Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of Senate amendment No. 1729, which I hope will be added today to the National Defense Authorization Act. The goal of this amendment is to finish--what I hope is to finish a public health study that we began with legislation in 2017 to address the contaminant known as PFAS. I know the Presiding Officer knows about this because she has that chemical in her State as well. I want to begin by commending the work of the Armed Services Committee--both Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for working with me to establish the first ever human health study of PFAS and to institute policies that will phase out the Defense Department's use of these chemicals over the next several years. We began this journey in 2017 when we put $10 million into a health study--the first of its kind in the country--to look at the impacts of PFAS on humans. At that time, we authorized $10 million for 3 years. Unfortunately, because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is taking longer to complete the study than we had hoped, so we are going to need some additional funding. There is real urgency in addressing PFAS. As many of us know, PFAS chemicals have emerged as widespread pollutants in the drinking water sources of military bases across this country. The main reason is because PFAS chemicals were used in firefighting foam that was used by the armed services. The number of military installations with known or suspected contamination from PFAS continues to rise. In March, DOD updated its count of military installations impacted by these materials from 401 across the country to 651--651 military installations-- which means that they are in almost every State in the United States, and other studies have reported that this is actually a conservative estimate. We don't yet know what the long-term risks of exposure to PFAS are because we are still trying to get research into that, but studies have already linked these chemicals--and there are hundreds of chemicals in the PFAS category--to a number of adverse health effects. The potential ties between PFAS and various forms of cancer are of particular concern to firefighters who may have experienced exposure during firefighting and fire-training exercises. On June 11, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR--works as part of the Centers for Disease Control--issued a statement expressing concern about how PFAS exposure can impact the risk of COVID-19 infections. Now, for all of us who have constituents who have been exposed to PFAS, we know this has caused a lot of sleepless nights for countless American families both in New Hampshire and across the country who have been living and working near sites contaminated by these materials. In my State of New Hampshire, the city of Portsmouth, which was the home of the former Pease Air Force Base, closed a major water supply well located at that airbase after the Air Force found PFAS in the drinking water at levels 12\1/2\ times higher than the provisional health advisory from the Environmental Protection Agency at that time. That number has changed since then. Moreover, State health officials determined that more than 1,500 people, including children who attended daycare centers near the site, have elevated levels of PFAS in their blood from drinking contaminated groundwater at Pease. I have heard from so many parents who are terrified of what this contamination means for the health of their children. One woman, who has been a real leader in responding to the PFAS emergency, Andrea Amico of Portsmouth, remembers feeling like her world was crashing down when tests showed that her two children, exposed to PFAS in drinking water at Pease, had elevated levels of these materials in their blood. She said: ``[T]o actually see it on paper, to know it was true, was very devastating for me, and the wide range of emotions I experienced with those results ranged from anger to fear, frustration and guilt.'' Andrea's children attended the childcare center--one of the two childcare centers at Pease. I also heard from Alayna Davis of Dover and Michelle Dalton of Durham, both of whom are mothers with children at a daycare center near the former base at Portsmouth. Alayna said that she was exposed to PFAS at Pease when she was pregnant with her son. She and her husband were devastated when they learned that their son had high levels of PFAS in his blood. Michelle was exposed to the contaminated water in January of 2011 when she started working on the base. Her youngest child has attended daycare at Pease since he was 12 weeks old, but, of course, he was exposed to contamination since conception. Stories like Andrea's, Alayna's, and Michelle's are not limited to Portsmouth, sadly. Contamination from PFAS is not limited to military bases and airports. That is why this long-term health study is so important, and it is so critical that we complete it. We need to know what the research says are the dangers of PFAS. Since Congress authorized the study in 2017, the ATSDR and Centers for Disease Control have been working to identify the health effects of PFAS exposure, starting with the former Pease airbase in Portsmouth. There are other--I believe there are seven other sites around the country that have been designated as part of this study. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19, as I said earlier, the agencies expect additional costs associated with continuing the study, as well as a 1-year delay in finalizing the results. I think we could all agree that families who have been exposed to these chemicals deserve answers. What my amendment would do is provide additional funding for the PFAS health study to ensure that ATSDR and CDC can complete their work and do it without delay. The safety of our drinking water is essential, and it is nonnegotiable. The potential serious health effects associated with exposure to PFAS chemicals demand moving forward with policies that will protect our communities, especially our men and women in uniform. Senate amendment 1729 would help to do just that. Of course, this is just the beginning. This gives us a baseline study to tell us what the health effects are. Once we get that study and as we continue to move forward, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that PFAS--not just on military bases but in communities across this country, which appear in so many different products--that we can address that in a way that provides some sort of insurance and protection to families across this country so they know what they are dealing with and so they know they can get help. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor in support of legislation that would address what is happening in our long-term care facilities across this country as a result of the coronavirus. I applaud Senator Casey for his leadership on this legislation and am pleased to be able to join in cosponsoring the bill, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan; Senator Whitehouse, who was here; and Senator Blumenthal. We are all here because this country is not doing enough to support long-term care facilities and nursing homes in America. Before I talk more about the legislation, I begin by expressing my outrage at the fact that this administration has directed the Department of Justice to weigh in to try and overturn the Affordable Care Act at a time when we have millions of Americans who are vulnerable during the coronavirus pandemic. As of today, 2.5 million Americans--nearly 6,000 patients in New Hampshire--have been infected with the coronavirus. Nationally, more than 125,000 Americans have died. In New Hampshire, nearly 400 Granite Staters have died from complications from the virus. Yet what this administration is doing is trying to strike down the Affordable Care Act and take away healthcare coverage from 23 million Americans, including over 90,000 residents of New Hampshire. That means, if they are successful, that we will have millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who will lose protections that they rely on. We will return to the days when insurers can deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions or charge them higher premiums based on their health status. Insurers will, once again, be able to put caps on the dollar value of health services that can be covered in a year or a lifetime. At a time when unemployment has risen to levels that we have not seen since the Great Depression, this administration is asking the Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion provisions which, in New Hampshire, has been the most significant factor in ensuring that people who are struggling with substance use disorders are able to get treatment. This Senate should not stand silently by while the administration tries to tear down the Affordable Care Act at a time when people are most in need of assurances that they can get healthcare coverage. We need to come together to address what needs to change about the Affordable Care Act to make it better, but we need to do that together because if this administration is successful in striking down the Affordable Care Act, they don't have a plan of what is going to replace it. During this global pandemic, it is not enough just to protect the Affordable Care Act from ongoing sabotage. We have also got to do more to support frontline healthcare providers, especially in nursing homes and long-term care facilities that are caring for vulnerable seniors, and that is what this legislation that we are speaking to is all about. In the Granite State, we know just how dire the needs of nursing facilities have become, as nursing home residents account for approximately 80 percent of the coronavirus deaths in