, powerful individual, get 4 hours. So, of course, it is corrosive and corrupting. It erodes fair opportunity for all citizens to have their voice heard. And because it does erode the ability of all citizens to have their voice heard, of course, it enhances the belief, that is, the appearance that the system is rigged, the appearance of corruption. It changes the debate in this Chamber because colleagues look at these millions of dollars brought to bear by just a couple individuals and they say to themselves in the back of their head: I better not step on the toes of that group that can now spend millions of dollars in my election way down in a southern State or way out in a western State or way up in the northeast. I better not step on their toes. If that is not corrosive and corrupting to a ``We the People'' debate and decisionmaking, I do not know what is. Let's take an example. Not so long ago the party across the aisle was saying: We think we have a good idea on how to use a market-based system to control sulfur dioxide. Rather than putting a limit on each smokestack, we will create an overall limit and allow the market to allocate the most cost-effective way to reduce that sulfur dioxide pollution. That cap-and-trade system invented across the aisle, proposed across the aisle, passed across the aisle, actually worked pretty well. In fact, it worked spectacularly. Sulfur dioxide and acid rain were decreased faster, more cheaply than anyone envisioned. If the range of possible outcomes was considered to be 1 through 10, this was a 25. It was a resounding success. But along come two individuals who have these billions of dollars who are getting into elections all over the country, who are threatening to put millions in to those who disagree, and they say: No, no, no. Sulfur dioxide, hmm, do not apply this idea that worked so well for the carbon dioxide pollution; do not do that; no matter how well this idea worked, do not do that because we won't fund your election. If you are with us, we will fund massive amounts of campaign ads to attack your opponents. That is exactly what the Koch brothers have done, and they reversed the entire position of my colleagues across the aisle in a couple years--in about a 2-year period--from a market-based control of a major pollutant, carbon dioxide, to arguing that no, no, no, it cannot be controlled. That would be an energy tax. Well, this happens time and time again, and the people across this Nation do, in fact, pay attention. They are seeing the system is rigged. That is why in one poll 92 percent of Americans said this program is broken. I thought to myself: What is wrong with the other 8 percent? Haven't they paid attention? Don't they know how much this system is being corrupted by Citizens United, by the decision of those five Justices? Well, in addition, there is another form of corruption that comes from Citizens United; and that is those individuals who have been elected by these vast sums are beholden to those who elected them and they will choose no policy that goes against those who have pulled their strings and gotten them elected. That is definitely a form of serious corruption in a democracy, where ideas are supposed to be debated and decided, analyzed, not where vast corporate or individual wealthy billionaires pull the strings. So it is destroying the competition between ideas on how to take a path that works for ``We the People'' instead of ``We the Powerful.'' When people back home see those in this Chamber arguing to cut food stamps while not cutting a single egregious tax giveaway to powerful oil companies, they see the corrosive influence of Citizens United. When they see folks across the aisle arguing that you should not eliminate these subsidies that go to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and that you should oppose subsidies to bring those jobs home, they see the powerful influence of Citizens United. The list could go on and on. We have a particular challenge because the concentration of wealth in America is greater than it has been since 1920, greater than it has been for virtually a century. And now we have a system, thanks to our Supreme Court majority of five, that says wealth can be brought to bear to buy elections across this Nation. This is not the system that colonists thought about when they were trying to set up a government that would serve every American--not the few--that would serve humble, ordinary working Americans--not the most powerful--that would serve those in every economic level for a better vision, a better opportunity for employment, a better opportunity for health, a better opportunity to live a quality life, instead of just those who have the biggest bank checkbooks. I urge my colleagues, let's take up this issue. How could any issue be more important than this issue that goes to the very core of our democracy? Let's not try to run these lengthy, lengthy speeches with learned, learned quotes, to try to disguise what this is about: the wealthiest, the most powerful oppressing the fundamental nature of our democracy. Together we can stay the hand that holds the dagger aimed at the heart of democracy, and it is our responsibility to do so for this generation and for the generations to come. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, would the Senator from Wyoming consider modifying that request to include me to follow on, following his remarks?

