Jeanne Shaheen

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, 2 months ago I came to the Senate floor to urge the majority leader to schedule a vote on the nomination of Gayle Smith to serve as Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, also known as USAID. Here we are, 7 months after the President nominated her to fill this position. The Senate will have a chance in a few minutes to vote on Gayle Smith's nomination to head USAID. I fully expect that today's vote will lead to her confirmation. We are witnessing a humanitarian crisis in Syria and across the Middle East that grows worse by the day, posing a risk to European stability and cohesion. Having someone at the head of USAID is absolutely critical. The United States, with our unparalleled capacity to mobilize international support for humanitarian relief, should continue to play a leading role in assisting both Syrian refugees and the neighboring countries that are hosting them. Having an effective leader such as Gayle Smith at USAID is a critical part of that effort. Last month I had the opportunity to lead a delegation of three other Senators to Greece and Germany. Senator Durbin, Senator Warren, Senator Klobuchar, and I all went to see firsthand the plight of refugees from the war in Syria and the incredible burden that both Greece and Germany are under as a result of these unprecedented refugee flows. Many of us--and we heard this when we were in Greece--believed that the rate of refugee arrivals would slow with the coming of cold weather. In fact, the exact opposite has happened, and the humanitarian situation has only become worse. Of course, USAID's work is not only limited to the situation in Syria; it extends to the 60 countries and regional USAID missions around the world, including in Afghanistan, where USAID development work is critical to the long-term success and security of that country. I am relieved that we are finally going to get to vote on Gayle Smith and that the majority has overcome the objections of the one Member who, for the last 7 months, has been holding up her nomination. That Member was willing to put at risk the massive investment of resources the United States has made in Afghanistan and other parts of the world just to score political points on an issue that was completely outside of Gayle Smith's portfolio at USAID. As things have moved on Gayle Smith, I am hoping this type of obstruction is going to end, and we will soon vote not only on Ms. Smith's nomination but also to confirm other critical national security nominees, especially the pending Foreign Service nominations that have been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee and that could be voted on by the full Senate today. For example, in May the President nominated Tom Melia to be Assistant Administrator for USAID for Europe and Eurasia. This is a critical position not only because of the development work but because these are two regions that are under extreme pressure from Vladimir Putin. These regions would both benefit from USAID programs that would bolster their ability to act independently of Russian influence. Tom Melia is still unconfirmed, despite the fact that the Foreign Relations Committee approved his nomination in July. In addition, the nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden has been pending for over a year. Sweden has become a much more critical ally in terms of the refugee issue that Europe is facing. The nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Norway-- again another critical ally--has been pending since May. The nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, a critical post for the United States, one of our neighbors and main allies in this hemisphere--these have all been pending since June. At a time when the world is facing national security challenges on a number of fronts and nations are looking to the United States for leadership, we cannot afford to sideline ourselves by failing to confirm nominees for these diplomatic posts. I recognize Senator Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as his Democratic counterpart, Senator Cardin, who have worked very hard to secure the confirmation vote for Gayle Smith to serve as Administrator for USAID. I know we are working hard to get these other nominees to the floor, but at a time when our leadership is so important, when there are so many challenges facing us around the world, to fail to have those key spokespeople for the United States in positions of so many critical situations is unacceptable. We need to move these nominees. We need to continue the work of U.S. foreign policy. I am sure we will have a very broad bipartisan vote in support of Gayle Smith. What is unfortunate is that we couldn't have done it 7 months ago when she passed through the committee. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be on the floor with my friend and colleague from Mississippi to talk about Bosnia- Herzegovina and about our trip to commemorate the horrible massacre in Srebrenica that occurred in 1995. As Senator Wicker has said, that was a very moving trip for us. One of the things that was very particular to New Hampshire that I found hopeful was listening to the very young mayor from Srebrenica, the current mayor, whose name is Camil Durakovic. He had actually spent a number of years in New Hampshire and had gone to Southern New Hampshire University. His family had fled after the massacre in Bosnia and came to New Hampshire. He went back in 2005 and was elected mayor. One of the things he talked about was the need to work with Serbia, to work across the ethnic and religious lines in Bosnia to achieve peace. It was, as Senator Wicker said, so heartening to think that we were actually able to get these Dayton Accords that ended that long conflict in Bosnia--very bitter and bloody--and see some real progress. One of the things we talked about on the flight back with President Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was what we could do to help Bosnia continue to progress and move forward, because one of their challenges is economic. This is a country that has a very high level of education, and it has a lot of young people who need opportunities for the future. So we talked about whether there was a way that we in Congress could look at trying to provide some economic help for Bosnia in the future. We came back and looked at how we could work together to come up with an idea that might be successful. What we came up with--and it was another tremendous bipartisan effort--was to look at the enterprise funds that were done after the fall of the Soviet Union and some of the Eastern European countries. Enterprise funds were funds passed by Congress with bipartisan support that helped those fledgling private sector economies begin to recover after the fall of the Soviet Union. So we took that model--a U.S. enterprise fund--and focused on Bosnia- Herzegovina, and this is the legislation that we are going to be introducing. I don't know how Senator Wicker feels about it, but I think this offers real opportunity to Bosnia because we can leverage a very small amount of public resources through the private sector, through other local funds that might be available in Bosnia, and see real progress on the economic front that will help create jobs that will help those young people stay in the country and build a strong country. So for my friend from Mississippi, I think this is a very good way to provide some of the assistance they are going to need. Would the Senator agree?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague. As you point out, we represent two very different parts of the country.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. We are. We share that. The fact is, this is a bipartisan issue. As my colleague points out, the United States brokered that historic agreement in Dayton. We were the only country that could really take that leadership, and we need to continue that role in the world. I look forward to working with Senator Wicker as we try to move this bipartisan bill to support Bosnia and Herzegovina and continuing to be vigilant on efforts to undermine democratic values wherever they exist in the world, and certainly this is one place where we can provide help in a way that is very important. I thank my colleague.