New Hampshire. I want to just reemphasize what Senator Hassan said. Eighty percent of the coronavirus deaths in New Hampshire--we have the highest rate in the Nation of deaths in long-term care facilities, and yet we have nursing facility staff in the State who tell me they are stretched thin due to increased costs from the coronavirus response. They have reduced revenue because they have had to postpone stays in long-term care facilities for patients who need physical rehabilitation. It is critical that the Senate take action to provide more support to these facilities so they can afford the additional staffing, the testing supplies, the personal protective equipment that will be needed to keep our seniors safe. That is why I strongly support Senator Casey's bill that will provide $20 million in new aid to nursing facilities to help them confront this pandemic head-on. This bill needs to be a central component of any future round of coronavirus response legislation here in the Senate. Our communities are demanding action to respond to the ongoing impact that the virus is having on the public health and on our economy. As I said last week on the Senate floor, it is long past time for this body to join together and get serious about another coronavirus response bill. The really impressive thing about what we have done to date in response to this pandemic is the fact that we have worked together to get four really significant packages of legislation done. Yet now it has been 6 weeks since the House passed its coronavirus response package, known as the Heroes Act. During that time, there has been no action here in the Senate to take up the Senate response to the coronavirus. That needs to end. I mean, even today we heard the Governor of New Hampshire--the Republican Governor, Chris Sununu--announce that in New Hampshire our State expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million. That is about a 20-percent drop in State revenues. That is going to have a huge impact in New Hampshire, not just on healthcare but on so many investments that the State needs to make in our schools, in responses for first responders, in roads and water systems and critical infrastructure. Everyone in the State, from town administrators to the Republican Governor, all are describing the tough choices that they are going to have to make if Federal assistance doesn't arrive soon. Of course, that extends to our nursing home facilities--to the many businesses and organizations in New Hampshire and across this country that need more help. So I urge our colleagues to support Senator Casey's legislation. Let's get assistance to those facilities that are so much in need and come together and demand that we get another coronavirus response package of legislation so that people know help is, once again, on the way. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really pleased to be here to join the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Cardin; Democratic Leader Schumer; Senator Coons, who is also a member of the Small Business Committee; and Senator Collins, who worked so hard with the negotiating team to put in place the Paycheck Protection Program. I am pleased because we have an agreement to extend the expiration date to August 8. I came here thinking that we would not be able to get agreement, so I am glad that Senator Scott was willing to work with us as we try and get not just an extension--because we need an extension of that first round, and that is what tonight does, but we also need another round of PPP. This has, by far, been the largest business relief effort in our Nation's history--for small businesses, anyway. I am hearing now from so many small businesses in New Hampshire. Those that have used the PPP program effectively have kept their workers on the payroll; they have paid their rent; and they are beginning to open back up again. But that funding is about to run out, and they need more assistance as our economy reopens--particularly those mom-and-pop businesses with very few employees. In New Hampshire, the tourism and hospitality industries, which have been the first to close and are going to be the last to reopen, are just vital to New Hampshire's economy. And New Hampshire restaurants account for nearly 70,000 jobs, with $3 billion in sales, and hotels represent another 29,000 jobs and $1 billion in wages and salaries. I have heard from small businesses like LaBelle Winery, which is a beautiful winery, conference, and wedding venue in Southern New Hampshire. It has 100 employees. It is fighting to survive. The owners of LaBelle Winery have put in two decades of work, yet all of their events are canceling for the summer and fall. They have spent their first round of PPP. They are operating now at just a fraction of their capacity. Before the pandemic, this was a thriving business with expansion plans for opening an inn and a second restaurant. Now, if they don't get that second round, they are in real trouble. Colby Hill Inn and The Grazing Room restaurant, which is in the only Henniker on Earth--Henniker, NH--is about to lose 65 percent of its revenues this year. The revenue from their high-end restaurant isn't even covering payroll or food costs. They had 95 percent of all of their events cancel this year. The life savings of Bruce, the owner, and his husband Jeff are in this inn, and if they lose their business, they not only lose their business; they lose their home. If they don't get a second round, if they can't apply for that second round, they may not still be here. So I am really pleased we have gotten this extension tonight. That is progress. But we need a second round. There is $130 billion left in the Paycheck Protection Program. We need to help those small businesses that need additional assistance. I am pleased that we are working in a bipartisan fashion to try and get a bill. We have a bill that Senators Cardin, Coons, and I introduced. Now we are working with Senator Rubio, chairman of the committee, and Senator Collins, who was part of that four-person negotiating team. I am hopeful and cautiously optimistic that, if we work together, we will be able to agree--Republicans and Democrats--on what should be in that second round. The challenge, then, is to get another package of assistance not just for America's small businesses but for all of the people who have taken such a hit as a result of this global pandemic. Over 128,000 Americans, 339 Granite Staters, have lost their lives. New Hampshire has an unemployment rate that, before the pandemic, was under 3 percent, and it is now 14.5 percent. We have to help those small businesses get through this period, and I am hopeful that, working together, we can do that. We can get another package of legislation, and we can say to Americans again that help is on the way.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, States across this country, including New Hampshire, are beginning to reopen after this pandemic, although, the pandemic isn't really over. The ongoing economic and public health fallout from COVID-19 continues to affect families and businesses in my State of New Hampshire and across this country. Every day, community leaders, public health professionals, and frontline workers tell me about what they are facing. They have raised concerns about the massive reduction in local tax revenue and the very difficult decisions that will soon need to be made if Federal assistance doesn't arrive soon. I have heard from teachers and school administrators about the challenges they have encountered trying to educate their students during the pandemic and the difficulties they are anticipating as they begin to plan for the school year coming in September. The shift to remote learning has exposed the disparities in broadband access across New Hampshire and across this country that leaves behind many students and makes it extremely difficult for teachers to deliver a quality education, especially for students with disabilities. So many small businesses, while they are very grateful for the Paycheck Protection Program and the loans and grants that have been made available through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, are telling me it is not enough; that revenues for many of these small businesses are still at unsustainable lows, particularly for those in tourism, entertainment, and hospitality--in New Hampshire, tourism is our second largest industry--and that they need help if they are going to weather this storm. So I can't understand why this body and why Majority Leader McConnell doesn't feel a sense of urgency to pass legislation that will continue to help Americans during this time of crisis. It has been more than 1 month since the House of Representatives sent to us the Heroes Act to continue to provide assistance to Americans who are in need. In the time since, we have not taken up any proposal that would provide comprehensive relief for the sectors of our economy that are still hurting. We just can't wait until the end of July, when we know that there will be so many families, workers, and businesses across the country who will be in an even more dire position than they are now. Americans are urging Congress to act, and we should work together in a bipartisan way, just as we did with the first three--really, four, if you count the second count of the small business assistance. Those four bills all passed with strong bipartisan votes. Now it is time for us to do that again, to provide Americans with the relief they so desperately need. Congress has taken some very important bipartisan steps to provide assistance to the Nation, but the conversations I have had with Granite Staters on the frontlines are a very powerful reminder of how much work still