Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, as do virtually all of the Members of this body, I believe we must prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Because of that, I support the international agreement that the Senate is debating this week because I am convinced it is the best way to achieve that objective. We can stop Iran's nuclear weapons program in one of two ways, either diplomatically or militarily. Powerful international sanctions, which I have strongly supported, have brought Iran to the negotiating table. And on July 14, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and the European Union--the so-called P5+1 powers--concluded an agreement with Iran that, if it is implemented as it was agreed to, promises a peaceful, diplomatic solution. Thanks to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, Congress has had ample time to review the agreement. I have spent hours and hours studying the text of the agreement and scrutinizing our intelligence agencies' classified assessment of their ability to verify Iran's compliance. As a member of both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, I attended more than a dozen hearings and briefings with administration officials and outside experts--both for and against the agreement. In the end, I have concluded that this agreement effectively blocks Iran's pathways to develop a nuclear weapon for well over a decade. Right now, what we heard from testimony from both those people who support and oppose the agreement is that Iran can acquire enough fissile nuclear material to make a bomb in less than 3 months. The agreement extends this breakout time to at least 1 year by slashing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent and banning enrichment above 3.67 percent, which is far below weapons grade, for 15 years. The agreement also reduces Iran's number of centrifuges by more than two-thirds for a decade, and it maintains inspectors' access to Iran's uranium mines and mills--so the whole life cycle of uranium--for a quarter of a century. These are just some of the many restrictions the agreement imposes on Iran. In addition, Iran is bound by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other agreements to a permanent commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons and, as part of that agreement, to permit access by inspectors to any suspected sites. Of critical importance, the Iran agreement is not based on trust--none of us trust Iran--but it is based on an inspections regime that is more rigorous and more intrusive than any previous negotiated agreement. Nuclear experts are confident that we will be able to detect violations by Iran. Thanks to language in the agreement that allows the United States to respond unilaterally to a violation by reimposing U.S. and U.N. sanctions, Iran knows that it faces crippling consequences if it violates the agreement. If Congress rejects the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran agreement, all of these advantages go away. The risk of an Iranian nuclear breakout and a regional nuclear arms race will increase dramatically. We will be left with no credible, nonmilitary option for stopping Iran's nuclear program. Now, I certainly respect the views of my colleagues who oppose this agreement, and I have listened carefully to their arguments. Some of them assert that Iran will find a way to cheat and, therefore, no diplomatic resolution is possible. However, most opponents are careful to avoid talk of military conflict and argue that we can reject this deal, that we can rally the world to impose harsher sanctions, and that Iran will eventually capitulate. But sadly, that premise is at odds with the facts as they currently exist. Our negotiating partners in this deal--Britain, France, Russia, China, and the European Union--have concluded that this is a fair agreement. In a briefing for Senators last month, the Ambassadors from these nations told us in no uncertain terms that there will be no going back to the bargaining table if Congress rejects this agreement. If the deal is rejected, the most likely outcome is that the international sanctions regime against Iran would unravel. The United States would be isolated, and we would lose credibility as a reliable negotiating partner. So, yes, we would retain the ability to act unilaterally, but unilateral sanctions have their limits, as we have heard in this body. Our military commanders counsel us that even a robust military option would delay, but it would not prevent, Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon because they already have the nuclear know-how. This agreement is not about becoming friends with Iran or turning a blind eye to its efforts to destabilize the Middle East. In fact, we must redouble our efforts to help our allies counter Iran's malign influence in the region. In particular, our commitment to the defense of Israel should remain unshakeable. In addition, we must maintain vigorous sanctions against Iran for its support for terrorism and for its violations of human rights. Now, while there are risks to whatever course we take with respect to Iran, I believe that the choice is clear. Either we recognize that this agreement is the best available option or we chase some fantasy agreement on our own as international sanctions collapse and Iran's nuclear program continues unchecked and our options for stopping it are narrowed. I am convinced that the agreement negotiated by the United States and our allies is the least risky approach, and it is the approach that is most likely to succeed. As I said last month in New Hampshire, I intend to vote to support this deal. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, here we go again. Once again, Planned Parenthood is under attack. A bill is before the Senate that would once again attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. And once again, we are seeing the Republican majority putting their partisan agenda ahead of the health of women. For 100 years, Planned Parenthood has been a trusted provider of health care services. Last year alone, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England served 12,000 women in New Hampshire. Most of them are low income. For many women in my State of New Hampshire, the full range of health services offered at Planned Parenthood is the most affordable and accessible way for them to get the care they need. Ninety-four percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire are prevention-related. We can see on this chart that it is well-women visits, cancer screenings, vaccinations, birth control, breast exams, and HIV tests. Planned Parenthood provides the health care so many women need to ensure that they can live their lives in a way that gives them opportunities and gives them reassurance that they are going to have their health. I oppose the legislation that has been introduced to defund Planned Parenthood. It would make it harder for millions of women--as I said, 12,000 in New Hampshire last year alone--to get the high-quality, affordable care they need. This attack on women's health is politically motivated. It holds hostage the millions of women and families who depend on Planned Parenthood. The highly edited videos that have been circulated are disturbing. Planned Parenthood has apologized, and the secretly taped videos and Planned Parenthood's practices are under review by the Department of Justice. That is appropriate. But make no mistake about it--the group who is responsible for theses deceptive videos is motivated by a single purpose: to limit access to abortion services. Its three officers are prominent in the anti-abortion