Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A More Efficient and Effective Government: The National Technical Information Service.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 11 a.m., in room S-219 of the Capitol.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Empowering Women Entrepreneurs: Understanding Successes, Addressing Persistent Challenges, and Identifying New Opportunities.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The DISCLOSE Act (S. 2516) and the Need for Expanded Public Disclosure of Funds Raised and Spent to Influence Federal Elections.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Meeting the Challenges of Feeding America's School Children.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 2:45 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Cruise Passenger Protection Act (S. 1340): Improving Consumer Protections for Cruise Passengers.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Gaming: The Next 25 Years.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD- 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing: EPA's Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Saving for an Uncertain Future: How the ABLE Act can Help People with Disabilities and their Families.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his compelling remarks about the importance of passing the Bring Jobs Home Act. I am here to echo the need to pass this critical legislation, and I am certainly pleased we had such a strong vote to end debate on this legislation. I hope we can now come to some agreement and get the same kind of support for moving the bill forward. I am an original cosponsor of this commonsense bill. As Senator Udall said, this legislation would end incentives for companies to send American jobs overseas, and it would instead encourage companies to move jobs back to the United States. Believe it or not, when a company moves jobs offshore, it can write off those expenses on its taxes. That doesn't make sense. The Bring Jobs Home Act would stop forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for companies when they ship jobs overseas. In addition, to encourage companies to move production back to the United States, the bill provides a tax credit for the costs associated with bringing jobs back home. Not only is this legislation the right thing to do, but it also comes at a critical time as our economy struggles to recover. In New Hampshire and across the country--as Senator Udall pointed out, in New Mexico with the closing of the mine and in that community--we are still feeling the effects of the great recession. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and too many middle-class families are still struggling to make ends meet. But sadly, even before the recession hit, the American middle class was finding it hard to pay their bills, to pay their mortgage, to find the good jobs that allowed them to have opportunities. A big reason for that was the loss of so many good-paying American jobs that supported the middle class. Too many of those jobs were shipped overseas. Over the last decade, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, and those 2.4 million families supported by those jobs had to find other ways to support themselves, and often they were in jobs that didn't pay as well. Well, it doesn't have to be this way. In fact, many companies are now looking to move jobs back to the United States. As production costs rise overseas, these companies want the advantages provided by our American workers--the most productive workers in the world--and the ease of doing business in the United States. I have heard from several companies that have already moved jobs back to the United States, and there are many more that are hoping to bring jobs back home if we have the right policies in place. Let me give an example. Last year I met with Doug Clark, who is the CEO of a footwear manufacturing company, New England Footwear. When we think footwear manufacturing or shoe factory jobs, we don't think the United States anymore because while there are still some very good companies that manufacture footwear here, most of those jobs were sent offshore a long time ago. I know that story very well because my father was in shoe manufacturing. The whole time I was growing up, I watched him struggle with the loss of those shoe manufacturing jobs that were being sent overseas and imports coming in to take the place of shoes made here in America and the jobs that workers here in America held. Today about 99 percent of shoes sold in the United States are made abroad. But New England Footwear executives, who have years of experience in the shoe industry, are looking to bring those jobs back home--back to New Hampshire. The company currently manufactures in China, but as costs rise there, Doug believes he can bring higher paying jobs to the United States thanks to innovative technology that reduces manufacturing costs. New England Footwear isn't alone. A Boston Consulting Group survey from last September showed that more than half of large U.S.-based manufacturers are planning or considering right now bringing production lines back to the United States from China. That is up 17 percent from just 2 years ago--17 percent. That is a big increase, a lot of jobs. The Boston Consulting Group projected that production reshored from China and higher exports due to improved U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing could create 2.5 to 5 million American factory and related service jobs by 2020. So by 2020 we could replace more than the jobs we lost in the last decade. That is the kind of behavior we should be encouraging. That is exactly what the bill before us does. We know it will work because a 2012 MIT forum on supply chain management found that providing tax credits for bringing American jobs back to the United States would be one of the most effective ways to accelerate that process, along with other commonsense measures such as enacting tax reform, which we all agree we have to do, providing research and development incentives, ensuring a highly educated workforce, and improving American infrastructure. Again, these are all challenges which I think the majority of us in this body understand have to be done. I am very glad the Senate moved to this bill because our priority in Washington must be creating jobs and restoring the American middle class. Over the past few decades too many Americans have seen their jobs disappear or their incomes fall. The Bring Jobs Home Act is an opportunity to support those families by creating good-paying jobs in the United States and by helping our economy regain its competitive edge. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a number of my colleagues to ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2262, which is the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill; that the motion to commit be withdrawn; that amendments Nos. 3023 and 3025 be withdrawn; that the pending substitute amendment be agreed to; that there be no other amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2282, which is the passage of the Keystone Pipeline, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, but no later than Thursday, July 31, 2014; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold. What I am basically asking is that we get a vote on Shaheen-Portman and if that moves, that we then get a vote on the Keystone Pipeline-- something our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been talking about for months.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Before my colleague leaves I wish to thank Senator Heitkamp for her support, not just for Shaheen-Portman but for a resolution to getting a vote on our energy efficiency legislation that I have worked on for 3\1/2\ years with our colleague Senator Rob Portman from Ohio but also for the impasse that would break around the vote for the Keystone Pipeline as well. Pairing the two would allow us to see where we stand on both of these issues. I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, coming to the floor because he and Senator Heitkamp have talked about the fact that we have to look at a variety of areas of energy if we are going to address our future energy needs in this country. There is new urgency to energy efficiency right now. A recent study just came out that shows the United States ranks 13th out of the world's largest 16 economies in energy efficiency. So that study analyzed the world's largest economies that cover more than 81 percent of the global gross domestic product and posts 71 percent of the global electricity. What it found is we are severely lagging behind other countries in our use of energy efficiency. This legislation, the Energy Efficiency and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman, is a way for us to address the deficit we currently have in this country. We have heard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy that by 2030 this legislation would create 192,000 domestic jobs. That is nothing to sneeze at, at a time when our economy is still recovering from the recession. It would save consumers and businesses $16 billion a year--again, real savings in a way that is important to consumers and businesses. It would reduce carbon pollution at a time when we know pollution is affecting our environment and we are seeing a record number of disasters. It would be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. Our legislation does this without any mandates, without raising the deficit. In fact, we see a very small savings of about $12 million in the legislation. It addresses the building sector where we use about 40 percent of our energy. It addresses the industrial manufacturing sector that consumes more energy than any other sector of our domestic economy, and it addresses the Federal Government where we use more energy than any other entity in our economy; 93 percent of the energy is used by our military. Clearly, energy efficiency is something that would benefit all of us. There are 10 bipartisan amendments that have been incorporated into this legislation. It is the product of 3\1/2\ years of work. It has been endorsed by hundreds--literally hundreds and hundreds of business groups, of businesses, organizations, everything from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, the International Union of Painters. This is legislation that makes sense. We just heard Senator Cornyn on the floor saying he thought there was support to get this legislation done. I think we need to figure out how we can come together. We don't have much time left before we go out in August to go back to our home States. This would be a great bipartisan effort to go out on at the end of July, to be able to go home and say to people across this country that we worked out a deal that passed this energy efficiency legislation, that we got a vote on the Keystone Pipeline--let the chips fall where they may--that we addressed one of the biggest challenges facing this country, which is energy, and what we are going to do about our energy future. I certainly hope that in the remaining time between now and the beginning of August we can come together, find some sort of resolution to address this issue and get this legislation done. We know the House has said they are willing to take it up. They are interested in seeing some action on energy efficiency. Now is an opportune time to do that. I am disappointed by today's objections, but as Senator Heitkamp said so well, we are not going to give up. We are going to continue to try and move this issue and do what is in the best interests of the people of this country. I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate MooreMart, a New Hampshire nonprofit organization that sends care packages to servicemembers and children overseas, as it celebrates its 10th anniversary. MooreMart was born from Moore family members Paul, Carole, and Beverly's desire to send supplies to Brian Moore and his fellow soldiers stationed in Iraq. In the early years of their effort, they strove to send 10 packages a month to U.S. troops overseas. Today, MooreMart ships more than 1,000 packages every 10 weeks. Its mission has grown over the years, and now MooreMart also sends school supplies, toys, and clothing to local children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last decade, MooreMart has built and shipped more than 61,000 care packages and nearly 8 tons of relief supplies to troops in conflict zones, including to every Armed Forces unit deployed from New Hampshire. Each package includes toiletries, food items like s'mores and Girl Scout cookies difficult to find overseas, and letters and cards from schoolchildren and volunteers. All of the packages are assembled by volunteers and individually addressed to a servicemember. MooreMart has successfully reached out to organizations both public and private, involving State and local agencies, faith communities, and businesses in its work. More than 11,000 volunteers have helped build the care packages, among them veterans, families of active servicemembers, and families who have lost loved ones in service to our country. MooreMart represents the very best of New Hampshire, bringing comfort to those who selflessly defend our Nation. I am proud to congratulate this organization and the volunteers who carry out its mission on their 10th anniversary.