lies ahead. We should provide assistance for our hospitals and healthcare providers, especially for nursing homes and long-term care facilities because, in New Hampshire, they have accounted for more than 70 percent of COVID-19 deaths, and across the country, for a very high percentage. We need to provide support to all of our essential workers who are still on the frontlines getting out there every day, despite the health risks; that includes grocery store workers, healthcare workers, and first responders who are sacrificing so much for our health and safety. We should provide investments in our Nation's infrastructure, like broadband, to make sure we have better access to telehealth and education opportunities. We should provide support for sectors of our economy that have taken major losses, like the clean energy sector, which has lost more than 600,000 jobs over the past few months. We should provide help for food and rental assistance for those who have lost income and are struggling to make ends meet. We should support the Postal Service so it can continue to serve our communities and small businesses. In New Hampshire, we have so many small towns that depend on the Postal Service for prescription drugs. Families in those towns depend on the Postal Service for prescription drugs and to communicate with the outside world. Especially now, when so many people are still feeling so isolated, they need to know they can count on the Postal Service and that it is not going to get into a financial crisis this summer. Finally, we need to support our States and our local communities. They have been on the frontlines fighting this pandemic. As the cost of COVID-19 response efforts continue to rise, mayors, town administrators, and county officials are all grappling with whether they are going to have to lay off first responders, firefighters, police, teachers, and municipal workers--all of those people who continue to provide services in our communities and without whom people are going to face even more dire consequences. States and communities need help now. They should not have to cut essential services and frontline workers. In Congress, we must also provide additional support to small businesses. PPP, the Paycheck Protection Program, by any measure, despite some of the challenges, has been the most significant small business assistance program in our Nation's history. It has delivered over $500 billion in aid in a very short time. I am proud to have worked with a bipartisan group of colleagues to offer that provision, but when we first sat down to design it just over 3 months ago, none of us had any concept of the magnitude of this crisis or what would be its duration. Since then, we have learned just how devastating this disease is and how terribly difficult it is to defeat. I have heard from so many businesspeople in New Hampshire who took a PPP loan. They used the proceeds just as we had intended: They kept their employees on the payroll or they hired them back if they had already laid them off. They have kept their lights on. Now it is time-- when they are beginning to reopen their businesses, and they are still running short because those loans are about to run out, they need more help. If we don't provide it, they are going to lay off all those workers again. For many small businesses, they are going to be forced to close their doors. Last week, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin and Coons to introduce the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program, the P4 Act. That is legislation that would provide a second round of PPP funding for smaller businesses and particularly for those in the restaurant and hospitality industries which have been hit especially hard in recent months. They were the first to be closed down by government order, and they are the last to be able to open back up. I am hopeful that, once again, we can work in a bipartisan way to make a proposal that will have support on both sides of the aisle and that will ensure that more businesses can stay afloat as we reopen our economy. Our country is still hurting, and the coronavirus isn't going to go away without a vaccine. It is going to take a while for us to get back on our feet as a nation. The devastating health and economic effects from COVID-19 will not be alleviated just because we pretend the coronavirus is going away. It will not be alleviated unless Congress acts. It was the decisive action that we took back at the end of February and March that has allowed so many businesses to stay afloat, so many families to continue to feed their kids and to pay their rent. It is going to be critical for us to continue to take action to provide that assistance. We can't wait. We can't take a wait-and-see approach. We know that people are hurting right now. So I urge the Senate to take up and pass legislation. Let's negotiate what we don't like about the Heroes Act. Let's make changes, but let's take up that relief bill and continue to provide the help Americans are calling for. We have no more time to waste. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join Leader Schumer and my colleague and ranking member of the small business committee, Senator Cardin. I am grateful for his leadership and for the partnership that we had back in March with Senators Rubio and Collins. It truly was a bipartisan partnership to try and address the challenges that small businesses are facing across this country. In New Hampshire small businesses are our lifeblood. They were going under because of this pandemic, so the Paycheck Protection Program has been a lifesaver. But we know there are things that need to change about it in order for it to continue to help those businesses. In New Hampshire we have 22,000 small businesses and nonprofits that have received over $2.5 billion in forgivable loans under the program. But we have also heard from many of those businesses that there are improvements and fixes that are necessary, businesses like The Little Grille, a New Hampshire restaurant with locations in Littleton and Woodsville. They said that PPP has been a lifesaver. But they have only 2 weeks remaining on their forgivable term, and if the terms of the loan are not addressed, the owners of The Little Grille told us that they will be back in the same position they were at the start of the pandemic, and they may be forced to lay off staff. We have heard from the Portsmouth Brewery, which received their PPP loan, and they want to rehire their 28 employees but they need more flexibility and extensions to the program to resume operations. Then, of course, we have heard from Big Dave's Bagels & Deli in North Conway. His 32-year-old bakery was predominantly takeout before the pandemic, but he was able to keep his employees on and offer hazard pay because his approval for the PPP loan came through at the very end of April. Now he needs flexibility and loan terms if he is going to keep his employees on the payroll. I could go on and on with example after example, but the important thing is, as Senators Schumer and Cardin have said so eloquently, those first loans are about to end, and if we don't do something to help those businesses, they are going to be back in the same place that they were in in March when the shelter-at-home and the stay-at-home orders began in New Hampshire and across this country. So we need to do something. This legislation addresses the concerns that people have expressed. I think we also need to provide additional funding or additional help over the next month until things open back up in the economy. But, in the short term, the legislation addresses the concerns that we have been hearing from small businesses, and I hope we are going to see our colleagues pass it by unanimous consent so that there is some certainty for those businesses as they try and open back up in this very difficult environment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Do I understand that you think you will have some resolution of this by this afternoon, so you expect at that point to come back in with another UC request to pass this bill?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is my understanding of the bill; it doesn't allow you to apply for the loan through December.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here to add my voice to the eloquence of both Senator Cramer and Senator Schumer about the need to recognize those people who were lost on the Frank E. Evans. We had two sailors from New Hampshire who were lost that day: Ronald Arthur Thibodeau of Manchester, NH, joined the Navy in 1967, and he was assigned to the Frank E. Evans as radarman. Ron was on watch during the collision, and he was lost at sea, leaving behind a young son. And Gary Joseph Vigue, of Farmington, NH, was also on watch that night during the fatal collision. Gary had married his high school sweetheart a few weeks before he reported to the Frank E. Evans in 1968. Gary also left behind a young son and his two brothers who still live in New Hampshire. These two men, Gary and Ron, gave their lives for this country. These men were supporting operations during the Vietnam war, and they were planning to return to Vietnam waters once the training exercise was over. So, just like all those other people who were lost in Vietnam, they gave their lives for this country. And just because they were outside some artificially designated combat zone doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognized in the same way the others who were lost in Vietnam have been recognized. Now, this is May, the month of May. Memorial Day is approaching, a day during which our Nation honors the men and women who have died while serving in the U.S. military. As we recognize the sacrifices of our fellow Americans, I think it is appropriate that the Senate take up and pass the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Act, legislation I am honored to cosponsor with my colleague Senator Cramer from North Dakota because it is legislation that will ensure the 74 men--those Lost 74--are rightfully honored by adding their names to the Vietnam War Memorial. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I thank the Presiding Officer and Senator Cramer for this effort to ensure that the Lost 74 are recognized.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to be able to join my colleague Senator Cardin, who is the ranking member on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, as well as Minority Leader Schumer. I am pleased that the chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Rubio, is also here because Senator Cardin, Senator Rubio, Senator Collins, and I all worked on the Paycheck Protection Program and the small business provisions that are in the CARES package that we passed over 5 weeks ago. I am proud of our efforts to negotiate in a bipartisan way to help small businesses get through this crisis. Not only did we pass, in that first CARES package, $350 billion to help small business, but just a couple of weeks ago, Congress also came together to pass an additional $370 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. Our intent in passing that legislation was to deliver relief to small businesses that are truly hurting. Small businesses are the lifeblood of this economy nationally, really, and certainly in New Hampshire, where 99 percent of our businesses are considered small businesses. They employ over 50 percent of the New Hampshire workforce. In New Hampshire, 20,000 small businesses and nonprofits have received over $2.5 billion in low-interest, forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection Program. There have been challenges. We have heard some of those stories from small businesses that weren't able to access this assistance because some larger businesses got into the queue ahead of them--some of those large, publicly traded companies that had a relationship with their lender, and so they were able to get in early. We need information if we are going to correct the things that haven't been working about this program. That is why the legislation that Senator Cardin, Senator Schumer, and I are introducing, I think, would be so helpful. The Trump administration and Congress need to be held accountable for implementation of these programs. In order to do that, we have to have oversight, as Senator Cardin said. Transparency is fundamental. We need to ensure that assistance is going to the small businesses and nonprofits that need it most. Senator Cardin listed off a number of those companies: the women- owned companies, minority-owned companies. We also need to think about those businesses that have fewer than 10 employees--those mom-and-pop shops that really need help, that may not have as long a relationship with their lender or may not have any relationship with a lender. All we are asking for today is a measure that would provide the bare minimum that this administration should provide to ensure that these programs are functioning as Congress intended. This is commonsense legislation. All it would do is require the Small Business Administration to provide daily reporting on PPP and EIDL loans, to provide more detailed weekly reports on these programs, and to make this information publicly available, while at the same time protecting borrower and participant privacy. We have heard the horror stories about problems with this program. There have also been a lot of success stories. But the public isn't going to know both sides of that unless there is reporting and transparency so that people know what is working and what is not working. The bill would also ensure that PPP and EIDL funds are reaching underserved and underbanked borrowers. It would establish an early warning system for the SBA and for Congress so we can figure out how to respond to things that aren't working and when we are expecting an additional funding shortfall. These proposals shouldn't be controversial. These are all things that I have heard people on both sides of the aisle talking about supporting. What they will do is allow Congress to perform our basic oversight responsibilities and foster public confidence in the integrity of these programs. And perhaps, most important, these improvements will help make sure that the limited resources that are available are getting to the small businesses that need them the most. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today, like so many of my colleagues, during what is undoubtedly the worst crisis that I have seen in my lifetime. It reminds me of hearing from my parents and grandparents about what it was like in America during the Depression and during World War II. This crisis in some ways is even worse because it is an enemy we can't see--the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. Not since the 1918 outbreak of the Spanish influenza has a pandemic posed such an immense threat to the public health of our country. As of this morning, more than 47,000 Americans who have been tested have tested positive for COVID-19. We have actually tested more than that, but that is the number who have tested positive, and 593 Americans have, unfortunately, died from this disease. Just yesterday, health officials reported that more than 100 Americans lost their lives in a single day. I know that everyone in this Chamber is thinking of those families and those people who have been lost due to this disease. Sadly, no one is immune. Everyone is affected, including in my home State of New Hampshire. We have had more than 100 Granite Staters who have fallen ill from the coronavirus, and, sadly, just in the last few days, one person has died. My heart goes out to these families and to the family of the person we have lost. This virus hasn't only threatened the public health of the Nation, but it threatens our economy as well. Millions of Americans have been asked to stay in their homes. Schools and businesses have been closed. While we all understand that this is a necessary step to help curb the spread of the disease, it is taking a huge toll on our workers, our families, and our economy as a whole. The aftermath of this nationwide emergency could leave tens of millions of families without work or steady income. I have been working closely with my colleagues here in Congress and with the rest of the delegation from New Hampshire and with our Governor to try and think about what we should come up with, what kind of package would help those people who are hurting. During the past couple of weeks, I have had many phone calls with mayors, public health officials, small business owners, social service agencies, and all of those people who are on the frontlines of this crisis. I have heard from nonprofit organizations that provide vital services to with those with disabilities, to our senior citizens and veterans, and to those in recovery from substance use disorders--because even as we are grappling with the impact of this coronavirus, New Hampshire is still sadly in the midst of a persistent substance misuse epidemic. Thanks to the tireless efforts of advocates, providers, policymakers, and so many in our State, we have made strides toward curbing the substance misuse crisis. We are ensuring that resources are there so that people can get the care they need. Even though we are facing a pandemic, substance misuse doesn't take a day off. However, organizations that provide essential treatment and counseling for Granite Staters are also dealing with decreased capacity and revenue shortfalls that threaten their ability to continue to be a resource for their communities over the long-term. Our critical frontline healthcare providers, as well as first responders, police, firefighters, and EMTs, who are on the frontlines of responding to and treating coronavirus cases are lacking medical resources and personal protective equipment that is so necessary to do their jobs at this critical time. We are hearing from hospitals that are facing an uncertain financial future due to the crisis. All of these troubling situations point to the need for immediate relief so that the organizations and agencies that Granite Staters rely on can continue to be there. I agree with my colleagues who have come to the floor over the last 2 days to say that Congress must act. We must act to provide relief so that so many Americans who are suffering can get the help they desperately need In the past 2 weeks, Congress has taken several steps to provide immediate help to those families who are affected by the coronavirus. These include emergency paid sick leave to many workers who get infected with the virus, who have had to self-quarantine, or who need to take care of family members. We provided emergency measures to ensure that every American, including those without insurance, is able to have their coronavirus testing costs fully covered. We have expanded unemployment insurance for those who are laid off as a result of the virus. We can and we must do more. Congress must work to address the economic devastation that so many are facing because of this virus. Just yesterday, we heard from a senior Federal Reserve official who warned that the U.S. unemployment rate could skyrocket because of this pandemic, and we are seeing that. I know that all of us are seeing that in our States. At home in New Hampshire, we have had thousands apply for unemployment insurance because they have been laid off in the last few weeks. The message from the frontlines is this: We need help and we need it fast, and