Mr. MERKLEY. I have absolutely no objection to that.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, at this moment in my home State of Oregon 500,000 acres are ablaze. Sometimes it is hard to get your hands around numbers, particularly large numbers, so I will give a sense of this. If you were to add up all of the fires in Oregon and if they were in one place, it would cover an area roughly 20 miles by 40 miles. That is an enormous section of a State to be aflame. Because there are so many devastating fires at once, crews are coming from all over to help with all kinds of aircraft and all kinds of hotshot crews. They are doing all they can, but it is not just Oregon that has fires; other States have fires too. There are over 250,000 acres ablaze in Washington State to the north in a single fire. I believe it is the largest single fire in Washington State's history. As a result of fires in Oregon and fires in Washington and other fires, we are draining our fire funds at an expansive rate, and thus we have a big problem: We are running out of funds to pay for fighting these fires. Tonight we had before our Chamber an emergency supplemental bill to provide 615 million more dollars to fight fires this season across the United States of America. A procedural tactic was used to kill this bill. Quite frankly, that is enormously shortsighted. Here is what has been happening in the past: The fires are being fought, and then the funds run out, and then the Forest Service has to pull the funds from every other department--from departments involving forest health, from departments providing efforts to prevent fires and create conditions in which they will not happen in the future. We are continuing a vicious cycle of robbing fire prevention and forest management funds to fight emergency fires, and that cycle will go forward now that we have failed to pass this emergency supplemental up front. I will give a little flavor of what I am talking about across our State. We have the Ochoco complex east of Post, 10,000 acres aflame. The Logging Unit complex northwest of Warm Springs, 6,600 acres; the Kitten Canyon complex west of Vale, 23,000 acres; the Bridge 99 complex north of Sisters, 5,700 acres; the Hurricane Creek fire southwest of Joseph, 900 acres; we have the Buzzard complex in southeast Oregon, nearly 400,000 acres; the Reeves Creek complex southwest of Grants Pass, 200 acres; the China Cap fire east of La Grande, 200 acres--by the way, zero percent contained--the Black Rock fire east of Antelope, 36,000 acres; the Sniption fire north of Fossil, 12,000 acres; and the Bingham complex east of Marion Forks, 450 acres. We also have two more fires that have just arisen, and those are the Haystack complex, 1,700 acres, and the Salt Creek fire northwest of Medford 100 acres. Here is the thing. We have the conditions for more fires to come-- more lightning, a forecast of more hot weather, and we have incredibly dry timber on the floor of the forest. This situation in which these fires are going to be fought--by pulling funds from every other part of the Forest Service--is unacceptable. It is not good stewardship of the complex operations that occur within the Interior Department and within the Forest Service. Think about the need to plan the timber harvest to sustain the lumber industry. That is a complex process. It involves a lot of folks who have to go out and evaluate the forests and work it out so those timber sales can occur on schedule. All of that gets stopped when you have to rob the fund in order to pay for fighting these fires. Let's think about the millions of acres of second-growth forest that are overgrown. It is very good for disease, it is very good for fires, and it needs to be thinned, but how do you plan for the thinning if you rob the funds to do so? The list goes on and on and on. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated with what happened tonight, and I urge my colleagues to exercise a little thoughtfulness, a little wisdom, and a little stewardship regarding our national forest. The next time this comes up, let's pass it unanimously so we can provide the funds that are needed to fight this national emergency. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I rise today to address a topic that is vital to seniors in Oregon and to seniors across our Nation, and that is our Medicare program. I know how important Medicare is because I grew up in a blue-collar working family. My dad was a millwright and a mechanic. He believed in hard work. He took a lot of satisfaction from his job. A millwright is the individual who does all the mechanical work to keep the mill running. He said if he did his job right, the mill was open, the workers had a payday, the company made money, and everyone was happy. Meanwhile, my mother managed the finances, and she stretched a dollar as far as anyone possibly could. She shopped for bargains. She used coupons. She collected Green Stamps, and they were able to save, to buy a home, and to have a foundation for raising their children. I benefited from that enormously. But despite the foundation they had, their prospects in retirement were dependent upon two critical programs: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare--a basic pension and affordable