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, who I think has come to the floor to also express her concerns about the commingling of the Internet Tax Freedom Act with the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. She will be speaking from her perspective about the concerns it places on New Hampshire's small businesses. I am very pleased to see my colleague from New Hampshire here to also express her concern about what is happening.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to reiterate my opposition to legislation that would impose new tax burdens on businesses in New Hampshire and I believe would have a serious impact on our economy. Earlier this week Majority Leader Reid started a fast-track process to bring a bill to the floor that includes the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. This is legislation that would for the first time allow States to collect sales taxes from businesses in New Hampshire. As a result, this bill would impose significant new tax compliance burdens on entrepreneurs in New Hampshire--the same entrepreneurs who are trying to grow their businesses and create jobs on the Internet. In New Hampshire we don't have a sales tax, so our businesses are not used to collecting one. That is why New Hampshire businesses are so concerned that if this bill passes, they will be forced to collect sales taxes from not just 1 State but 46 other States and 9,600 taxing jurisdictions across the country. The redtape would be a nightmare for small companies with only a few employees. I heard from one small business owner in Hudson, NH. His business is about to reach $1 million in revenue, but his company has only six employees. Under the legislation, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, his company might be considered a large business. The company has plans to grow, but it would be forced to reconsider as it approaches this arbitrary threshold and then is covered under the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. E-commerce has been a real boon to small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It has helped companies find new markets for their products and new revenues. But for companies looking to grow through online sales, this legislation represents an artificial ceiling for creating jobs and expanding jobs through e-commerce. I will raise a few concerns about what this legislation would mean for small business. First, each State has different sales and use taxes, so businesses would need new software to figure out how to collect and remit those taxes. Small businesses would also need to collect personal information from each buyer to make sure they are complying with all State and local sales taxes. These small businesses might then have to deal with audit and enforcement actions from other States, and the same businesses might have to answer to taxing authorities in places where they have no representation whatsoever. As States and localities consider new taxes, these small businesses would have no voice in that process because they have no representation in those jurisdictions. These are just a few examples of the many unintended consequences this legislation would create. These burdens on small businesses will stifle e-commerce. That is why it was so disappointing to learn that the sponsors of the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act have attached it to another measure that is meant to encourage e-commerce, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. That legislation bans taxes on Internet access. The Internet Tax Freedom Act has broad bipartisan support. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Since 1998 the Internet Tax Freedom Act has kept the Internet free of new taxation, which has helped the Internet flourish and become the driver of economic activity it is today. Unfortunately, this ban on new Internet access taxes expires this November, and Congress must take action to keep the Internet tax-free. I strongly support keeping the Internet tax-free, and the vast majority of Congress supports it. In fact, just this week the House voted to make this ban on Internet taxation permanent. The Internet Tax Freedom Act could pass the Senate and the House today with strong bipartisan support. Yet based on the action earlier this week, the Senate may be asked to consider a bill that includes new tax burdens on small businesses. That is right. It doesn't make sense, but on a bill that is meant to keep the Internet free from taxation, there is now an effort to impose new tax collection burdens on Internet retailers, and that not only doesn't make sense, I think it is just wrong. Just yesterday I sent a letter with a bipartisan group of our colleagues urging leadership to bring a clean Internet Tax Freedom Act bill to the floor. I was joined by Senators Cruz, Ayotte, Tester, Merkley, and Paul. We believe the Internet should be tax-free and that we should pass this noncontroversial legislation as soon as possible. We also think it is wrong to use a critical, must-pass extension of this law to keep the Internet tax-free as a vehicle to pass a fundamental shift in how e-commerce operates. Combining these two very different issues into one bill does nothing to protect New Hampshire's small businesses from the flawed so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. We should keep this Internet sales tax legislation from moving forward, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. We should do that because it is bad for New Hampshire and the other States that have no sales taxes that are in the same position as New Hampshire. It is bad for small businesses and it is bad for our economy. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note 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 am here today to express my concerns with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case and the steps we are taking--hopefully, this week--to protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. I want to thank Senators Murray and Udall for their leadership on this issue and for introducing the Not My Boss's Business Act. I appreciate hearing from the Republican leader about their interest in supporting women's access to contraceptive care, and I hope that is something we can all agree on. But the issue here is not just access to that care, it is the cost of that care. When you charge women more for contraceptive coverage, then you are denying them access to that care. The legislation that has been introduced by Senators Murray and Udall, and of which I am a cosponsor, will prevent employers from being involved in an employee's health care decisions and it will reverse the Supreme Court's decision. Throughout my career in office, I have fought to ensure that women have access to important contraceptive services and that women are able to make their own decisions about their health care with their doctors and with their families. In 1999, when I was Governor of New Hampshire, I signed into