Congress must provide that help--help for our hospitals, healthcare providers, and first responders as they prepare for a surge in demand for treatment as this virus spreads. We want to make sure that they have the medical equipment and the supplies they need to keep them safe while they are treating so many people who are ill. We need financial relief and paid leave to workers, especially to hourly workers and to those who have been laid off because of the impact of this virus. We need support for small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of New Hampshire's economy. We have to make sure they stay afloat and that they pay their workers while they are closed or have reduced demand. We need to provide childcare and elder care for healthcare workers, especially for those who are being asked to work extra shifts. We need assistance so Americans can afford their healthcare treatment. That is what I am fighting for. We are making significant progress. We have seen movement in the last couple of days. I want to call out my colleagues, Senators Rubio and Cardin, the chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and Senator Collins. The four of us have worked together on small business provisions that are in this bill. Work continued through the weekend and late into the night last night to reach agreement on these provisions, and we are almost there. I am confident that in the end we will be able to deliver a package of well- thought-out provisions that will provide over $350 billion in assistance for small businesses and nonprofit organizations in New Hampshire and throughout the country. This bipartisan package will provide immediate cash flow assistance so that small businesses can continue to pay their employees, make their rent, pay their mortgage, and pay their utility bills. The bill will also provide support to small business development centers, to women's business centers, to veterans business outreach centers, and all those resource agencies that can help small businesses as they try to figure out how to navigate this crisis and how to get the help they need. We are also providing 6 months of relief for existing SBA borrowers. Of course, to make this work, we need all those lending institutions-- our banks and financial institutions that are already on the frontlines trying to help small businesses. They are going to be critical to making this package work. There is much more to be done. We still need to provide funding for State and local governments because, as we speak, tax revenues are plummeting and the costs of responding to this crisis are skyrocketing. I have heard from so many municipal officials who are on the frontlines and spending money and are not sure how to replace those dollars as they fight this crisis. We need additional funding for hospitals because they are going to see a terrifying surge of patients in the coming days and weeks. They are going to have to make very difficult decisions about the kind of care they are able to provide, and we need to make sure they have the resources they need. We need to make sure that big corporations continue to support their workers through this crisis. We need legislation to ensure that New Hampshire nonprofits and social service organizations like those in the rest of the country that are in dire financial straits can continue to receive assistance because their services are needed now more than ever. Once we get through the worst of this crisis, we are going to need those organizations to continue to serve people in our communities. I think I and most of my colleagues here are working in a bipartisan way and with this administration to find common ground and to address the needs of the Nation. I have been disappointed at some of the partisan attacks on the floor of the Senate because I think everybody's goal is the same. It is to respond to the needs of this Nation, to make it clear to people who are our constituents and people across this country that we are here to try and address the suffering they are experiencing. Our country is hurting right now. People are looking to this body for leadership. That is why it is so important that we get this bill right. This is one of those times in history when Congress must set aside any political differences and where we must deliver a bill that meets the challenges we face because at the end of the day, we are all in this together. One of the encouraging things that I have felt as I have watched the news and heard from people across the country are those people who are stepping up now at this time of difficulty. Just this morning, I heard about one of our small businesses in northern New Hampshire who knew that people were buying out toilet paper and that supermarkets and any stores that carried toilet paper were sold out. They called down the road to Gorham Paper, which is one of our paper mills that is still operating that provides tissue for people across the country. They called them to see if they had any toilet tissue they could provide for businesses in the community. We have a Federal prison in that community in Berlin. They found out, so they called them to provide toilet tissue for the prison. It seems like a small thing, but it is the kind of thing that has helped people and made it possible for people to continue to see past the worst of this crisis, to see beyond, and to see how we can all work together to cooperate to get through this. Let's show the American people that their elected leaders can address the needs of this country. Let's get this bill done. We have no time to waste. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 1525 to Amendment No. 1514, as proposed by Senator Portman.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, Senator Portman and I have been working on this legislation for about 10 years now. It has gone through committee multiple times. It has gone through the floor of the Senate multiple times, and we hope that we have it in a position now where we can actually get this done as part of the overall energy package, which is significant and a tribute to the work of Senators Murkowski and Manchin and so many people in this Chamber. As Senator Portman said, energy use in buildings is about 40 percent of our energy use. It is the biggest single sector in our economy. Energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs. So what these provisions would do--they are voluntary. What they would do is provide significant savings to consumers. They would be the equivalent of taking every car and light truck off the road for a year, so significant emission savings and significant energy savings. This is a win-win. I hope that the amendment can be called up and passed.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am disappointed that my colleague would try to codify a policy that has been proven to cause extensive harm to the most vulnerable women and families around the world. In the past 3 years, we have seen the global impact of this policy. Health clinics have closed, access to care has decreased, and lives are needlessly put at risk. When women in developing countries and other parts of the world don't have access to family planning and information they need for women's reproductive health, abortions actually increase rather than decrease. Research shows that by decreasing access to information about modern contraceptive options, abortion rates increase. This policy doesn't stop abortions; it only limits the resources that are available that prevent women from having unwanted pregnancies. My Republican colleagues can call it whatever they want--the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, the Mexico City Policy--I call it dangerous and deadly. In fact, instead of protecting life, the global gag rule erects new barriers to critical health services, including reproductive health services, for people and communities who already have limited access to affordable, high quality healthcare. Across U.S. global health assistance, we are seeing a breakdown in systems of health care provisions which disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable, hard-to-reach populations. In Uganda, mobile health teams that go into communities and provide sometimes the only health care available are being cut. ABBEF, the International Planned Parenthood Federation member in Burkina Faso, was forced in 2017 to prematurely end its U.S.-supported pilot initiative to distribute contraceptives in secondary schools where there is a huge family planning need. Marie Stopes International, MSI, received 17% of its donor income from USAID at the time the global gag rule was reinstated. These funds were exclusively used for voluntary contraception services and the loss of funding has impacted work with poor and marginalized communities most in need of accessing services. Marie Stopes Ethiopia, with expertise in reaching remote communities, ended its U.S.-funded program providing vasectomies and tubal ligations to rural populations. No other organization has the technical skills and expertise to provide the same quality of service and choice. Clearly this policy decreases care, increases abortions, and risks the lives of women around the world. And this is not about abortion, this is about controlling a woman's body and limiting her choices. If we are actually going to get serious about improving women's health, we should be working to end the global gag rule. Given the negative impact this policy has already had on so many women and families around the world, codifying it would just exacerbate those issues, so I object.