health care--are simply essential for millions of working families in retirement. They are the difference between poverty and stability. The way I see it, Medicare is a covenant with our seniors. It is a covenant with the 650,000 Oregonians who are on Medicare now. It is a covenant with the hundreds of thousands who will utilize Medicare in the years to come. It is certainly a covenant with the millions across America who depend on it--families. Those working families across America are families like my parents, who worked hard their whole lives, paid into Medicare, and expect Medicare to be there for them when they retire. We cannot break that covenant. The first step in keeping faith with our seniors is this: protecting what works. Pretty simple. We would think that is a no-brainer. But in fact, in Washington, a simple proposition like this--a no-brainer--is sometimes enormously controversial. For several years now, many in Washington here, and including this Chamber, have been pushing to privatize, to voucherize or to just plain weaken Medicare. They don't understand how important this program is for the secure retirement of our seniors. They don't understand how important this covenant is between each working generation and our retirees. In fact, the House of Representatives has repeatedly voted to effectively end the Medicare Program that Americans know and love and to stick our seniors with an enormous financial burden in their retirement years. This is just a simple way to describe that, and that is to say it is simply wrong. Others have said: Let's raise the Medicare retirement age to 67 or perhaps 70. I think, when I hear that, about my townhalls. In my townhalls--and I hold one in every county in every year--people come and talk about whatever they would like. I recall a woman coming to a townhall and she said: Senator, I am in my early sixties. I have several major health problems. She went on to describe them, and she said: I am just trying to stay alive until I can make it to age 65 and have access to Medicare. I have heard that theme of just trying to make it until they can reach that Medicare age in townhall after townhall. Sometimes those who work in offices, in company circumstances, don't realize how much actual physical labor takes a toll on the body. If someone is working in a post office and moving bags of mail day in and day out, as one good friend of mine has done throughout his career, it is very likely one would have a bad back and so on and so forth. Then of course there are the diseases that strike like lightning. Yes, those who happen to have jobs with corporations that provide a wonderful health care program are in a little better shape. But for our seniors, Medicare is a gem--a gem they have contributed into their entire lives, and it needs to be there for them. So for some who see the difference between 65 and 67 as some modest administrative change, for working Americans it is a monumental chasm and they fear falling into it. The good news is there is a very simple action the Senate could take right now to protect our covenant with our seniors. The Medicare Protection Act, which I have cosponsored along with Senator Pryor and others, makes three modest but important changes to our law: It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Medicare eligibility age should not be increased. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Medicare Program should not be privatized or voucherized. Third, it amends the Congressional Budget Act so that any attempt to reduce or eliminate guaranteed benefits or to restrict eligibility criteria, such as raising the eligibility age, cannot be passed through the budget reconciliation process. This is particularly important since the House has made repeated attempts to end Medicare as we know it, and to do so using the budget process--the Ryan budget--rather than through stand- alone legislation. It is time to ensure that we keep our covenant with our seniors. It is time to bring this bill to the floor, to debate it, and to pass it. Tomorrow happens to be the anniversary on which Medicare was signed into law 49 years ago. Maybe a great way to celebrate the 49th birthday of Medicare would be for this Chamber to debate this bill tomorrow and pass it. If not tomorrow, I would like to see it done in this work period. And if not in this work period, let's come back and address this in September. The days that are left in this 2-year cycle of the Senate are rapidly disappearing, and our seniors are concerned about this constant attack, this constant effort to undermine these programs such as Social Security and Medicare that they have paid into throughout their life and that they expect to be honored when they are retired. Let's bring this bill to the floor. Let's ensure that American seniors can stop worrying about these assaults on their retirement-- retirement security they so much deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Shelby Stepper, be granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the legislation we are debating, the Bring Jobs Home Act, but before I do so, I wish to note how much I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Vermont in fighting for quality care and quality programs for our U.S. veterans. This is incredibly important. Our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are