movement. They have ties to many other politically motivated groups who are working to take away a woman's right to choose. They have been tied to organizations that harass medical providers, doctors, and patients, try to limit access to women's health care clinics, and they actively work to limit the reproductive health care decisions a woman can make. Federal dollars are already prohibited from being used to pay for abortion under the Hyde amendment except in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is threatened. This is not a vote to defund abortion; this is a vote to defund preventive health care for women, the kinds of things that are outlined on this chart--the cancer screenings, the vaccinations, the breast exams, HIV tests, and birth control. If you don't like abortion, then you should support family planning, which is one of the things Planned Parenthood does. By targeting Planned Parenthood, this politically motivated attack on women's health will limit access to health care services that I think we all agree should be available, the kinds of services that are listed on this chart. On behalf of the millions of women who are served by Planned Parenthood, and the thousands of women in New Hampshire, I oppose and I will continue to oppose any attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that is absolutely a critical component of women's health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this Friday, July 31, the authorization for the highway trust fund will expire and the fund itself will be nearly out of money. That means that unless Congress acts, projects in New Hampshire and across the country will grind to an abrupt halt. In the face of this, the House has passed yet another short-term, stopgap bill. The Senate is now debating and amending a long-term highway bill. My clear preference is for a long-term bill. I think it would be a terrible mistake to pass yet another short-term extension without at the same time taking action on a long-term bill like the Senate is currently doing. Only passing another short-term extension--which would be the 34th since 2008--without taking steps toward a multiyear bill would be kicking the can down the road, and in this case the road is overwhelmed by traffic, badly in need of modernization, and filled with patches and potholes. If you have driven around on the roads in the District of Columbia, sometimes you wonder where you are because they are so bad, so filled with potholes. For a country that seeks to remain competitive in the 21st century, as we do in America, this is totally dysfunctional and destructive. There are few more basic and necessary functions of government than providing for modernized highways, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. Yet in Congress we have been grossly neglecting this responsibility. China spends about 9 percent of gross domestic product on infrastructure. Brazil spends about 8 percent. Even in Europe they are spending about 4 percent. But infrastructure spending in the United States has fallen to just 2 percent of GDP. Our highways and bridges face an $800 billion backlog of investment needs, including nearly half a trillion dollars in critical repair work. Americans spend a staggering 5.5 billion hours stuck in traffic each year. Yet in early May we saw a budget pass out of this Congress supported by the majority party that slashed Federal funding for transportation by 40 percent over the next decade. I am especially concerned about disrepair and decay among our Nation's bridges. That is why I filed an amendment which is a bill I have introduced in previous Congresses called the SAFE Bridges Act. The Federal Highway Administration has identified more than 145,000-- 145,000--structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. That is more than 20 percent of all the bridges in the United States. In New Hampshire it is actually a higher percentage. In May, I went with the mayor and city manager of Concord--New Hampshire's State capital--to inspect the rusted-out and now-closed Sewalls Falls Bridge, which is one of the three critical bridges in Concord across the Merrimack River. I worked very hard with the city-- our office did--to get necessary approvals from the U.S. Department of Transportation to replace this bridge. In fact, it is a replacement project that started back in 1994. The city of Concord lined up all the permits and approvals--and then nothing. Because of uncertainty about Federal funding for the project, it was stopped dead in its tracks. My amendment, the SAFE Bridges Act, would authorize an additional $2 billion annually for the next 3 years to enable States to repair and replace their structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. States would get funding based on their share of deficient bridges nationwide, and the additional funding is fully paid for by closing a corporate tax loophole. As the Senate continues to debate the Transportation bill, I hope we do get an opportunity to vote on relevant amendments like my SAFE Bridges Act. The neglect of our transportation infrastructure is creating congestion and gridlock on our roads. It is hurting our economy and our global competitiveness. It is also killing jobs--especially in the construction trades, where employment has yet to recover from the great recession. According to a Duke University study, providing Federal funding to meet the U.S. Department of Transportation's infrastructure requests would create nearly 2.5 million new jobs. So our investment in this industry, which is one of the slowest recovering from the recession, would create millions of new jobs. Several months ago, I joined in a bipartisan group of eight Senators who had previously served as Governors--Senators King, Rounds, Kaine, Hoeven, Warner, Carper, Manchin, and myself. We sent a letter to our Senate colleagues urging that we commit to fully funding national infrastructure priorities and that we put a stop to the dysfunctional short-term fixes that have become routine in recent years. I know the Presiding Officer appreciates that it was a visionary Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who championed the Interstate Highway System in this country. The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956--I think it is critical to think about the title of that bill which was not just about commerce, but it was also about defense. It was about the security of our country. It ensured dedicated Federal funding to build a network that today encompasses more than 46,000 miles of roadways. That system has transformed our economy and created countless millions of jobs, but it is now six decades old. Its dedicated funding mechanism, the highway trust fund, is chronically underfunded and just days from becoming insolvent. It is time for Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to break the cycle of patchwork fixes. The bill before us is not perfect. There are a number of provisions included that I don't agree with, if I had been writing the bill, but it is a compromise measure, and it was ably negotiated by the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer, along with numerous others in this body. We have the opportunity to pass a 6-year authorization bill with 3 years of funding. Yet what is happening in the House today? The House is passing another short-term extension. They are getting ready to leave town. They are not even going to stay and take up the long-term bill that is going to come out of the Senate. They are going to give us another short-term bill that is going to leave States such as New Hampshire up in the air, with thousands of people who are not sure if they are going