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really disappointed to feel like I need to come to the floor today to respond to these anti-women, anti- family bills that have been introduced. Not only would these bills interfere with a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices, they would threaten doctors with prison time if they perform abortion services that women have a constitutional right to receive. These bills are dangerous, extreme, and they are part of an ongoing effort by this administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. We don't need this legislation to prevent the killing of infants. Let's be very clear. Infanticide is already illegal under Federal law. In fact, prosecutions have occurred under the current law that prevents infanticide. This legislation would do nothing but set up ambiguous standards for cases that are often medical emergencies and add uncertainty to laws that are already on the books to prohibit infanticide. This uncertainty will have a chilling effect on the ability of women to access the services they need in the United States. The legislation we are voting on would also imprison doctors for up to 5 years for performing abortions after a woman is 20 weeks pregnant, even though-- even though Federal courts have ruled that this 20-week abortion ban, as is proposed under one of these bills, would violate the Constitution. The 20-week abortion ban bill would only allow for exceptions for minors who are victims of rape or incest if those young women report that rape or incest to the police. For adult women, the rape exception would only apply if she waits 48 hours and gets counseling from a healthcare provider that her government--not that she or her family but the government--determines is acceptable. These exceptions are just shameful because my colleagues know, as I do, that almost three-quarters of rape and sexual assaults are never reported, often because women have legitimate fears of being victimized again. They fear the rapist or the person who has assaulted them. More broadly, it is really this simple: We should not be putting doctors in prison for providing a woman with the reproductive care she chooses. We must always remember that abortions that are performed later in pregnancy are almost always done as a result of severe fetal diagnoses and the serious risk that the pregnancy poses to the life of the woman. This isn't a decision that any woman or family wants to be in a position to make. It is tragic, and it is heartbreaking. The fact that these bills would demean the women who have to make these decisions by suggesting that this is something that government should decide for them instead of the woman with her family and with her doctor is nothing but tragic. I don't understand how people can think the government is better positioned to make these personal decisions than women and families and their doctors. Protecting pregnant women, new mothers, and children is about more than scoring political points with anti-choice legislation. It is about ensuring that women have access to maternity care. That means prenatal care. It means having access to affordable healthcare coverage. That is why this legislation rings so hollow. People who are speaking on the floor who are supporting these bills are not talking about improving the lives of women and children. Right now, this administration is in court, backing a lawsuit that would tear down the Affordable Care Act despite the fact that there is no alternative if the ACA is struck down. If the administration and States succeed in striking down the Affordable Care Act, we are going to go back to the days when insurance companies can exclude maternity care from coverage and when women can be charged higher premiums than men. If they succeed, the Medicaid expansion would be gone, and States would have fewer dollars to cover more people at a time when 43 percent of childbirths in this country are covered and paid for by Medicaid. These are the fundamental issues that are at stake for women and families across this country. Given these stakes, I am disappointed that here we are again, debating two anti-choice bills that the Senate already rejected in 2018 and 2019. Nothing has changed since then. This is time that is being used, as the Senator from Washington said, just to try and stir up the base of some of the Senators who are in this Chamber. If my colleagues were serious about protecting mothers and children, they would join in supporting efforts to ensure that the healthcare coverage that families rely on isn't ripped away in court. I urge my colleagues to oppose these bills and to vote no when they are considered on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my profound disappointment. This is a sad moment in our Nation's history. I, like all of us in the Senate, came to this body to try and make a difference for our constituents, to address the kitchen table issues that affect their everyday lives--lowering prescription drug costs, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, making college more affordable, protecting our environment, helping our veterans, supporting our small businesses--so many of the things that I and others here have worked on. Critics have argued that the impeachment process is nothing more than a political attack orchestrated by those who have wanted to remove this President since his election. I flatly reject that argument. I have repeatedly expressed my reluctance to the use of impeachment. Unfortunately, it is this President's disturbing actions that have put us in this position. President Trump went to great lengths to try and force the Ukrainian President to help smear Joe Biden, his political rival. This scheme included withholding military aid and withholding a meeting at the White House with the Ukrainian President. Each of us here took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution requires us to do this job. It tells us that the Senate shall have ``the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' After the power to declare war, the power to impeach is among the most serious and consequential powers granted to Congress by our founding document. When we all stood here at the beginning of this trial, we took an oath to do ``impartial justice.'' That should mean a commitment to seek all of the facts. A fair trial means documents and witnesses, facts that will help us better understand the truth. Previous Senates understood this. In fact, every Senate impeachment trial in history included witnesses. Most recently, in the Judge Porteous impeachment trial in 2010, when I was one of the Senators who served on that impeachment committee, we heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not testified before in the House. We believed then that Senate witnesses were important for impeachment of a Federal district court judge. So why wouldn't we want witnesses in something as important as an impeachment of a sitting President? We know that documents exist that could help shed more light on this case. We also know of other witnesses with additional firsthand information whom we have yet to hear from. We have one witness, in particular--former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has told the world he has relevant information and he is willing to testify. Yet, despite all of that, the Senate, on a partisan vote, refused to listen to Ambassador Bolton or any other witnesses. Members of this institution have willfully turned their back on important, relevant, firsthand information. On the Articles of Impeachment before us, I have listened to the extensive arguments from both the House managers and the defense counsel for the President. I believe the evidence clearly shows that the President abused his power--which has been acknowledged by several Republican Senators--and he obstructed Congress, which is why I will be supporting both Articles of Impeachment. On the first Article of Impeachment, it is my strong view that the House managers have proved that President Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting from the Government of Ukraine to further his own political interests in the upcoming Presidential election and to damage the candidacy of his opponent. The evidence presented to the Senate was overwhelming. Further supporting the House managers' case, the independent Government Accountability Office, the GAO, concluded that the withholding of military aid to Ukraine was improper and illegal under the law. The nature of the President's offenses outlined in the articles strike at the very heart of our democratic system. Our Founding Fathers were very concerned about both foreign interference in our democracy and the executive abusing the powers of the office for electoral gain. James Madison warned of a President who ``might betray his trust to foreign powers.'' George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us all ``to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.'' As a Senator who sits on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, I am keenly aware of the serious national security interests that are at stake here. This body, the Senate, has been deeply supportive of an independent Ukraine and a strong U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I join with Senators from both sides of the aisle in support of providing lethal assistance to help Ukraine better defend itself from Russian aggression. We continue to do so because it is in our direct national security interest to support our partner in the midst of an active war with Russia, our adversary. We know that Russia has serious designs on Eastern Europe. They are looking at ways to influence European countries--former Soviet republics where they think they can make inroads--and Ukraine is standing at the wall between Eastern Europe and Russia. I also joined the bipartisan leadership of the