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as my colleague from Mississippi points out, this really is critical not just to Bosnia and its future, but this is also about the national security of the United States. My colleague talked about the Balkans. We know World War I began in the Balkans. We know it has continued to be a part of Europe where Russian aggression and Russian efforts to subvert the governments there continue, they continue their activity. It is a place where we have a number of different ethnic groups and where different religions converge. So it is a place we need to keep supporting--Bosnia and Herzegovina. We need to look at how we can help them ensure their continued progress toward the West and Europe and also toward economic prosperity. I traveled there in 2010 with former Senator Voinovich from Ohio, who had done a lot of work on the Balkans when he was in the Senate. I will never forget a lunch we had with a number of young people there, mostly college students or recent graduates. We talked to them about what they saw for the future of the country, and there was so much hopelessness in that conversation because they didn't see the kinds of opportunities we want young people to see as they are thinking about their futures and their children and what is going to happen in their country. So I think this is a partial answer to how we can help them provide that economic prosperity they are looking forward to. Finally, I think what has happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Dayton Accords--for all of its flaws, it is a model we can look to as we are looking at the challenges we face in Syria. The Bosniaks, the Serbs, the Croatians, the Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, and the Roman Catholics all came together and they agreed to end the conflict in Bosnia. They agreed to try to build a successful democracy and a strong economy to create a successful multiethnic, multisectarian state under very difficult circumstances. And while we need to continue to look at how the Dayton Accords should change, it is still a milestone in what happened with that conflict and I think serves as a model for so many other regions in the world where there is conflict.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be on the floor with my friend and colleague from Mississippi to talk about Bosnia- Herzegovina and about our trip to commemorate the horrible massacre in Srebrenica that occurred in 1995. As Senator Wicker has said, that was a very moving trip for us. One of the things that was very particular to New Hampshire that I found hopeful was listening to the very young mayor from Srebrenica, the current mayor, whose name is Camil Durakovic. He had actually spent a number of years in New Hampshire and had gone to Southern New Hampshire University. His family had fled after the massacre in Bosnia and came to New Hampshire. He went back in 2005 and was elected mayor. One of the things he talked about was the need to work with Serbia, to work across the ethnic and religious lines in Bosnia to achieve peace. It was, as Senator Wicker said, so heartening to think that we were actually able to get these Dayton Accords that ended that long conflict in Bosnia--very bitter and bloody--and see some real progress. One of the things we talked about on the flight back with President Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was what we could do to help Bosnia continue to progress and move forward, because one of their challenges is economic. This is a country that has a very high level of education, and it has a lot of young people who need opportunities for the future. So we talked about whether there was a way that we in Congress could look at trying to provide some economic help for Bosnia in the future. We came back and looked at how we could work together to come up with an idea that might be successful. What we came up with--and it was another tremendous bipartisan effort--was to look at the enterprise funds that were done after the fall of the Soviet Union and some of the Eastern European countries. Enterprise funds were funds passed by Congress with bipartisan support that helped those fledgling private sector economies begin to recover after the fall of the Soviet Union. So we took that model--a U.S. enterprise fund--and focused on Bosnia- Herzegovina, and this is the legislation that we are going to be introducing. I don't know how Senator Wicker feels about it, but I think this offers real opportunity to Bosnia because we can leverage a very small amount of public resources through the private sector, through other local funds that might be available in Bosnia, and see real progress on the economic front that will help create jobs that will help those young people stay in the country and build a strong country. So for my friend from Mississippi, I think this is a very good way to provide some of the assistance they are going to need. Would the Senator agree?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. We are. We share that. The fact is, this is a bipartisan issue. As my colleague points out, the United States brokered that historic agreement in Dayton. We were the only country that could really take that leadership, and we need to continue that role in the world. I look forward to working with Senator Wicker as we try to move this bipartisan bill to support Bosnia and Herzegovina and continuing to be vigilant on efforts to undermine democratic values wherever they exist in the world, and certainly this is one place where we can provide help in a way that is very important. I thank my colleague.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague. As you point out, we represent two very different parts of the country.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as my colleague from Mississippi points out, this really is critical not just to Bosnia and its future, but this is also about the national security of the United States. My colleague talked about the Balkans. We know World War I began in the Balkans. We know it has continued to be a part of Europe where Russian aggression and Russian efforts to subvert the governments there continue, they continue their activity. It is a place where we have a number of different ethnic groups and where different religions converge. So it is a place we need to keep supporting--Bosnia and Herzegovina. We need to look at how we can help them ensure their continued progress toward the West and Europe and also toward economic prosperity. I traveled there in 2010 with former Senator Voinovich from Ohio, who had done a lot of work on the Balkans when he was in the Senate. I will never forget a lunch we had with a number of young people there, mostly college students or recent graduates. We talked to them about what they saw for the future of the country, and there was so much hopelessness in that conversation because they didn't see the kinds of opportunities we want young people to see as they are thinking about their futures and their children and what is going to happen in their country. So I think this is a partial answer to how we can help them provide that economic prosperity they are looking forward to. Finally, I think what has happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Dayton Accords--for all of its flaws, it is a model we can look to as we are looking at the challenges we face in Syria. The Bosniaks, the Serbs, the Croatians, the Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, and the Roman Catholics all came together and they agreed to end the conflict in Bosnia. They agreed to try to build a successful democracy and a strong economy to create a successful multiethnic, multisectarian state under very difficult circumstances. And while we need to continue to look at how the Dayton Accords should change, it is still a milestone in what happened with that conflict and I think serves as a model for so many other regions in the world where there is conflict.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Clean Power Plan and against the efforts by the majority to undermine the plan. The Clean Power Plan is vital to the environmental and economic well-being of both New Hampshire and this country. It is an important and historic step that will mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing carbon pollution from our Nation's dirtiest powerplants. Powerplants account for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. carbon emissions. That is more than every car, every truck, and every plane in the United States combined. If we are to be successful in addressing climate change, we have to reduce the amount of pollution that is coming from this sector, and we cannot delay. My home State of New Hampshire is doing its part to reduce carbon emissions by making smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, but we do need a Federal plan to make sure our country moves forward together. As Senator Whitehouse and Senator Boxer have said so eloquently, the verdict on climate change is in. It is a reality that must be addressed. Study after study reinforces the overwhelming consensus that global temperatures are steadily rising and contributing to more extreme weather events and changes in our environment. We are seeing that firsthand in New Hampshire, where climate records show a steady increase in yearly temperatures and annual precipitation amounts continue to grow. As a result, climate change is affecting New Hampshire's tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which are really so important to our State. Tourism is the second largest industry in New Hampshire. Each year hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and wildlife watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our natural resources. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation contribute nearly $4.2 billion to the New Hampshire economy each year. But rising temperatures are affecting our fall foliage season, which has just ended. We are seeing fewer snow days, which impacts skiing and snowmobiling, and ice out on our lakes is happening earlier each year. We heard Senator Whitehouse talking about the impact on fisheries in Rhode Island. We have seen that in New Hampshire as well, where cod stocks in the North Atlantic and the Gulf of Maine have been reduced so precipitously that it has devastated New Hampshire's fishing industry. We are also seeing changes in our State's maple syrup industry. New Hampshire produces more than 100,000 gallons of maple syrup annually. It is the third largest maple producer in the New England States. Maple syrup production is entirely dependent on weather conditions. Any change, no matter how slight, can throw off production and endanger the industry. Trees require warm days and cold nights to create the optimal sugar content and sap production. The changing climate is putting more stress on sugar maples, affecting syrup production. According to a report by the New Hampshire Citizens for a Responsible Energy Policy, ``current modeling forecasts predict that maple sugar trees eventually will be completely eliminated as a regionally important species in the northeastern United States.'' If we look at this chart, we can see the red here is elm, ash, and cottonwood. We see the green is oak and pine and oak and hickory. This is 1960 to 1990. This is a current look at what is happening with our trees in New Hampshire and New England. This darker red that we see here, which is almost all of New Hampshire, is maple, beech and birch trees. That is what things look like today. By 2070, you can see there are no more maple trees left in New Hampshire and all of New England. There are very few elm, ash, and cottonwoods. There is a little bit in New York. They have all moved to the West and the North. If we fail to act on climate change, we are going to lose these trees, lose the industry, and lose our fall foliage because maples are so important to the fall foliage. Climate change is also a threat to our wildlife and their habitats. In New Hampshire, the moose is a vital part of our State's culture, and yet, as a result of climate change, we have seen a 40-percent decline in the moose population. It is hard to see. You can see that this moose looks very distressed, as does this one. What looks like little knobs on this moose's tail are ticks. Those ticks are there because with the warmer winters, insects and ticks are not dying off. They infested our moose population, which is down 40 percent. Climate change is also impacting the health of New Hampshire's families. New Hampshire has one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country. Rising temperatures increase smog levels. They heighten the effects of allergy season. All of those things imperil the health of vulnerable populations in New Hampshire, which is already the tailpipe. New England is the tailpipe of the central part of the country. So all of the pollution that is being created in the Midwest by those powerplants that are spewing out fossil fuels is coming on the air currents to New Hampshire and to New England. I am proud to say that Granite Staters have recognized the effects of climate change, and New Hampshire has been a leader in reducing pollution. We are one of nine Northeastern States that are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As a result, New Hampshire has already reduced its power sector carbon pollution by 49 percent since 2008. Because of the initiative of the State and local communities, New Hampshire is on track to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction goals 10 years early. We are going to be there by 2020, rather than 2030. In addition, New Hampshire is investing in clean energy, using proceeds from emissions permits sold at RGGI auctions. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a cap-and-trade system that is working in the nine Northeastern States. In 2012, New Hampshire invested 94 percent of those funds from the program in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that directly benefit New Hampshire residents. I had a chance last week to visit the western part of the State and a town named Peterborough. Actually, ``Our Town,'' the play by Thornton Wilder, is written about Peterborough. They have built the largest solar array in New Hampshire, and they are using it to power their wastewater treatment. Selling excess power into the grid and reducing the town's other energy costs, they are saving between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. What is so exciting to me is that when this project came up at a town meeting for a vote, it passed unanimously. Yesterday I had a chance to visit Middleton, NH. I went to Lavalley/Middleton Lumber. It is a sawmill that produces pine boards for Diprizio Lumber. In 2006, they installed a very large wood-fired boiler. They are able to use the byproducts from the sawmill to fire the boiler, using combined heat and power. Not only are they able to heat their complex, but they are also able to provide the generation that they need for power to run the mills. As a result of this, they are saving $700,000 a year on their power bills. New Hampshire has shown that we can take advantage of moving to renewable energy sources. We can make smart energy choices that benefit the environment and yet strengthen our economy. Nationally, the Clean Power Plan is projected to cut carbon emissions by millions of tons per year and generate tens of billions of dollars a year in health and climate benefits. It is good for the economy. That is why 81 major companies, including four in New Hampshire, have signed a letter pledging to support new initiatives that may emerge from the global conference on climate change in Paris in December. America's Clean Power Plan is a powerful demonstration of our global leadership on climate change, and it will allow the United States to lead with credibility and authority at the Paris conference. We all know--or at least those people who are willing to acknowledge what the research shows--that climate change represents an enormous challenge, but solutions are within reach if we put in place policies that allow for action. We have a responsibility to help protect our children and our grandchildren from the severe consequences of global warming by taking action now. It is time to move forward with the Clean Power Plan without delay. It is time to stop short-circuiting efforts to reduce carbon pollution in this country. I urge my colleagues to stop standing in the way of this important effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague from Oregon for pointing out the fact that people who want to hold up legislation that has broad bipartisan support are supposed to make themselves publicly known. It took us months to figure out who was actually holding up this bill. So I do intend to ask unanimous consent to move the bill forward. I appreciate the Senator pointing out the change we have agreed to as a Senate in how we handle those holds and that the people holding up the legislation should be public so the public understands who is objecting and has a chance to weigh in with the people who are objecting. Mr. President, with that said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 104, S. 552, and Calendar No. 107, S. 966, en bloc; that the bills be read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Toomey has objected to my unanimous consent request, but I do think it is important to point out that in fact the amendment he has proposed would essentially undermine the program. That is why I say that is not an amendment that is a real effort to improve the bill. In fact, it is not being offered on any other of these kinds of programs--didn't offer it on Senator Vitter's legislation, on increasing the SBA 7(a) program cap. If that is a conversation he wants to have as a member of the Budget Committee and for the Budget Committee to start talking about that, that is very appropriate, but that should not undermine the efforts of small businesses to get the lending they need. In fact, this is a program that has a history. It has a history that shows that it has a lower default rate than other SBA loan programs. In Pennsylvania alone, it created 1,700 jobs during the time it was in effect. So I think there is the possibility to get to some agreement, even though we have already made some reforms to this bill in committee, but I don't think gutting the program in a way that makes it ineffective is the way to do that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to ask the Senate to take up and pass two bipartisan no-cost bills that will help small businesses with one of their most urgent needs; that is, access to credit. Specifically, I am referring to Senator Risch's bill to enhance the SBA support for startup firms, which is called the Small Business Investment Company Capital Act, and the bill I have sponsored with Senator Isakson, the Commercial Real Estate and Economic Development Act, which is also known as the CREED Act. Both of these bills have broad bipartisan support. In April, almost 6 months ago, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship voted unanimously to pass both of these bills. I had introduced the CREED Act with my friend from Georgia Senator Isakson to reinstate a new version of a successful no-cost program at the SBA known as 504 refinancing. That program had expired before many of the small businesses that needed help could benefit. Congress had created this refinancing program during the financial crisis when small business lending was frozen. As real estate values declined, many small businesses, even those that were performing well and were current on their mortgage payments, were unable to refinance their loans through traditional methods. Small businesses with equity in their properties were often unable to access that equity for additional operating capital. That 504 refinancing program worked. For the short time that it was active, SBA and its loan partners were able to help a lot of those small businesses. More than 2,300 small firms refinanced $5 billion of small business debt. Unfortunately, the program expired in September of 2012, even though there was still significant demand for this type of financing. In fact, on the last day this program was authorized, more than 400 businesses from around the country applied. There is still a significant demand for this lending today. We keep hearing from small businesses that they would benefit greatly from this type of financing. In particular, it would help the many small businesses who are paying too much in interest because they took out their loans during the recession. As one lender in New Hampshire said: During the crisis, businesses took whatever financing they could get. The banks wouldn't commit to long terms. Today the rates are much better, [so businesses holding those loans are paying too much]. Now, while the economy is better and lending to small businesses is starting to recover, many banks today either cannot or will not refinance or renew an existing commercial real estate loan on terms as beneficial as the 504 refinancing loan could. We know there is real need for this program. We have heard it from small businesses, and we have heard it from groups that work directly with small businesses. I have a chart here that shows a number of those groups we have heard from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association support the legislation. The National Association of Development Companies; the National Small Business Association; the Consumer Bankers Association; the Small Business Majority; Women Impacting Public Policy, which does so much to support women-owned businesses; the Association of Women's Business Centers; and then we have a whole list of those development companies that support this legislation. I won't read through those development companies, but these are all organizations and businesses that want to see us start this program again because they have small businesses that need this lending. I have a number of letters here that I will just hold up and show. We have a whole packet of letters, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. The support for this bill is so broad, as indicated by this chart and as indicated by these letters, because the need is so great. There is no reason we shouldn't take up and pass this bill. It has been approved by the committee--the small business committee. It has broad bipartisan support. It is cosponsored by Senators Fischer, Ayotte, Coons, Cantwell, Hirono, Franken, and Casey. I thank them for their support, and I thank the small business committee for its work. Mr. President, like so many of the important bills that go through the Senate, this bill has been paired, as I said earlier, by the chairman of the small business committee, Senator Vitter, with another no-cost small business bill which is authored by Senator Risch from Idaho. That bill, along with the CREED Act, will provide no-cost solutions that will help small businesses in this country get the credit they need to fuel our growth. Again, both of these bills passed unanimously out of the small business committee. I believe the time has come to pass them in the Senate. They have been held up for too long. At this time I want to yield to my colleague, who is going to talk about the hold problem we have been facing on this bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Reserving the right to object to the modification, let me point out that Senator Toomey's objection to this bill is not only wrong, it is inconsistent. The Senator is not objecting to Senator Risch's bill, S. 552, which is also being considered today. He not seeking to amend it, even though it would increase small business assistance and also require taxpayer guarantee. We have also recently passed bills that increase small business assistance, including Senator Vitter's disaster legislation and an increase to the cap for the SBA 7(a) Loan Program. The fact is that the amendment Senator Toomey is proposing is really not a compromise. Let me take a few minutes to explain why. This amendment would essentially gut the pre-legislation, the 504 refinancing program, and it would prevent it from ever helping small businesses. I appreciate Senator Toomey's experience as a small business owner. My husband and I started out our married life as small business owners. We had a family business. It did very well by us. I learned a lot about the challenges facing small business. One of the major ones is access to credit. What Senator Toomey is talking about would single out this legislation and gut the intent of this legislation, and that is not what small businesses need. I want to read a letter that we received from nine lenders--the nonprofit SBA certified development companies in the State of Georgia that worked with this program--about their assessment of what Senator Toomey is proposing. They say: It is our understanding that some have suggested that this program be held to accounting standards outside of the current federal budgeting procedure. The process of how the budget is managed is a contentious one and one that should not hold this bill hostage. . . . We know the performance of the loans that were refinanced during the downturn while [the] program was in place have outperformed OMB projections and the regular default rates on standard SBA loans. SBA implemented credit safeguards by making the program available only to businesses who have been in business two or more years and by not allowing businesses to refinance debt that has been past due in the year prior to the application. That is the end of the quote from the letter, and it was submitted as part of the package of letters I submitted earlier. What Senator Toomey's proposal would do is single out this program and make it subject to a budget standard that would artificially raise the cost of programs meant to help small businesses, farmers, students, and so many others get access to credit. I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania wanting to change budget rules for credit programs. Certainly, if he has a concern about that, he should try to do that. I am happy to have that debate. But this isn't the right place to do it. We shouldn't be holding small businesses hostage. The Budget Committee recently started a series of hearings on budget reforms, and I think that is the right venue for this discussion. I would point out that Senator Enzi, who chairs the Budget Committee, voted for this legislation. He was part of the vote in the Small Business Committee that passed this legislation. I would also like to note that the CREED Act, as passed by the committee, was supported by a number of organizations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I will quote again from one of the letters we received from one of those lenders from Pennsylvania, NEDCO. They said: I write to share my enthusiasm for the CREED Act. . . . I urge you to push for quick consideration of this bill in the Senate and vote in favor of it so that Pennsylvania small businesses, and small businesses everywhere, can once again have access to this valuable program. . . . While large businesses have equal access to capital as they did before the recession, small businesses still have a tight credit market. . . . With interest rates at historic lows, reinstituting the refinancing program will give small business owners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lock in a fixed-rate refinanced loan and be able to use those savings to reinvest and grow their businesses. The letter goes on. That is just one lender. Across Pennsylvania, the program had a big impact while it was up and running. In fact, Pennsylvania was the 12th most active State, with more than $64 million in loans and more than 1,700 jobs supported in about the 18 months of the program. We did amend the bill in the Small Business Committee to address some of the concerns from Republican Members about its budget implications. Those changes have been made. They have been vetted by our committee. But now, after months of delay, Senator Toomey has proposed an amendment that is not a good-faith effort at compromise, from my perspective, that would effectively prevent the program from ever helping small businesses that we need to help. For all of these reasons, I object, and I would again ask unanimous consent to take up and pass both bills as reported by the committee of jurisdiction.