to have a job next week when the money runs out, who aren't sure what the future is going to hold, companies that can't plan because they don't know if we have a long-term highway funding bill. It is now time for Congress to pass a fully funded, multiyear highway bill that will allow governments at all levels to plan long-term capital investment projects and to build a 21st-century transportation system that meets the needs of our 21st-century economy. I hope that we in the Senate will be able to pass this bill and that our House colleagues will recognize they need to stay here and get this work done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Wicker from Mississippi in talking about what we saw and heard when we were in Bosnia. Unfortunately, the story that came out about that inspiring commemoration was about the attack by some of the Bosniaks who were attending on the Serbian Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, who had attended the ceremony. But the larger story was one of reconciliation. The Bosniak mayor of Srebrenica, Camil Durakovic, condemned the attackers, and he was joined by the Tripartite Presidents in condemning the attackers. After the attack, the Serbian Prime Minister said that it should not distract attention from the innocent victims of Srebrenica. He said that his ``arms of reconciliation remain stretched towards the Bosniaks.'' Fortunately, we heard the same from the mayor of Srebrenica, who actually had invited the Prime Minister. I am very proud of Mayor Durakovic because he is actually a Bosnian- American whose family fled from Srebrenica in July of 1995, and they settled in New Hampshire. He went to high school there, and he got a degree from Southern New Hampshire University. He returned to Srebrenica in 2005 and was elected mayor in 2012. Aside from that isolated, unfortunate incident with the Prime Minister, the ceremony was a solemn tribute and remembrance to the victims of Srebrenica. There was a spirit of unity and harmony. The theme again and again was of reconciliation. As my colleague points out, it is particularly important for us to continue to support this reconciliation, for us to continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina and their efforts to continue to look west to join the EU. Across many centuries, the Balkans has been a flashpoint for conflicts that have spread to the rest of Europe and the entire world. In fact, 101 years ago next month, World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand right in Sarajevo. We walked by the block where he was assassinated. As we have seen most recently in Greece and as we are seeing in the Balkans and in other countries in Eastern Europe, the Russians are quick to exploit any trouble in the southeast corner of Europe in order to spread their influence and destabilize the West. Wouldn't my colleague agree that it is important for us in the United States to join the EU in supporting the Bosniaks, the Serbs, the Croatians, the Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, and the Roman Catholics so that they can come together and show the world that we really can create a multi- ethnic, multi-sectarian state that can serve as a model for the Middle East and for countries around the world?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely, and I know Senator Wicker shared my gratitude as we walked through the streets of Sarajevo and as we met people in Srebrenica for the appreciation they showed the United States for our actions in helping to end that awful war in Bosnia and for our actions in supporting Bosnia as they try to look westward and as they try to keep their country moving forward, addressing the corruption and the democracy issues they face. I think it is in our interest as Americans to support those efforts to help them, as they continue to move their country forward, in every way we can.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I know the Senator shares my views that we owe it to the victims of Srebrenica. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Wicker to do everything we can to support the efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to discuss the Every Child Achieves Act. I think it is significant that for the first time in more than a decade, the Senate is considering legislation to make significant changes to our Nation's elementary and secondary education system, and this conversation is long overdue. As a former teacher, I appreciate the challenges our schools have, and I am very much looking forward to the debate ahead. I want to applaud Senators Alexander and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, for reaching a compromise bill that passed out of their committee with strong unanimous bipartisan support. Today, I want to focus on some of the provisions included in this bill that have to do with STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and math. This is an issue I have been working on for a number of years--really since I was Governor in the late 1990s in New Hampshire. We know the most critical jobs needed to compete in the global economy are in the STEM fields, but data consistently shows our American students are falling further and further behind in these subjects. One of the other challenges is that we have an enormous gender gap in employment in these fields. Forty-eight percent of the workforce in this country are women. Yet only 24 percent of the jobs in STEM fields are held by women. I had the opportunity last night to cohost a screening in the Capitol of an important new documentary called ``Code: Debugging the Gender Gap.'' This documentary tells a very powerful story about the lack of diversity in the technology industry, outlining the resulting cost to our society, and it explores strategies that would solve the problem. Last night we had more than 150 people in attendance at the screening, which was cohosted by Representative Susan Davis from California. The creators of the movie were there, and U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith. What followed the documentary was even more impressive, and that was a lengthy and very passionate discussion about how much work we have to do on this front. We need to give the next generation a stronger educational foundation in these topics, and, most important, we need to get them engaged and excited to be working in STEM fields. This effort is going to require student engagement inside and outside the classroom. It is critical our schools have the resources to offer STEM opportunities during the schoolday. But of course as most of us remember from our childhood, it is sometimes what happens outside the classroom that is even more important than what happens inside the classroom if we are going to get kids excited about learning. Afterschool programs allow students opportunities for more individualized instruction, for innovative experiences, and for opportunities to build their leadership skills. Afterschool programs can be especially successful in inspiring interest in groups that are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields, such as young women, students of color, and students from low-income backgrounds. So I especially appreciate Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for working with me to include language from my Supporting Afterschool STEM Act, which is in the underlying bill and allows Federal grants to be used to support STEM-related afterschool activities. This language will expand student access to high-quality, afterschool programs in STEM subjects. It will also promote mentorship opportunities and the building of partnerships with researchers and other