coming home from Iraq and now from Afghanistan. They have stood for us and we need to stand for them. Bernie Sanders is leading that effort, and I appreciate him for doing so. I wish to address the legislation we are debating, the Bring Jobs Home Act. Earlier today the Senate voted on whether to debate this legislation to help bring manufacturing jobs back to America--to onshore these jobs. I was very heartened to see a 93-to-7 overwhelming bipartisan majority say: Yes, let's turn to this bill and work on increasing manufacturing jobs in America. This is a much better result than we had just 2 years ago when some of my colleagues combined to thwart the ability to close debate on the motion to proceed and we were unable to get on to this bill. We are in an economy where jobs have been returning, but quality living-wage jobs remain elusive. Indeed, 60 percent of the jobs we lost in 2008 and 2009 were living-wage jobs, and of the jobs we are getting back, only 40 percent of those are living-wage jobs. The difference between those two numbers means that millions of families who had a strong foundation just a few years ago, while they may have employment today, do not have a strong foundation because they are chasing part- time jobs, minimum-wage jobs, near-minimum-wage jobs, and jobs with low to no benefits, and that is not a foundation on which a family can thrive. This bill is important. The Bring Jobs Home Act does two simple things: It closes tax loopholes that ask the American people-- currently--to subsidize the costs for corporations to ship jobs overseas; second, it creates a new tax incentive to encourage companies to bring jobs home with a tax credit that covers 20 percent of the costs of relocating those jobs back to the United States. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation because this is an item of huge importance to my home State of Oregon. Manufacturing is a tremendous driver of Oregon's economy. In fact, if we look across the Nation and we look at what share of the State economy is driven by manufacturing, Oregon is often first or second. Manufacturing matters a great deal. When manufacturing thrives, the Oregon economy is going to do well, and when it dies, the Oregon economy is not going to do well. If we look at this from yet another perspective, we can see that States have been losing manufacturing jobs over the last 10-plus years in sizeable numbers. In the period of about 2001 to 2011, that 10-year period, we lost approximately 5 million manufacturing jobs. To put it differently, we lost 50,000 factories. Well, what would we do today to have those 5 million living-wage, family-wage, good-paying jobs? One is we should pass this bill and to quit subsidizing the export of our jobs overseas. These tax breaks, which were put through by powerful special interests for the benefit of a few multinationals, have done enormous damage to the United States of America and to our families, and this is our chance to reverse that. One study--the Economic Policy Institute study of 2012--looked at the number of jobs that were created in this dynamic between additional sales overseas versus additional imports. Those additional imports, of course, reflected jobs lost. In their estimate, Oregon gained about 9,100 jobs from additional exports and we lost about 59,000 jobs. That differential of 50,000 jobs has an enormous impact on the State of Oregon. We can put it this way: It is about 2 to 3 percent of the number of jobs in our State economy, so it is an issue which really hits home. I know Oregon is not alone. For every single State--West and East, urban and rural, and, yes, Democrat and Republican--this has been the story in which jobs lost have exceeded jobs gained. That is why I strongly hope this body of folks--representing the West and East and North and South and urban and rural, the blue and red--can come together to get this job done for the American people. Think about it this way for a moment. Under our current Tax Code, we are asking working families who are paying income taxes to subsidize the exportation of their own jobs. That makes no sense. If you went out on the street in Eugene or Pendleton or Medford--cities across my State--and asked people what they think about that, you would probably hear a common theme. One person might say: That is absurd. Another person might say: That goes against our own economic self-interest. A third person might simply say: That is wrong and it hurts families. All of them would be right. Let's right this wrong, this inflicted wound on living-wage jobs and on our families. Over the last few years we have started to see a bit of improvement in that manufacturing jobs have started to grow. But we need to nurture that trend. We need to encourage that direction. I know that for the Oregon families who are at the heart of the manufacturing economy, whether or not their jobs stay here in the United States of America means everything. It will affect the quality of life they will have as adults, and it also affects the quality they will bring to their jobs as parents and raising their children to seize opportunities of the future. Let's continue to work together to keep jobs here in Oregon and here in America. Let's take on this issue of offshoring that has deeply affected millions of Americans. This is a problem that is within