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues on the floor, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell. I thank them for their leadership in keeping the issue of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank front and center in this Congress. We are here to celebrate what the House did yesterday in voting overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. The House did what many people have been predicting for months they would do if they could actually get this bill to the floor; that is, pass it with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority, including a majority of House Republicans. Why are we so concerned about reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank? It is because--as Senator Heitkamp said so well--exporting has become increasingly important throughout the country, especially in my home State of New Hampshire and for so many of our small businesses that are looking to stay competitive in this global economy. Ex-Im levels the playing field, and when American companies have a level playing field they can compete and win. Unfortunately, it has been a small ideological minority of Members of Congress in both the Senate and the House who have kept this legislation from coming to the floor and have kept the Ex-Im Bank shut down. The vote yesterday shows it is time to change that. Ex-Im provides billions of dollars of money to help American manufacturers reach foreign markets. It has been 4 months now since the Bank's charter expired and we are already starting to see the consequences. Some companies have discussed moving manufacturing from the United States, which means we will lose manufacturing jobs. We are going to start seeing consequences for small businesses as they start losing out on new sales because they are operating at a disadvantage. Businesses such as Boyle Energy in New Hampshire have gotten support from the Ex-Im Bank. The Bank has supported $314 million in export sales from New Hampshire businesses since 2009. It is time for the Senate to take up this legislation, to pass it, to come together and get this done for our small businesses, for our economy, and for our jobs. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I left for Greece with a Senate delegation that included Dick Durbin from Illinois, Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, and Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. In my capacity as lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, I was honored to head our delegation. We were there to witness firsthand the plight of refugees arriving by sea on the island of Lesbos. In Greece and later in Germany, we received indepth briefings on the refugee crisis and Europe's response to it. In Kiev, we conferred with the Ukrainian Prime Minister and President about their country's struggle to create a stable democracy in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. Nearly a quarter of a million Syrians have been killed during the current conflict in the Middle East. An estimated 8 million Syrians have been displaced internally. Another 4 million have left the country. They are fleeing hunger, unspeakable violence, and a land that no longer offers any hope for their children. They have endured barrel bombs, chemical attacks, indiscriminate shelling, the barbarity of ISIS, and now a military offensive sponsored by Russia and Iran. To reach Europe, these refugees have been preyed upon by traffickers and other criminals, some selling refugee children for sex, for slavery, or for organs. The refugees have risked drowning at sea and suffocation in locked vans, and they will soon confront the freezing temperatures and snows of winter. While we were traveling, we heard accounts from the refugees of paying smugglers thousands of dollars to get on small boats with motors that barely work, boats built for a few but loaded with 40 to 50 refugees. I use the term ``boats'' loosely. What I am talking about are rubber rafts that were built to hold maybe 10 to 15 people and were loaded with 40 to 50 refugees. The Greek Coast Guard told us that refugees pay exorbitant prices for life preservers that are more like the children's inflatables that you see at swimming pools. When refugees set off from Turkey across the Aegean to Lesbos, they are instructed by the smugglers to puncture their raft with a knife if they encounter the Greek Coast Guard so that the Greeks will be forced to rescue them. I was profoundly moved by my conversations with refugees from Syria and other conflict zones in the Middle East. It is one thing to hear about millions of Syrian refugees fleeing the war; it is something else entirely to actually meet and talk with individual refugees, including children who have been separated from their parents. I was struck by the fact that many of these refugees have endured extreme hardship for weeks, if not years. Their future is filled with extreme uncertainty. Yet so many of them were filled with optimism and hope. In Athens, we met a 6-year-old Afghan boy who had made the trip to Greece with his 13-year-old cousin. This boy proudly gave us all sticks of gum. In Germany, we met young men from Syria--a former English teacher, a Ph.D. student, and an engineer. One young man looked ahead to a brighter future and said one day he wanted to be the President of Syria. These refugees were weary and they were anxious, but they were also deeply grateful and hopeful about their future lives in a safe, secure Europe. Altogether, we met and talked with a couple dozen refugees. They are men, women, and children who are no different from loved ones in our own families and citizens in our own communities. They aspire to the very same things, including a decent life for their children. They told us about the desperation and despair they left behind in Syria, Iraq, and other conflict areas. Multiply these desperate stories by countless thousands of refugees--up to 10,000 entering Europe daily and more than 1 million so far this year. It adds up to a humanitarian crisis of staggering dimensions. Now, to be sure, Europe is being challenged, but this crisis also challenges the United States and the world. At critical moments in history, the international community has faced similar challenges: Jews seeking refuge from persecution and later genocide in Nazi Germany; famine killing millions in Biafra in the late 1960s; the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Bosnia. Faced with these crises, the world confronted a stark choice: to turn away or to engage. The United States cannot turn away from the refugee crisis unfolding in the Middle East and Europe. On Lesbos last week, we talked with Greeks who operate small businesses that depend on tourism, which has dried up because of the crisis. They said that the refugees must be their first priority, that Greeks must help people who are in need. In Athens, we visited a facility for refugee children run by a group called Praxis. Praxis workers told us about Afghan children being sold in Europe as sex slaves for as much as $10,000. Praxis and scores of similar organizations are doing everything possible, with very limited means, to meet the refugees' desperate needs. In Germany, we met with officials at the Finance Ministry and the Chancery, as well as people in and out of government who are rising to the challenge of the refugee crisis. Chancellor Angela Merkel has demonstrated extraordinary moral leadership in addressing this crisis. Millions of ordinary German citizens--indeed, people all across Europe--have mobilized to meet the needs of the refugees. However, it was clear to me and to the other Senators in our delegation that these noble efforts are not enough. The refugee crisis is too big; the scale of human suffering and needs is overwhelming. President Obama has offered to take in 10,000 refugees over the next year. But Germany is taking in as many as 10,000 refugees in a single day--day after day, week after week, with no end in sight. My State of New Hampshire has been welcoming to refugees fleeing conflict, as have other States. I think people are eager to do more across this country. Turkey needs to secure its borders, and it needs to crack down on smugglers and criminal gangs exploiting and trafficking in refugees. Frontline countries, including Greece and Italy, need more resources to help process and register refugees. In fact, the same is true of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, which have taken in millions of refugees. As I said, Germany has earned our admiration for its leadership, offering to take in as many as 1 million refugees this year. But for all its resources, Germany can't do this alone. It is already reaching a point where its communities can't keep up with the influx. We are confronting the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. Europe is responding. The European Union will use the coming winter months, when the flow of refugees