professionals in these fields. Again, one of the things we know about helping kids to stay in school, getting them excited, is that if they have a mentor, if they have someone who is really interested in what is going on in their lives, who is supporting them, then they are much more likely to be successful. These programs will give students firsthand experience to see what careers in the STEM subjects can look like. Now, the Every Child Achieves Act also includes language based on a second STEM-related bill that I first introduced when I got to the Senate back in 2009--the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program. This language would authorize Federal STEM education grants to support the participation of low-income students in related competitive extracurricular activities, such as robotics competition. I am particularly excited about this because in New Hampshire, inventor Dean Kamen--also the inventor of the insulin pump and the Segway--founded a fantastic program called FIRST Robotics Competition. It is now wildly successful. Nationwide, we have nearly 100,000 high school students who compete. It is sort of an ``Einstein meets Michael Jordan'' kind of competition. Students have just 6 weeks to work in a team to design, construct, and program robots, and then they enter their robots in regional and championship competitions. It is great fun to attend these events because kids are so excited about working with these robots and about the STEM subjects. They get excited about engineering, about science, about math, and technology, and you can see that in the students as they are building these robots. They are excited about accomplishing their goals, about being creative. When there are last-minute problems with the robots, they have to work to adjust. But most of all, whether or not they win, you can see the pride they feel for themselves, for their teammates that comes from successfully accomplishing their task: building that robot and being successful in the competition. You can't replicate this kind of experience in a classroom. So I am very pleased that support for programs such as FIRST are now included in the bill we are considering on the Senate floor. These are provisions that I think will take very important strides toward inspiring future generations of scientists and engineers, of mathematicians and experts dealing with technology. Again, I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their work on these issues and for producing a bill we are now debating on the floor that has such strong bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, last week I returned from 3 days in Poland and Latvia. I participated in the global security forum in Wroclaw, Poland, where I met with key foreign leaders from Eastern Europe in particular. I also visited U.S. and allied forces participating in military exercises in Latvia. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the West is confronted by an armed aggressor directly challenging the principle of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. European officials I spoke with see Russian President Vladimir Putin as opportunistic, determined to expand Russia's sphere of influence, and ready to exploit any vulnerabilities in nearby European countries. Our friends on the frontlines in Central and Eastern Europe want more than words of solidarity from the European Union, NATO, and the United States; they want a more robust response and concrete actions to counter the Russian threat and deter further Russian aggression. The crucible for this effort must come in Ukraine. With the Euromaidan Revolution of 2013 and the subsequent election of President Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian people have made it clear that their future is with the West, with democracy, with responsive and transparent governance. President Putin responded by invading eastern Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and destabilizing the entire Ukrainian State. Ukraine today is a symbol of democratic Europe's resistance to Russian domination in the same way that Berlin was in 1948. The Ukrainian army has performed commendably under incredibly challenging circumstances, but it is no match for Russia's military. However, as we witnessed throughout the Communist era in Eastern Europe, military power is not the only kind of power, nor does it necessarily always prevail. There is also the moral power of those who dare to resist, people like Andrei Sakhorov, Vaclav Havel, and Lech Walesa. As dissidents, they didn't command armies; instead, they commanded immense moral authority. They stood for freedom, and ultimately they triumphed. Last Friday, at that forum in Wroclaw, I had the privilege of presenting Freedom Awards to Ukrainians who embodied their nation's courageous resistance and indomitable spirit. One of the awardees was Nadiya Savchenko. She has been well known in Ukraine for many years as one of the first women to serve as a pilot in the Ukrainian Air Force. In 2014, she joined a volunteer battalion to fight separatist forces in the country's east. Nadiya Savchenko was not present to receive her Freedom Award because tragically, outrageously, this hero of the fight for Ukrainian independence is imprisoned in a Russian jail. At every turn, Nadiya Savchenko has been courageous and unbowed--the embodiment of Ukraine's defiance of Russian aggression. Captured while fighting in the east, she was handcuffed to a metal pipe, surrounded by armed men, and interrogated. When asked who was fighting the pro-Russian separatists, she answered, ``All of Ukraine.'' Held as a prisoner in Russia, she went on an 83-day hunger strike. Appearing in a cage inside a courtroom, she refused to speak Russian, wore a T- shirt that displayed the Ukrainian trident, and held up a sign that read ``I was born Ukrainian, and I die Ukrainian.'' President Poroshenko awarded her the title ``Hero of Ukraine,'' and her fellow citizens elected her to Parliament. But, truly, she is a hero to all of us who seek to restore a Europe that is whole and free. I presented the second Freedom Award to the Donetsk National University. Last year, pro-Russian separatists seized the city of Donetsk and declared a Soviet-style people's republic. Armed rebels took over the Donetsk's national university, the region's most prestigious college. They ousted the school's Ukrainian rector, ordered the Russification of the curriculum, and destroyed any semblance of academic freedom. Rather than submit, the rector and core faculty members left Donetsk and they transplanted the school roughly 500 miles to the west. Donetsk National University became Ukraine's first university in exile. It has been a struggle to survive, but this university has become a proud symbol of both academic freedom and Ukrainian independence. The attack on Ukraine has not only galvanized Europe, it also focused the attention of Congress on European affairs like no other event perhaps since the end of the Cold War, certainly like no other event since I have been in the Senate. On a bipartisan basis, Members of Congress admire and support Ukraine's stand for universal values and independence, and Congress has responded. In December, we passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act authorizing the President to provide defensive military assistance to Ukraine and to tighten economic sanctions against Russia. Through the European Reassurance Initiative, the administration has pledged $1 billion to bolster U.S. military deployments, to increase our training exercises, and to step up our partnerships with allies, including the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Moldavia, and