our power to fix, and we are now on the bill that starts us down the path of fixing it. Let's not get stalled. Let's make sure we have the majority to close debate, to get to a final vote. If anyone has anything to say and you don't feel you have had time to say it, come and say it tonight, say it tomorrow, say it tomorrow evening, but get down here and make your notions known so that you don't have to say that you need more time when it comes time to shut down debate and actually vote on this bill. Paralysis has been the practice that has so hurt this Chamber's ability to address major issues affecting America, and that is not right. I encourage my colleagues, whatever you have to say, come down here and say it. Don't once again obstruct the ability of this Chamber to take on a major issue affecting families across this land. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and opportunity to speak on this bill. I know the Presiding Officer has been championing a whole collection of bills designed to nurture manufacturing. That collection of bills could do great work and would be a logical additional step as we take on these provisions to stop offshoring and increase onshoring. We should turn to some of the other bills the Senator from Delaware has put together. One of the bills he has put together is a bill I sponsored. It is called the Build Act. I have gone on a manufacturing tour in my State of Oregon and visited a large number of manufacturers, and the common issue I hear from those who are managing the factory floor or from the CEOs is this: We need more folks coming out of high schools and community colleges who have both the aptitude for using tools and the desire to use tools. It used to be, when I was growing up--this simply came because we had a habit of building things in our garages. Our garages were full of tools in a working-class community. My garage is still full of tools, but I can tell you that my children are not likely to find themselves out in the garage making things because that is not the culture today. If they are going to learn the joy of making things, they are going to have to have the opportunity of shop classes. It has a fancy name now-- ``career technical education.'' I think ``shop classes'' gives a better visual impression--metal shop and woodshop and bringing items home where you can say, hey, I made this dustpan or this carving or this mask. I have been to some shop classes in Oregon where the students are not making the simple things that I made. They are making some of the most incredibly gorgeous furniture you have ever seen, with sophisticated skills in using tools. We need more of those shop classes to help feed and nurture the manufacturing economy. It is a win-win for our children, it is a win-win for our economy, and it is a win-win in terms of creating living-wage jobs that are a strong foundation for families to thrive. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Kane, my intern, have privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, as the conflict in Gaza continues to escalate, we mourn the tragic loss of lives and hope for a speedy and peaceful resolution. Israelis and Palestinians have both seen far too much bloodshed and destruction. I cosponsored S. Res. 498 because I stand by Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas' indiscriminate attacks. No country in the world would be expected to stand by as its people are threatened with rocket fire. But both sides should do everything possible to deescalate and end this battle. I urge Hamas to end its attacks and to renounce its mission of annihilating Israel, and I urge Israel to exercise restraint and proportional force, tailoring its tactics to protect innocent lives. There can and must be an end in sight for the violence that is now engulfing the region. I support calls for an immediate ceasefire. The United States must continue to stand ready to help facilitate a solution and a path forward toward both security and economic development, which are essential elements for any enduring peace.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Challenges at the Border: Examining and Addressing the Root Causes Behind the Rise in Apprehensions at the Southern Border.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, in room SD- 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving the Trust System: Continuing Oversight of the Department of the Interior's Land Buy-Back Program.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veteran's Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of VA Health Care.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``What Makes A Bank Systemically Important?''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 3 p.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South Central Asian Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Indispensable Partners--Reenergizing US-India Ties.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a joint hearing with the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Options for Assuring Domestic Space Access.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hanging Up on Phone Scams: Progress and Potential Solutions to this Scourge.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``At a Tipping Point: Consumer Choice, Consolidation and the Future Video Marketplace.