will slow, to come up with a more effective plan to share the burden and address this challenge. However, European nations, Turkey, Jordan, and other frontline states, such as Lebanon, can't meet this challenge alone. The international community must give more generous support to humanitarian efforts by the World Food Program and others. By all means, the United States, as leader of the Atlantic Alliance, must play a more robust role in addressing the refugee crisis. I am heartened by the bipartisan bill that is sponsored by Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Leahy of Vermont, which would provide $1 billion in assistance to meeting the needs of refugees. The Obama administration has proposed taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. That is a start. It is not enough given the scale of this crisis. We have the resources to safely vet and process more refugees for asylum in the United States, even as we need to do so more efficiently. As Senator Graham said recently, ``I don't see how you can lead the free world and turn your back on people who are seeking it.'' To turn away families fleeing violence, says Senator Graham, is to ``take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down . . . because we don't mean it anymore.'' We also need to deal with the root of the problem, the violence in Syria. We must redouble our diplomatic efforts as well as our campaign against the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq. Unfortunately, there is a new dimension to the chaos and conflict in Syria. In recent weeks, Russia has sent combat planes, heavy armor, and military personnel to support the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Russia is threatening to send thousands of so-called volunteer troops to Syria to fight on the frontline. A newly aggressive and reckless Russia is a problem not only in the Middle East but also in Ukraine, where our Senate delegation visited after leaving Greece. The Ukrainians are struggling to fight corruption and build a stable democracy. But those efforts have been severely undermined by Russian subversion and aggression. President Putin was not content to invade and annex Crimea. He has also sponsored the establishment of Russian-controlled provinces in eastern Ukraine. This conflict in the east of Ukraine is designed by Russia to destabilize democratic Ukraine and to drain its resources. While in Kiev, our delegation met with senior government officials, including Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Petro Poroshenko. We were briefed on Russia's efforts on many fronts to destabilize the country. We were also briefed on Ukraine's efforts to boost its economy and to root out corruption in the country's government and institutions. The European Union and the United States are standing by Ukraine, and this solidarity is making a difference. It appears to have moderated Russia's ambitions, at least for now. The countries of Western Europe and the United States have demanded that Russia fully implement the Minsk II agreement to contain the conflict, and we heard some encouraging signs. Elections in the breakaway provinces--elections that might have led to succession--have been delayed. Russia is redeploying light armor away from the region. But, of course, this is not adequate. Sanctions on Russia must remain in place until President Putin and the rebels he backs fulfill all of their obligations under the Minsk II agreement. I left Ukraine with a strong sense that despite living under an ever-present threat from Russia, this is a nation that continues to stand strong and move forward. It was an honor to personally reaffirm to Ukraine's leadership and citizens that the United States is an ally and partner and that we strongly support the government's agenda of reform and modernization. Our European allies are confronting an array of challenges unprecedented since the end of the Second World War: not only the refugee crisis but also rising threats from Russia, economies that continue to be held back by debt and austerity, and a resurgence of nationalistic and nativist political parties. However, our delegation witnessed firsthand a creative and resourceful Europe that is capable of meeting these challenges. Europe needs and deserves American support and partnership, beginning with a more robust U.S. response to the refugee crisis, which is the greatest humanitarian challenge of our time. I hope we in this Chamber and in Congress will rise in response to that challenge to do our part. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would be all for taking the backlog of funding and putting it into LWCF. I think my colleague raises some real reforms that could be made to LWCF. In fact, there is legislation in the comprehensive energy bill that Senators Murkowski and Cantwell have passed that would make some of those reforms. But if we can't get to that, if we can't extend this program in the short term, we are never going to get to that point. The fact is that the backlog of maintenance needs should be addressed. But it does not make sense for us to suspend the program while we address those needs. LWCF was not established for maintenance purposes. It was established to protect natural areas and to provide recreation opportunities to the American public. When I went to the city of Nashua, the second largest city in New Hampshire, and walked with the Republican mayor along the Riverwalk that they are trying to establish there, what I heard from her was what a critical difference LWCF made to the city and being able to leverage funds that the city put in and that the State could put in to help make sure that the people of Nashua, many of whom cannot get to national parks or to the White Mountains in New Hampshire but they could get to the Riverwalk through downtown Nashua. Those are the kinds of projects that LWCF goes to help fund. Some 99 percent of what Federal agencies spend goes to acquire inholds, those pieces of land that are already within the boundaries of a national park, a national forest or a national wildlife refuge that if sold to a private developer would block public access. It would damage park resources. It would harm the visitor experience, and it would make it harder to maintain those very projects that my colleague was talking about wanting to maintain. So I think, while it sounds simple to say there is a backlog and we should not reauthorize this program, that is only half the story. It is very disappointing that with the strong bipartisan support this legislation has, with the need to reauthorize it to continue to protect special places in the country, we are seeing opposition from a very few people in this body who are able to block our moving forward. Nomination of Gayle Smith Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, move on to address a different issue, and hope we will see some cooperative agreement at some point in the future. I also want to urge the consideration of the nomination of Gayle Smith to serve as the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, also known as USAID. I am here with my colleague Senator Coons from the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about this nominee because this is a noncontroversial nominee, a seasoned public servant for a position that should be above partisanship. So it is really disappointing that, again, there is only one person in this body who is holding this up. This comes at a particularly difficult time because we are witnessing a humanitarian crisis in Syria and across the Middle East. It is a crisis that grows worse every day. Our European allies are struggling to cope with a massive refugee and migration crisis without precedent since World War II. The United States, with our unparalleled capacity to mobilize humanitarian support for humanitarian relief, has played a leading role, but there is more that we can do to assist both the Syrian refugees and the neighboring countries that are hosting them to help with that humanitarian crisis. But our ability to respond effectively to these challenges is hampered by the inability of the Senate to vote on Gayle Smith's nomination to lead USAID. So, again, nearly 4 months have passed since she appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee approved her nomination by a voice vote in July. But since then, there has been no attempt to bring her nomination to the Senate floor, even as these humanitarian crises have deepened and deteriorated. It is not only our operations in the Middle East that are being hampered, USAID currently operates in more than 60 countries and regional missions around the world. Following the devastating earthquake in Nepal in April, USAID disaster response teams were among the first crisis personnel to deploy there to organize the humanitarian response. USAID personnel continue to support our development efforts in Afghanistan. Those efforts are critical to the long-term success in the country. Given the extraordinary humanitarian crises confronting the United States, confronting our allies in the world, we really need a leader in place at USAID. It is unconscionable that here we are 4 months later and she is still being stalled. Gayle Smith is a superbly qualified nominee who will almost certainly be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The Senate deserves the chance to vote on this critical nomination. So, again, I urge the majority leader to bring her nomination to the floor. We discussed it again today in the Foreign Relations Committee. I know my colleague from Delaware can speak also to what we heard in the Foreign Relations Committee. So I would yield to my colleague from Delaware to discuss what we have heard in the Foreign Relations Committee about Gayle Smith and the need to put her in place as leader of USAID.