Georgia as they strengthen their own defenses. I was pleased to learn last week that the administration is planning to preposition tanks and other heavy weaponry in the Baltic States and in Eastern Europe to support training with regional allies and to show resolve in the face of Russian threats. These are all important steps forward, but they are not sufficient. Within the Transatlantic Alliance and NATO, the United States remains the indispensable Nation. If there is going to be a renaissance of the alliance in the face of the Russian threat, then the United States must lead it with our European allies. The United States must mobilize the alliance, our European partners, and international financial institutions, such as the IMF, to provide generous economic support to Ukraine because no amount of security assistance can offset an economic collapse in Kyiv. We also must recognize that the challenge for Mr. Putin is not only geopolitical; it is ideological. He has mobilized a vast propaganda campaign against what he calls ``decadent'' Western values and Western- style democracy. The United States, along with our allies, must go on the offensive to champion our values and our democracy. Just as we did during the Cold War, we must develop a 21st-century United States Information Agency and a Radio Free Europe-style campaign to counter Russia in the information space, including in the competition of ideas and values. While American leadership is essential, our European allies must also step up. NATO leaders made important spending pledges at the Wales Summit last September. Now we all need to make good on those commitments, including increasing defense budgets to respond to Russian threats. As we confront a newly aggressive Russia, we should also take heart from the Transatlantic Alliance's remarkable track record of achievement, thanks in large part to American leadership. Over the last seven decades, we have risen to every major challenge--rebuilding Europe after World War II; maintaining a united front during the Cold War; liberating the captive nations of Eastern Europe and integrating them into a Europe whole and free; and today, standing united against the challenges of terrorism, Russian aggression, and a nuclear Iran. The Russian threat to Eastern and Central Europe is very real. President Putin is an autocrat whose popularity is based largely on his determination to reassert Russia's domination over its neighbors. But we have the means to counter this threat. To support Ukraine and other frontline states, we need vigorous U.S. leadership of the Transatlantic Alliance, we need a robust mobilization of the alliance's military and financial resources, and we need to engage Vladimir Putin aggressively in the competition of ideas and ideals. Our friends in Ukraine are already in this fight. Our allies elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe fear that they could be next. For the West to rise to this new challenge, the United States once again must be the indispensable Nation, and I know that here in the Senate we support that effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, when author Tom Brokaw called Americans who came of age during World War II the ``greatest generation,'' he had in mind remarkable people like Harold E. Ward, who passed away last week. Mr. Ward lived nearly six decades in Lee, NH, where neighbors knew him for his kindness and warm smile. But few knew that during his 94 years he bore witness to some of the most profound events and transformations of 20th and 21st century America. In his teens, during the Great Depression, he experienced dire poverty and frequent hunger, enduring what he called ``missed meal cramps.'' As an African American, he endured the slights and segregation of Jim Crow, including when he joined the Navy 2 years before the United States entered World War II. Mr. Ward had graduated from trade school as a skilled electrician, but the few African Americans serving in the Navy were routinely assigned to menial positions such as stewards for ship officers. It was only later, after desegregation of the military, that he became a cook. On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, he was on duty aboard the USS San Francisco at Pearl Harbor. From his battle station, he witnessed the most devastating foreign attack ever carried out against our military on U.S. soil. That was Harold Ward's first taste of combat but far from the last. Eleven months later, serving in the Pacific during the Battle of Guadalcanal, he survived numerous wounds from shell fragments and watched a close friend die next to him. He was awarded the Purple Heart. But, referring to shrapnel permanently embedded in his legs, he later said, ``I wear my medals on my body.'' Recalling the prejudice he faced as a Black sailor, he told a local newspaper: ``You look back on it, and despite the fact there was such a separation of people, all the blood ran red.'' Harold Ward served two decades in the Navy, retiring as first class petty officer commissary steward. He went on to use his culinary skills at restaurants in Exeter and Durham, NH, including his own restaurant, Harold's Place, and also worked as a part-time police officer in Lee. Mr. Ward was a 55-year member, past commander, and chaplain of American Legion Post 67 in Newmarket, NH, and a founding member and past commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 10676 in Lee. He lived to witness the end of legal segregation, the triumphs of the civil rights movement, and the election and reelection of an African-American President. Across the decades, Mr. Ward was a gifted mentor to countless young people who crossed his path. Harold and his wife Virginia treated these young men and women as members of the Ward family, giving them love, counsel, and a place to call home. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Life's most urgent and persistent question is: What are you doing for others?'' Across his eventful life, Harold Ward answered that question in powerful ways, including service to his country, to his community, and to anyone he encountered who needed a helping hand or a wise word. Harold was predeceased by his beloved wife Virginia and two sons, Bruce and Theodore. He is remembered with much love by daughters Linda and Harriet and son Michael. The Lee community is mourning his passing, as are countless people whose lives he touched. On behalf of the United States Senate and a grateful nation, I thank Harold Ward for his many years of dedicated service. May he rest in peace.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Senator Ayotte, in offering this amendment, talked about a forum in New Hampshire at General Electric where a number of small businesses participated. Senator Cantwell and I were at that forum. We heard testimony from an employee of a company called Goss International, which makes large printing presses and competes mostly with Germany but with countries around the world. One of the issues she spoke about is that they have $10 million in deals that are sitting on the table at Ex-Im that they need to have approved before the end of June when the authorization expires. If those don't get approved, they are not going to be able to create 45 new jobs they are talking about being able to create as part of that deal. So if the authorization for Ex-Im expires, not only is Goss going to have trouble with those jobs, but companies across this country are going to lose jobs that would be created if those financing deals could go through; isn't that the case?