Ukraine Caucus in writing a letter expressing deep concerns over reports that aid to Ukraine was being held up. This September 2019 letter clearly stated that the administration's hold on assistance would do lasting damage to the Ukrainian military and would undo the progress made by Ukraine to defend itself. That was a bipartisan letter. Putting our national security at risk in order to secure personal political favors is an unacceptable abuse of power, and that is why we are here today. In response to the overwhelming evidence presented by the House managers, the President's counsels failed to refute these serious allegations. Their arguments that President Trump was focused only on the national interest are not supported by the facts. The President has never demonstrated an interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and has a troubling pattern of personally seeking political dirt from foreign governments. I worry that this behavior will continue. The 2020 election is 9 months away, and the President continues to suggest that he would consider receiving political help from foreign governments. Just recently, the President suggested that China should also investigate the Bidens. Now, with respect to the second article dealing with obstruction of justice, the House managers have also presented overwhelming evidence that President Trump obstructed the investigation into his conduct toward Ukraine. The President has repeatedly denied the House of Representatives' constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry. The President ordered Federal agencies and officials to ignore all requests for documents and all subpoenas. Those agencies obeyed the President's order, and not a single document was turned over to the House. In total, nine witnesses called by the House followed President Trump's order and refused to testify under subpoena in the impeachment proceedings. This is an unprecedented attempt to thwart Congress's constitutional authority to exercise the impeachment power. Even President Nixon instructed his White House staff to voluntarily appear before Congress and to testify under oath. Despite the administration's stonewalling, many courageous officials did come forward to testify at great personal and professional expense. I want to thank those who testified. Their bravery and commitment to the truth should be commended. But if the President is allowed to completely stonewall congressional impeachment investigations into executive branch abuses, then the congressional power of impeachment is meaningless. As a Senator, I never imagined I would have to participate in an impeachment trial of a sitting President. These proceedings cause strain and division not just here in Congress but across the country. I would much prefer that Congress be engaged in the critical bipartisan work that is needed on important issues, things that can improve lives across this country and move our Nation forward. I hope that this body will move on from this disappointing day and will get back to the business of the country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the work of three New Hampshire-based air traffic controllers--Jeff Aulbech, Neil Cospito, and Michael Jacobson--who calmly and quickly resolved a complex situation in the snowy skies of New England in 2018. The three men were awarded the prestigious Archie League Medal of Safety Award from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, NATCA, last year, and I ask all Americans to join me and NATCA in marveling at the poise they all showed on that November afternoon. Jeff, Neil and Michael work at the Boston Air Traffic Control Center, a regional air route traffic control center in Nashua, NH, that covers tens of thousands of miles of airspace above New England, New York, and northeast Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, Neil was working an F-16 aircraft from the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. Poor weather conditions were preventing the pilot from landing the aircraft at its home base in Burlington, VT. Neil scoured the region for a suitable location outside of the sprawling weather system, and he quickly found one in Syracuse, NY. He cleared the aircraft to travel southwest to its new destination and asked the pilot to estimate his time en-route and his remaining fuel. When the pilot relayed that he had 15 minutes of fuel for a 15-minute trip, Neil knew that the F-16 had become an emergency aircraft. As the aircraft left Neil's controlled airspace, fellow air traffic controllers Jeff Aulbech and Mike Jacobson continued working the emergency situation. Jeff and Mike promptly evaluated their options. They decided the best course was to divert a flight of KC-135 tankers from a nearby, unrelated mission and to conduct a mid-air refueling. Jeff explained to the KC-135 pilots that the F-16 was at ``Bingo Fuel''--a term used by military pilots when they reach a critical and emergency fuel state. When he secured agreement from both crews, Jeff executed precise time intercept vectors to join the two aircraft and begin refueling. As Jeff worked with the aircraft in the sky, Mike worked the radar and communicated with the airport in Syracuse to confirm suitable landing conditions. A short time later, the F-16 safely touched the ground in Syracuse. Quick thinking and error-free execution from Neil Cospito, Jeff Aulbech, and Mike Jacobson saved the F-16 and its pilot from a number of dangerous alternatives, and they played a pivotal role in maneuvering this flawless refueling with a number of other planes sharing the skies. As many of us travel across the country throughout the year, we should take a moment to reflect on the significance of air traffic controllers like Neil, Jeff, and Mike and thank them for working every minute of every day each year to keep our skies safe. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Neil, Jeff, and Mike for their service and wishing them all the best as they continue their good work.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today in observance of the 20th anniversary of New Hampshire's first Martin Luther King Jr. Day. After legislation was enacted the previous summer, Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the year 2000 was the culmination of a years-long struggle to add Dr. King's name to the State's official Civil Rights Day holiday. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in celebrating this recognition of such an influential figure and saluting the men and women who prompted this important and permanent change. This anniversary is personal for me. I fought alongside so many when I served in the New Hampshire State Senate for an appropriate way to honor Dr. King, the preeminent leader of the civil rights movement. Years later, as Governor, I was proud to sign the bill into law that ended New Hampshire's status as the only State not to recognize his birthday as an official holiday. There were setbacks leading up to that triumphant June day, including many failed votes in the State legislature; yet with a sense of resilience typical of the movement that Dr. King inspired, we persevered and kicked off the new millennium in the Granite State by celebrating our first Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 17, 2000. It was an exciting time that reflected the positive change that many of us had seen in our lifetimes. As a child growing up in southern Missouri and attending segregated schools, I saw the daily injustices of life under Jim Crow segregation. We have made great strides since then in the march toward full equality, and these advancements are the product of Dr. King's leadership and the peaceful, nonviolent protest movements that he championed. Whether writing from inside a jail cell or speaking from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King delivered a stirring message with hope that Americans could come together and fully realize one of our country's founding principles, that all are created equal. He pledged himself and inspired others to work toward a more perfect union and embrace a belief in freedom and opportunity for all. He held a faith that engaged citizens--from the thousands who stood with him on the National Mall in 1963 to the many who worked tirelessly years later to establish a holiday in his name--are the most powerful promoters of positive social and economic change. One of those engaged citizens was Rev. Dr. Arthur Hilson of New Hope Baptist Church in Portsmouth, NH. A beacon of wisdom and grace, Reverend Hilson was instrumental in garnering the public support to establish Martin Luther King Jr. Day. He understood that the people we choose to revere can send a powerful message to future generations and that the lifework and message of Dr. King must be a part of the heritage we leave to our children. We lost Reverend Hilson last year, but we still hold on to cherished memories of a man who, when asked how he was doing, would always answer, ``Too blessed to complain.'' We are all blessed to have known such a loving neighbor, determined activist and living embodiment of Dr. King's teachings. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join in celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day and in recognizing Reverend Hilson who was so dedicated to building Dr. King's ``Beloved Community'' of justice, equality and love for all.