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014 at 3 p.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Haley Wilson, be granted privileges of the floor for today.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the assault on women's health that has come from a majority of our Supreme Court in recent weeks. It is unfortunate and frankly shocking that in the year 2014 we are still debating the issue of access to birth control. But here we are. Millions of Americans are looking to the Senate today and counting on us to stand for women's rights. They are counting on us to put health care back between a woman and her doctor. They are counting on us to stand for millions of Americans' access to affordable, preventive health care of every kind. They are counting on us to say that birth control is not your boss's business. In short, they are counting on us to right this huge wrong from the Supreme Court. We have that ability to right this wrong. We have that ability here in this room. The Court, in its decision, lays out a structure in which Congress does have the power to overturn this misguided decision. The Court based its decision on an act of Congress, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Now Congress can respond. Congress can pass a new law that says: That is not what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was meant to mean. The Court got it wrong. We are going to make it right. We should all remember that the act was set up to protect the religious choices of employees. The Supreme Court has stood that on its head. But for us to right the wrong we have to be willing to debate. We have to be willing to go to the bill. We have to be willing to consider each other's viewpoints, listen to each other. We have to be willing to vote. But we cannot get to the bill if the majority is thwarted by a minority which uses its filibuster power in a way never envisioned in the past, never utilized until recent history, which has prevented Congress from actually debating bills. So let's all join together and say: Wherever you stand on this issue, this issue is important enough to debate. Women's health care is important enough to debate. Access to contraceptive care is important enough to have that issue before this body. So let's all say yes to debate this bill. The bill is formally titled The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act or, as it is commonly known, the Not My Boss's Business Act. I hope we will all join collectively in saying this is an important issue, because it really is about women's access to fundamental health care. Whether contraceptives are used for family planning or for painful medical conditions such as endometriosis, birth control is essential health care for millions of Americans. While some are trying to say this case has nothing to do with access to birth control, that is simply not true. For most working families, affordability is access. Without insurance, birth control can cost tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. One-third of women in America say they have struggled with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. For working families, getting by month to month, often paycheck to paycheck, these costs, though they might be dismissed by Washington pundits and even politicians here across the aisle, add up. They can put contraception out of reach. A loss of insurance coverage can certainly make certain types of contraception totally unaffordable. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent, the upfront cost of an IUD is equivalent to nearly a month's wages for a minimum wage worker. In the blue-collar community I live in, in working America, a month's wage is a very big deal. Not having insurance coverage equals not having access. Although our Republican colleagues would have you believe otherwise, this dangerous precedent could apply to all sorts of basic, essential health care. What is to stop a boss from claiming a religious objection to vaccinations under the theory espoused in this decision or from access to a blood transfusion or to surgery or to HIV and AIDS, because all of those fit the same pattern in that various religions have a strong religious objection to those health care benefits. I am not sure what is more troubling, the path charted by five Justices that allows a boss to trump essential personal, preventive health care choices or the Court's notion that it is okay to single out women's health care in this decision. The bottom line is this: The bill before us that we would go to on the vote this afternoon, the Murray-Udall bill, is about putting women back in charge of their own health care. Women do not want politicians interfering in their health care. They certainly do not want their bosses and CEOs interfering in their health care. Bosses belong in the boardroom. They do not belong in employees' bedrooms or their exam rooms. Let's send a message to all Americans who are watching this body, this great deliberative body today, that the Senate is listening, that we hear the concerns of millions of women across this land and that we are ready to put women back in charge of their own health care and get the bosses out of the exam rooms. I urge my colleagues to join in voting yes to open debate on this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.