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples and their children. Yet due to unrelated provisions of the Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to indirectly deny Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families solely because they are in a same-sex marriage. This is unjust and, according to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional. This amendment we are about to vote on would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families living in States that do not recognize same-sex marriage. I wish to quote from testimony we heard from the VFW at a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing last month. The VFW said this, and I hope all of my colleagues will keep this in mind as we vote. ``Simply put, if a veteran is legally married in a State that recognizes same- sex marriage, we''--the VFW--``believe the VA should provide benefits to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does for every other legally married veteran.'' Many of us speak all the time about the need to honor the service of our veterans and to make sure they have access to the care they deserve. This amendment will right a wrong that so many of our veterans who have fought and volunteered deserve to have. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment so we can ensure that those veterans are treated equally.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 1494, which I believe would move our Nation one step closer toward finally securing equal protection under the law for veterans in the United States. I thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Senators Leahy, Durbin, Brown, Hirono, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Schatz, Peters, Gillibrand, Markey, Whitehouse, Coons, Wyden, Franken, Murphy, Murray, and Boxer. This amendment would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families who live in States that do not recognize same-sex marriage. My amendment is based on the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this year. The bill is named for Charlie Morgan, a former soldier and chief warrant officer in the New Hampshire National Guard and the Kentucky National Guard. Charlie was a military veteran with a career spanning more than 30 years. I first met Charlie in 2011. She was on her way home from deployment in Kuwait, and she had just been diagnosed for a second time with breast cancer. Concerned for her wife Karen and their young daughter's well-being, Charlie became an outspoken critic of the Defense of Marriage Act, which at the time prohibited her spouse and child from receiving the benefits that she had earned during her service. Sadly, Charlie did not live to see the Supreme Court overturn the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. However, because of her example, her leadership, and her courageous advocacy, our Nation took another historic step toward ensuring equal treatment and civil rights for all. Despite the Supreme Court's overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, there are still provisions remaining in the U.S. Code that deny equal treatment to LGBT families. One of those provisions is in title 38, which deals with veterans benefits. Today, if you are a gay veteran living in a State such as New Hampshire that recognizes same-sex marriage, your family is entitled to all the benefits you have earned through your military service. However, a veteran with the exact same status, the same service record, the same injuries, the same family obligations, but living in a State that does not recognize same-sex marriage will receive less. The impact of this discrimination is very real. Monthly benefits are less, spouses and children are not eligible for medical care at the VA, and families are not eligible for the same death benefits. There are even reports that the VA has required gay veterans to pay back benefits because their State will not recognize their marriage. In one case, a young woman--a 50-percent disabled combat veteran--was initially approved for benefits for her wife and child but later told by the VA that because of where she lived and whom she loved, she was not only going to lose a portion of her benefits but the VA was also going to withhold her future payments until she paid the VA back. This is just disgraceful--to cut the benefits earned by a combat veteran and then also require that she pay back the VA, all because of whom she married and where she lives. Perhaps the most frustrating part of this story is knowing that if this woman moved across the border to another State, she would have no problems with the VA. My amendment would fix this issue for these men and women who have volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces. They have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, to leave their families and their homes, and to travel around the world to protect America and our way of life. Yet they are being deprived of the very rights they have risked their lives to protect. So again, let's be clear what we are talking about. The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples and their children. Yet, due to unrelated provisions of the Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to indirectly deny Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families solely because they are in a same-sex marriage. It is unjust and, according to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional. Now, my amendment is not new to the Senate. Last Congress the Veterans' Affairs Committee approved it by a voice vote, and earlier this year, 57 Senators voted in favor of a budget resolution amendment on this issue. Now, when we vote--hopefully very soon on this amendment--Senators will have the opportunity to end an unjust and unconstitutional provision of law that discriminates against veterans. Many of us talk about the need to honor the service of our veterans and to make sure they have access to the care they deserve, and we should all do that. But if you believe that all veterans, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve equal access to the benefits they have risked their lives for, regardless of where they live, then you will vote in favor of this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment when it comes up for a vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, who has a distinguished military career of his own, for his support of this effort and his understanding of how important this is to so many veterans who have served.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on the pending amendment No. 1494.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Michael Boyle is the CEO of Boyle Energy Services and Technology. They have a facility in Concord, NH, which I have had the good fortune to visit. They do great work. This testimony is what Michael gave before the House Committee on Financial Services this morning at a hearing that examined the Export-Import Bank's reauthorization request and the government's role in export financing. As I said, Boyle Energy does impressive work. They optimize energy performance in power and energy infrastructure construction projects. Their services have reduced greenhouse gas emissions and eliminated millions of gallons of hazardous waste at facilities around the world. It is a great American small business story. Boyle Energy got connected with the Export-Import Bank a number of years ago at a forum in New Hampshire where the Ex-Im Bank announced its Global Access for Small Business Program to help small businesses export. Right now, about 40 percent of large businesses export, but only 1 percent of small and medium-sized businesses export in the United States. Yet 95 percent of markets are outside of America. We need to