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Walter Graff for his many years of dedicated service and forward-looking leadership at the Appalachian Mountain Club, AMC. Walter will soon retire from his role as senior vice president, the capstone to a career at AMC that began 45 years ago as a program manager in the mountains of northern New Hampshire. He leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude. The Appalachian Mountain Club is a nearly century-and-a-half old organization with a mission of connecting people to the outdoors. Its staff and many supporters not only encourage people to explore the natural world through activities like hiking, paddling, cycling, and skiing. They are also at the forefront of conservation efforts that seek to protect our forests, mountains, rivers, and trails for future generations to enjoy and cherish. When Walter Graff was hired by the AMC in July of 1974, he spent his first months on the job screening environmental films for guests at what was then called Pinkham Notch Camp. The AMC was a much smaller organization back then with a few professional positions in New Hampshire and administrative services in Boston. But Walter had big dreams and an ambitious vision for the organization. He approached the Pinkham hutmaster at the end of the summer with the hope of developing a workshop program. He got signoff, as well as an excuse to venture outdoors. What began as a couple classes on topics like equipment maintenance and snowshoeing has since blossomed into one of the largest outdoor education programs in New England. Walter has held many titles within AMC since that summer 45 years ago. His colleagues note that his leadership has touched every facet of AMC's mission. As director of education, he was influential in launching the group's renowned outdoor skills and leadership training program. As head of the AMC's Maine Woods Initiative, he was responsible for developing a program that promotes outdoor recreation, protects natural resources, encourages responsible forestry and deepens community partnerships. To date, the program is responsible for purchasing and permanently conserving 70,000 acres of forestland and creating over 120 miles of recreational trails. As he nears his retirement, Walter is fond of looking to the past to see how much AMC has grown and how accessible our mountains, rivers, and lakes are to people across the region. He drives through the White Mountains and sees once-empty parking lots now full of people exploring the richness of the natural world. Yet Walter is also looking to the future as he approaches his final day as an AMC employee. He knows he will remain connected to the outdoors and will continue caring for the planet. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Walter Graff for his years of service and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this morning to address what has been an alarming and inaccurate information campaign that is being spread about the international family planning amendment included in this year's State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I would note that while this amendment is referred to as the ``Shaheen amendment'' in alarmist and inaccurate blog posts, it is actually bipartisan language that was agreed to by both the subcommittee and full committee chairs of the Appropriations Committee and ultimately approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in the committee. Yet articles and op-eds online have condemned the amendment as pro-abortion. I was surprised to hear this given that, despite my objections, the amendment does not address the Mexico City policy--or the global gag rule, as it is known--abortion services, or information. In fact, this is the first time in 18 years--I am going to say that again. It is the first time in 18 years that members of the Appropriations Committee were prevented from offering a bipartisan amendment that would strip the bill of the Mexico City provision. Instead of allowing the established committee process to amend the SFOPs bill with this provision, the entire bill was pulled from consideration. In response to that, in an effort to ensure the bill wasn't endangered, I worked with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Murkowski of Alaska and with Republican leadership to limit the scope of the amendment so we could allow the appropriations bill to go forward. It is false--absolutely, positively false--to say this amendment funds abortions abroad. In fact, it is wrong to say, and inaccurate to say, that any U.S. assistance goes to funding abortions at home or abroad. In compliance with U.S. law, family planning funding does not and never has gone to abortion services. I hope everyone is clear about that. Under our law, family planning funding does not go to support abortion services. Now that I have outlined what this amendment does not do, let me discuss what it does do. It provides an increase of $57.5 million for a total of $632.5 million for existing international family planning accounts. This money funds programs and services that provide modern contraceptives, which 214 million women around the world who want to avoid pregnancy are not able to access. Again, I don't know when the debate around abortion came to include contraceptives and family planning. It also would allow for the healthy timing and spacing of births, which is very important to the health of infants and it is important to the health of women to be able to space the births of their children to recover between births. It provides education information and counseling about family planning issues. It ensures access to antenatal and postnatal care for a healthy mother and baby. It provides for HPV vaccination and prevention, something very important to the health of children. These are a few of the critical services the assistance provides. The impact of these services is very real. According to the Guttmacher Institute, with each additional $10 million the U.S. dedicates to family planning and reproductive health programs, 400,000 more women and couples receive contraceptives services and supplies. With the $57.5 million increase provided for in this amendment, more than 2.2 million women and couples will have that access. That will result in 654,500 fewer unintended pregnancies, 291,500 fewer unplanned births, 280,500 fewer induced abortions. If you care about abortion and you don't believe that is the right alternative, then you should support family planning because that gives families and couples an option to ensure they can have the children they want, and it would provide for 1,320 fewer deaths of women. While these numbers are stark, the transformative effect of simply having access to family planning information and services on the lives of women and their families should not be underestimated. The most vulnerable women who are reached by family planning programs report that learning about family planning options, receiving services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and ensuring that wanted pregnancies are healthy and happy so the babies they want to have are healthy and happy gives them some control over their lives. Many women are making healthcare choices for themselves and their families for the very first time with help from these programs. These critical programs change lives, and our partners who implement these programs are indispensable. In October, USAID Administrator Mark Green said he could not ``imagine an effective development Agency that doesn't partner with the community of faith.'' Luckily, he doesn't have to. For those people who were worried that family planning programs are not going to be implemented by our faith community, that is just wrong. The family planning account goes to a range of program implementers, including healthcare providers, international NGOs, and faith-based organizations alike. All of these organizations have the goal of saving women's lives and saving the lives of their children. They need more resources, not fewer, to do this work. What else does the international family planning amendment do? It includes an additional $33 million to USAID's family planning account for money that is rerouted away from the U.N. Population Fund. Again, unlike what the blogs are mistakenly saying, this is not money that currently goes to UNFPA's lifesaving operations. Instead, it will be redirected back into the family planning account and contribute to the programs I just outlined. Third, the amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to produce a report that evaluates the efficacy of family planning programs and their structure. Again, this was another bipartisan effort with my Republican colleagues to ensure that our U.S. dollars are most effective and they contribute to programs and services that are most effective. Again, if you have a concern about how family planning dollars are being spent, then you should support this amendment because it is going to give us data and information to show what is effective and what isn't. Finally, the amendment includes language to reaffirm an existing nondiscrimination policy within USAID. This is an existing nondiscrimination policy. This is not a new policy. That policy within USAID ensures the services funded by these accounts reach all segments of the population. As I said, this is not a new policy. The anti-discrimination policy has existed for several years, and it is not targeted toward faith- based organizations, despite what some of the blogs mistakenly are putting out there. In fact, the complaints I have heard in my office about single women being rejected for services didn't touch on work that faith-based organizations are doing. I hope all of our colleagues in the Senate will not allow misinformation about the family planning dollars that are in the State and Foreign Operations bill to dismantle what has been a very important bipartisan achievement. Its impact is too great and its programs are too important to let them be killed by a campaign to try and mislead people about what is in the amendment. I yield the floor.