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, for 50 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund has done amazing work protecting our land, waterways, forests, State parks, and critical wildlife habitats. This is particularly true in New Hampshire, where since 1965 LWCF has funded more than 650 individual projects. Just this month, New Hampshire received eight new LWCF grants, which will allow New Hampshire communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities in Dover, which is close to where I live, to renovate Osgood Pond in Milford, and to do so many other projects. In the last couple of months, I actually had a chance to go around New Hampshire and visit so many of these projects that were done because of LWCF grants. One of the things that really struck me about them is that they are not for big projects, although some have been used toward doing that. The Silvio Conte National Wildlife Preserve that crosses Vermont and New Hampshire is one of those that have been preserved, with the help of Judd Gregg, a former Republican Senator from New Hampshire. LWCF helped to preserve that. So many of these grants have been used for small projects and communities, such as Meredith in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire on Lake Winnipesaukee, where I visited. They have been able to expand the park along the lake so that people not only from Meredith but from across the State and other parts of the country when they are visiting can come and sit and enjoy the water. With those projects, they have been able to put in new docks so that people can get out on the lake on boats and enjoy the water. Without LWCF, those projects would not have been possible. It gets people out into the outdoors who otherwise wouldn't be able to do that. Federal and State LWCF funds are also vital to the outdoor recreation industry in New Hampshire. That is one of our biggest industries. It accounts for $4.2 billion in consumer spending, $1.2 billion in wages and salaries, and nearly 50,000 jobs. The importance of these projects and the conservation efforts that are the result of LWCF to the tourism sector of our economy and to our outdoor industry cannot be overstated. There has been bipartisan support for LWCF since its inception back in the 1960s. There is a bill which Senator Burr has introduced and which I am a cosponsor of that would extend LWCF for 60 days. Unfortunately, last night LWCF expired. Its authorization ended as of September 30. The effort to reauthorize the program, to invoke Senator Burr's bipartisan legislation, was defeated. When they objected to a simple short-term extension of LWCF, our Republican friends indicated it was because they believed most LWCF funding goes to Federal land acquisition. Well, I would like the Record to reflect that is just not the case. I have seen it firsthand in New Hampshire in the projects I talked about. I would bet the Presiding Officer has seen in North Carolina the support LWCF has provided. In fact, during the last 10 years, LWCF funds have been split about 50-50 between Federal agencies and States. In New Hampshire, what these Federal grants do is to leverage State support and private support and local support. Moreover, most Federal lands that are acquired with LWCF funds are within the existing boundaries of Federal parks, refuges, forests, and other recreation areas. Consolidating these lands helps to reduce Federal maintenance and management costs, saves taxpayer dollars, and enhances the experience visitors have to these areas. For example, in 2014, 39 of 40 LWCF national forest acquisitions expanded access to property already managed by the Federal Government that had been previously closed to the public. This is not about keeping the public off these lands, this is about helping to ensure that members of the public can get on these lands and benefit from them and enjoy them. This Senator is very disappointed that we have seen a few people blocking the extension of this program in a way that affects every single State in this country. Our failure to act has significant consequences for each and every State. The expiration of this program jeopardizes access to public land for hunting and fishing, which is one of the great benefits we have in New Hampshire that we use these lands for. It prohibits access to other outdoor activities that are important and unique to our American heritage. This is going to adversely impact our Nation's outdoor, recreation, conservation, and preservation economy. In New Hampshire, our whole outdoor industry is affected. That outdoor industry contributes over $1 trillion to our Nation each year, and it supports millions of American jobs. I think it is critical that we pass a short-term extension to keep this program operating, but ultimately what we need to do is to pass a bill that permanently reauthorizes and fully funds LWCF--something a bipartisan majority of this body supports doing. I am going to continue working to pass a permanent authorization. I know that Senator Burr; my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte; and other people who are on this bill feel the same way. In the meantime, we should not allow LWCF to lapse any longer. So this Senator is going to renew a unanimous consent request that was made last night by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, to pass a 60-day extension. I recognize that this request is going to be objected to by Senator Lankford, whom I see on the floor, but I just want to remind us all that less than 2 weeks ago, 53 Senators wrote the Senate majority leader urging action to reauthorize LWCF. To the 12 Republican Senators who signed that letter, I say this: I hope you will work with us to correct the misconceptions and the mischaracterizations that exist about this program. Let's work together so we can allow this short-term extension to pass. Let's work together to get a long-term reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund because LWCF has expanded outdoor opportunities in every single State in the country. We should come together to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to protect one of America's most essential tools for conservation and economic growth. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be discharged from and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2101; and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have been a strong supporter of Special Olympics for many years. It is a truly extraordinary global movement, bringing together more than 4.5 million athletes in 170 countries. This summer, folks in my State have come to admire one especially talented and accomplished Special Olympian, Hayden Meattey of Goffstown, NH. Hayden was one of only two Granite Staters selected to compete this summer at the Special Olympics World Games in Los Angeles. He returned home to a hero's welcome at Goffstown High School, having won a gold medal in the 800-meter speedwalking event and a bronze in the 800-meter event. Qualifying for the World Games was itself a remarkable achievement against talented competition. Hayden, a cross-country runner and speedwalker, trained twice a week with his team at Goffstown High School and independently the rest of the week, constantly pushing to exceed his personal best. Nancy Kelleher, coordinator of Team Uncanoonuc and Hayden's coach for 9 years, praised his work ethic as exceptional. His fellow students at Goffstown High packed the school gymnasium for a rally to wish him luck before he left for Los Angeles. When Hayden and his teammates on Team Uncanoonuc entered the gym, the room erupted in cheers and clapping. To say that Hayden is popular at Goffstown High is an understatement. As Principal Frank McBride put it: ``Hayden is just one of those sweet, kind human beings who puts a smile on everyone's face. He makes my day better. I think he does that with most of the people he comes into contact with.'' The Special Olympics World Games are a remarkable sporting event. The accent is not on the participants' disabilities, but on their abilities. The athletes' success is determined by their own hard work, talent, and determination. In truth, Hayden was already a winner before he left for the games. He already had demonstrated grit and determination by joining Team Uncanoonuc, training like an Olympian, and earning the chance to compete at the highest level with Team USA against athletes from nearly 170 nations. His gold and bronze medals in Los Angeles only confirmed what his friends and family already knew, that Hayden is a young man of indomitable spirit. Hayden was accompanied to Los Angeles by his very proud mom, dad, brother, and stepdad. I know that folks in Goffstown are also very proud of all he has achieved. So am I, and so are folks all across the Granite State. On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I thank Haden Meattey for representing the United States at the games with a noble spirit and a champion's heart.