help businesses such as Boyle Energy get into those international markets. That is exactly what the Ex-Im Bank has done. With the Export- Import Bank's support, Boyle Energy has grown its international sales 75 percent over the last 3 years. Before using the Export-Import Bank's credit insurance, the company shipped just to Mexico and Canada. But now Boyle has customers in over a dozen countries. Their exports comprise 60 percent of the company's $15 million in sales, and 10 of its 50 employees support their increase in international sales. Without the Bank, Boyle Energy's success just wouldn't be possible. Last year the Ex-Im Bank supported $10.7 billion worth of exports by American small businesses. So this is not just the big guys. It is not just the General Electrics and the Boeings. It is small businesses such as we have in New Hampshire where 96 percent of our employers are small businesses. We should not take this important tool--this financing tool for our small businesses--away from America's job creators. I think it is important to note that it is not just the direct users of the Bank's products that will suffer. It will also hurt those smaller companies that sell to larger companies who use Ex-Im Bank financing, for example, manufacturers such as Albany Engineering in Rochester, NH, which makes parts for airplane engines. Timken in Keene and Lebanon sell their products to Boeing. When we cut off financing for those products, it is going to have a real impact on American manufacturing. It is going to have an impact on jobs in New Hampshire and across this country. Now is the time for us to come together. We can do this. We can get this authorization done. We have support in this Chamber to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, to help our small businesses so we can get them into the international markets. We need to do this reauthorization before the Bank charter expires at the end of this month, and I urge my colleagues to join us in taking action. I yield the floor, and I thank Senator Heitkamp for her leadership on this issue.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to join my colleague Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota and to follow Senator Cantwell from Washington, who spoke earlier this afternoon to talk about the importance of taking action to reauthorize the Export- Import Bank before that Bank expires at the end of this month. At the end of June, the charter for the Export-Import Bank will expire, and that means billions of dollars of lending by the Bank to support American manufacturing and exports will come to a halt. I am sad to say that what we face right now is a completely unnecessary crisis. There is bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate for the Export-Import Bank, but we have just days until the charter expires. We need to begin now the process of reauthorizing this critical job-creating program. I know there may be some different ideas in this Chamber about what the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank should look like. I have introduced a bill that would reauthorize the bank for 7 years instead of 4, which has been one of the proposals. My bill would raise the cap on the lending for the Export-Import Bank instead of keeping it flat, and I know there are other discussions around language that addresses the financing of coal-fired powerplants abroad. But regardless of our different views on the specifics of the reauthorization bill, Democrats and Republicans should all be able to agree that letting the Bank expire would be bad for America's businesses, bad for the employees of those businesses, and bad for our economy. That is because the Export- Import Bank supports American jobs at zero cost to taxpayers. Let me just say that again, because I think there is this perception in some quarters that because we don't have an agreement on reauthorization, there must be some huge cost involved to the Export- Import Bank. In fact, it is just the opposite. The Export-Import Bank puts money into the Treasury of the Federal Government. It doesn't take money out. In New Hampshire the Bank has supported $314 million in export sales for our businesses since 2009. That support translates into more exports, into more manufacturing, and ultimately into more jobs. Just this morning we had a number of businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank come in to speak to some of the Senators. One person who was very eloquent with his comments was Michael Boyle from Boyle Energy in New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Boyle's statement be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, New Hampshire's capital city, Concord, is celebrating its 250th anniversary this year. To be exact, this is the anniversary of the city's being rechristened as Concord in recognition of a peaceful agreement that resolved a boundary dispute with the adjacent town of Bow in 1765. The city's beginnings go back to 1725, when the Province of Massachusetts Bay established the area as the Plantation of Penacook, borrowing an Abenaki Native American word meaning ``crooked place,'' which refers to the serpentine bends of the Merrimack River just east of the city. Since 1808, when Concord became our capital city, it has been the civic and cultural heart of the Granite State. Along with its central place in New Hampshire geography and history, Concord has retained the friendliness and charm of a classic New England community. In a sense, it was in Concord that the United States of America was born as a constitutional republic. In June 21, 1788, in the city's Old North Meeting House, deputies from across the State approved the new federal constitution. And because New Hampshire was the decisive ninth of the original 13 States to approve the document, the Constitution was declared ratified and became the law of the land. Likewise, it was men from Concord who were in the forefront of defending the Constitution during the Civil War. Following the bombardment of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln called for 75,000 troops. In Concord, a recruiting station was set up near the Statehouse, and 50 volunteers enlisted by the end of the first day. The first to volunteer was Concord police constable Edward Sturtevant, who 20 months later made the ultimate sacrifice at the Battle of Fredericksburg. It is said that the First New Hampshire Volunteer Regiment, mustered in Concord, was the first fully equipped regiment of volunteers to go to the front in 1861. Today, prominently displayed in the State capitol building in Concord, are the tattered, bloodstained regimental flags carried by Granite State soldiers at Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, and other Civil War battlefields. The magnificent gold-domed Statehouse, at the center of Main Street, was completed in 1819, and is the oldest State capitol in which both houses of the legislature meet in their original chambers. The house of representatives consists of 400 members and is the third largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, exceeded only by the U.S. House and the British House of Commons. For two centuries, Concord has been a commercial center and transportation hub, connected first by canal and later by railway and highway with Boston. In the first half of the 19th century, the city's Abbot Downing carriage manufacturer was known worldwide for its Concord Stagecoach, famed as ``the coach that won the West.'' Since the late 1800s and continuing today, the city has been famous for its granite quarries. The local granite type, Concord granite, is prized for its fine texture and absence of discoloring oxides and minerals. It has been used in the construction of countless Civil War monuments, the Library of Congress, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Pentagon, including portions of the Pentagon lost on 9/11. Concord has been home to many people of renown, including Franklin Pierce, our Nation's 14th President. As a former public school teacher, my personal hero is Christa McAuliffe, a Concord High School social studies teacher who was selected by NASA from more than 11,000 applicants to become the first teacher in space. Tragically, she perished aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, but she is memorialized in Concord at the Christa McAuliffe School and the McAuliffe-Shephard Discover Center. From my 6 years as Governor, I can testify that Concord's greatest assets are the everyday people of the city, who are unfailingly gracious and friendly. And, though I am far from objective, I think that Concord's Main Street is one of the very best in New England. It takes its character not only from the historic architecture, but also from the stores, cafes, and restaurants--places where people know your name, and where the small business owners are right there, every day. Concord is marking its 250th anniversary, this year, with multiple events and festivities, including a week-long celebration in August. And the city is also looking to the future, with an ambitious project to renew the city's center. Mayor Jim Bouley and the people of Concord are determined to preserve the historic character and charm of downtown, while also creating a 21st century Main Street. I salute their city's rich past and present, and I look forward to joining in the anniversary celebrations in the near future.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on my small business amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I understand it is not germane, so we are not going to vote on it. But I think it is important, as we are thinking about trade, to keep in mind that 40 percent of large corporations are able to trade internationally, but among small and medium-sized businesses, it is only 1 percent. Yet, 95 percent of markets are outside of the United States. What this amendment would do is it would allow small businesses to be able to get access to those international markets because it would provide help for them in exporting. This is a program we passed with the Small Business Jobs Act. It worked very well. We need do this. There is no score to this amendment. The CBO said there is no cost, and this is something we can do. We can help our small businesses, where two-thirds of jobs are being created. I hope that my colleagues will consider this in the future and that we can get this passed.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, in just 10 days, authorization for the highway trust fund will expire. The fund will run out of money entirely by the end of July, which means transportation projects in New Hampshire and across this country will grind to a halt. What is Congress's response to this crisis? This week, leadership will bring to the floor yet another inadequate short-term extension of the highway trust fund authorization, and there is no plan whatsoever to address the insolvency of the fund. In other words, once again, we are kicking the can down the road. But in this case the road is overwhelmed by traffic, badly in need of modernization, and filled with patches and potholes. For a country that seeks to remain competitive in the 21st century global economy, this is totally dysfunctional and unacceptable. I know my colleagues and the Presiding Officer travel around the city of Washington. Sometimes I feel like I am in a Third World country when I travel along the roads in DC. There are few more basic and necessary functions of government than providing for modernized highways, bridges, and other infrastructure. Yet Congress is grossly neglecting this responsibility. China spends about 9 percent of their gross domestic product on infrastructure, Brazil spends about 8 percent, but infrastructure spending in the United States has fallen to just 2 percent of our GDP. That is half of what we were spending in the 1960s. Our highways and bridges face a more than $800 billion backlog of investment needs, including nearly one-half trillion dollars in critical repair work, and Americans spend a staggering 5.5 billion-- that is billion not million--hours stuck in traffic each year. Yet earlier this month, the majority party in Congress voted almost unanimously for a budget resolution that will slash Federal funding for transportation by 40 percent over the next decade. This is just irresponsible. This isn't about cutting fat and extravagance from the transportation budget; this is about cutting the muscle, the sinew of our Nation's critical transportation infrastructure. Last week, I went with the mayor and the city manager to Concord--New Hampshire's capital city--to inspect one of three bridges that are critical to the city of Concord. It is rusted out and it is now closed--the Sewalls Falls Bridge. Our office had worked with the city and U.S. DOT to get the approvals to replace this bridge. The city of Concord lined up all the permits--and then nothing. Because of uncertainty about Federal funding for the project, it was stopped dead in its tracks, until the city and State last week, when they realized we weren't going to act, stepped in with short-term funding in anticipation we would finally do the right thing. Well, thousands of other road and bridge projects across the country have been put in this same jeopardy and limbo because of our failure to do our job. This neglect is creating bottlenecks in our economy, it is hurting our global competitiveness, and it is killing jobs, especially in the construction trades, where employment still has yet to recover from the recession. According to a Duke University study, providing Federal funding to meet the U.S. Department of Transportation's infrastructure requests would create nearly 2\1/2\ million jobs. Earlier this month, I joined with a bipartisan group of eight Senators who previously served as Governors: Senators King, Rounds, Kaine, Hoeven, Warner, Carper, Manchin, and myself. We sent a letter to our Senate colleagues urging them to commit to fully funding national infrastructure priorities and putting a stop to the destructive, dysfunctional short-term fixes that have become routine in recent years. Madam President, you are too young to remember, but I remember being in elementary school when Dwight Eisenhower championed our great Interstate Highway System. That was a visionary move. I remember talking about it in class and being excited about it. The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 ensured dedicated Federal funding to build a network that today encompasses more than 46,000 miles of roadways. That system has transformed our economy and it has created countless millions of jobs, but it is now six decades old. Its dedicated funding mechanism--the highway trust fund--is in constant shortfall and today is just 2 months away from becoming insolvent. So for Congress to pass yet another short-term extension is damaging and dysfunctional. It kicks the can down a road that is crumbling, congested, and increasingly uncompetitive. It is time for Congress to come together, on a bipartisan basis, to break the cycle of patchwork fixes. It is time to pass a 5- to 6-year funding bill that will allow government at all levels to plan long-term capital investment projects and to build a 21st century transportation system that meets the needs of our 21st century economy. Madam President, I yield the floor.