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the town of Conway in New Hampshire is celebrating its 250th anniversary this year. Months of observances will culminate with a ceremony this Thursday, October 1, the anniversary date of the signing of the town's charter in 1775 by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth. Appropriately, this commemoration will be held at Founders Park in Redstone, site of Conway's first meetinghouse and the early settlers' cemetery. Today, the Town of Conway--encompassing the villages of Kearsarge, Intervale, Redstone, Conway, North Conway, East Conway, Center Conway, and South Conway--is a vibrant and popular tourist destination, often described as the gateway to New Hampshire's spectacular White Mountain National Park. But the region's human history goes back many centuries prior to the arrival of the first British explorers and settlers. The area was originally home to the Pequawket Native American tribe, members of the larger Algonquian Abenaki tribe. Along the bountiful Saco River, they fished, hunted, and farmed. The initial White explorer of the region, Darby Field of Exeter, first encountered members of the Pequawket tribe in 1642. The Native Americans' dominion over the area formally ended on October 1, 1775, when Colonial Governor Wentworth chartered 65 men to establish the new town of Conway, named for the commander in chief of the British Army, Henry Seymour Conway. By the mid-1900s, visitors from across America and also Europe discovered the wild beauty of the White Mountains. Artists came to the region to capture the landscape on canvas, creating what became known as the White Mountain School of Art. King Edward VII purchased 12 paintings by artists of the White Mountain School to display at Windsor Castle. Beginning in 1871, the railroads came to Conway. Trains carried timber and wood products away from the town and brought more and more tourists into the town. North Conway was reborn as a booming tourist center for the region. By the early 20th century, so-called snow trains brought growing numbers of winter sports enthusiasts to Conway. Ski resorts began to open, led in 1937 by Cranmore, with its innovative ``Skimobile'' ski lift. In the 1980s, the coming of scores of factory outlet stores transformed North Conway into a major shopping destination. Combined with a robust outdoor recreation industry, this ensured Conway's standing as a four-season attraction for visitors and was a major boost to the economy. From countless visits to Conway, including during my time as Governor and Senator, I can testify that its greatest assets are the everyday people of the town and its villages, who are unfailingly gracious and friendly. Conway takes its unique character not only from the stunning natural setting, but also from its stores, cafes, restaurants, and B&Bs--places where people know your name, and where the small-business owners are right there, every day. Conway's celebration of its first quarter millennium has required years of planning and countless volunteer hours from local citizens. In particular, I salute the tireless organizing efforts of Brian Wiggin and Jill Reynolds, co-chairs of the ``Conway Celebrates Legacy'' committee. I know that, for them, this has been a labor of love. I also congratulate board of selectmen chair, David Weathers, and the town's other leaders. Most importantly, I salute the townspeople and families of Conway, who warmly welcome many tens of thousands of visitors annually from across the United States and always make us proud to be Granite Staters. So congratulations to the Town of Conway. I wish everyone a wonderful celebration this Thursday.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, in just 10 days, funding for the government will expire. So we have just 10 days for the Senate and the House to come together and figure out a way to keep the government doors open. We have been here before. In 2013--and I remember all too well, as I am sure all of the Members of this Chamber do--the impact of that shutdown. It was devastating. It resulted in economic confidence falling to its lowest level in several years. It took $24 billion out of our economy and cost us 120,000 private sector jobs. Yet at a time when we should be coming to the table to do our jobs to avoid a government shutdown, we are back again talking about limiting women's access to their own health care choices. Once again, those who want to limit women's access to health care and take away our constitutionally protected rights are threatening to wreak havoc across the entire U.S. economy, just as they did in 2013. This attack on women is not just at the Federal level; sadly, we are seeing it in New Hampshire as well. The New Hampshire Executive Council recently voted not to renew the State's contract with Planned Parenthood. That vote was totally out of touch with the needs of women across New Hampshire, and it puts women's health care at risk. For many in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is the most affordable and accessible way to get the care they need, including basic preventive care such as family planning services--everything from breast and cervical cancer screenings and immunizations to HIV testing. Last year alone, Planned Parenthood served more than 12,000 women in New Hampshire. Planned Parenthood is a trusted health care provider and an important part of our health care system. In some areas of New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is the only local provider for women to receive affordable care. On behalf of the millions of women who are served by Planned Parenthood, I will continue to oppose any effort to defund women's health care services, but of course, as we know, this week the attack on women's access to health care does not end with Planned Parenthood. Tomorrow we will vote on a bill that would ban women's access to abortion after 20 weeks. The choice to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult and very personal decision. If that choice needs to be made later in a pregnancy, it is often the result of very complex circumstances--the kinds of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available. This bill would place an added burden on women who are placed in that difficult situation. Women who are survivors of rape and incest would have that added burden. Furthermore, it threatens doctors, putting them at risk for harsh Federal criminal penalties. Each woman, in consultation with her own family, her own health care providers, and her own conscience, should be able to follow her own beliefs when it comes to her own health care. We must protect women's reproductive constitutional rights, and I intend to continue to stand up for women as others here play politics with their health care. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know they don't have the votes to pass this legislation. They know they don't have the votes to pass other legislation related to women's health that would limit women's access to comprehensive health services. Yet on the eve of a government shutdown, they are using precious floor time to bring these bills to a vote. This is shortsighted and, furthermore, I think it is irresponsible. I remember the 2013 shutdown well. The impact on New Hampshire, on this country, was significant. Small- and medium-sized businesses across the State suffered from economic disruptions and financial losses. Their government contracts were frozen or they were disrupted. Their SBA loans were stalled. That shutdown, much like the one that is being threatened now, came at the peak of the fall tourism season. National parks and forests were closed, including the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. The impacts on our tourism and outdoor recreational facilities were severe, not just in New Hampshire but across the country. FHA and VA loans were put on hold. Thousands of Federal employees who live in New Hampshire were furloughed. To shut down the Federal Government for any reason is reckless and irresponsible, but to do this, to contemplate doing this in order to deny women access to health care services, is reprehensible. I hope this week or any other week we will not tolerate it, and we will move to the business of funding the government and addressing the challenges we face and leave the personal decisions about personal health care choices to the women and families and health care providers who should be making those decisions, not having the government make that decision. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew MacDonald, a State Department fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.