law a bipartisan bill that required insurance companies to cover prescription contraceptives--the issue we are debating right now. I signed that law with strong bipartisan support because both Republicans and Democrats knew it was the right thing to do. In fact, that legislation passed in the New Hampshire House with 121 Democratic votes and 120 Republican votes and 2 Independents. That law, passed in 1999, has now provided thousands of New Hampshire women with the ability to access the medications they and their doctors decide are right for them because they have that insurance coverage to pay for those medications. The Affordable Care Act also established that women would have access to prescription contraceptive services with no copays, just as New Hampshire did in 1999. Do you know what is interesting? We are having this debate about religious objections. Back in 1999 the legislature appointed a committee to look at whether there were any religious concerns about what we had done. They came back and reported that this was not an issue. A recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services reports that because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 30 million women are now eligible to receive preventive health services, including contraception, with no copays. In fact, since 2013 women have saved nearly $500 million in out-of-pocket costs because of the ACA's requirement to cover contraceptive care. The Supreme Court's decision has a real financial bearing on women and their families throughout the country because this ruling will have a profound impact on the health and economic security of women throughout this Nation. As noted by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case, when high cost is a factor, women are more likely to decide not to pursue certain forms of health care treatments that involve contraceptive care. There are many reasons why a doctor may decide to prescribe contraceptives for a woman's health care needs. Contraceptives can be used to treat a broad range of medical issues--hair loss, endometriosis, acne, irregular menstrual cycles. Contraceptives have also been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers. But just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court jeopardized that access to affordable preventive health care for too many women. As a result of the Hobby Lobby case, some employers now have the ability to claim religious objections as a justification for not providing contraceptive health care with no copay. I understand the host of issues employers face on a daily basis. I appreciate the complexity they face when they decide to offer health insurance coverage to their employees. For example, take Jane Valliere, who owns Hermanos Mexican restaurant in Concord, NH. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Jane and to discuss the Hobby Lobby case. Jane made it clear that while she has many choices and decisions to make on a daily basis to keep her business running, she never expected to be put in a position where she could be responsible for making a health care decision for her employees at the restaurant. Like Jane, I do not think it makes sense for employers to make those personal, private health care decisions for their employees. Critical health decisions are simply not an employer's business. Where a woman works should not determine whether she gets insurance coverage that has been guaranteed to her under Federal law. While we do not yet know the full extent of the impact from this ruling, we do know the Supreme Court's decision turns back progress women across the country have fought for years to achieve. We must ensure that women have access to the health care services and medications they need. That means making them affordable, that they are able to make their own decisions about their care with their doctors and their families. Thankfully, we have an opportunity this week to correct the Supreme Court's shortsighted decision. This week the Senate can stand for women and pass the Not My Boss's Business Act. A woman's health care decision should be made with her doctor, with her family, with her faith, not by her employer and with her employer's faith. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that fellows in my office: Annie Dreazen and Lemeneh Tefera be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss legislation that I introduced this week with our colleagues, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Kirsten Gillibrand. Our legislation responds to the rising cost of childcare in the United States and the impact it is having on millions of working families. Our bill, called the Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act, would help these working parents. It would help them afford childcare so they can go to work and support their families. What it does is update the child and dependent care tax credit that was passed in 1976 and has only been updated once since that time. Access to affordable childcare is a necessity for working parents. I raised three daughters and I have seven grandchildren, so I appreciate just how important it is for working parents to know their children are being supervised by quality caregivers. Sadly, I struggled with childcare from the time my first child was born in 1974 until the year my last child finally went off to college in 2004. Unfortunately, I am watching my daughters deal with that same struggle of how to find quality childcare for their kids. A working parent can be productive in the workforce only when they know their children are safe. That is why the rising cost of childcare is a real burden for millions of families--especially for working mothers. Childcare costs are taking up an increasingly larger share of a typical family's take-home pay. I visited a great NAEYC accredited childcare center in Nashua, NH, earlier this week, and I saw their infant room--where they care for infants. The average cost for full-time care for an infant in New Hampshire in a childcare center was almost $12,000 in 2012, the last year for which we have data. It costs $12,000. For a family trying to make ends meet, this is a huge cost. In fact, in the Northeast the cost of full-time, center-based care for children now represents the highest single expense for a typical household. It costs more than housing, more than college tuition, more than transportation, food, utilities or health care. Unfortunately, as the cost of childcare has grown, one critical tax credit that helps defray childcare costs has failed to keep pace. The child and dependent care tax credit was first enacted in 1976 with strong bipartisan. It was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. This credit provides a tax credit to working parents for a portion of their childcare expenses. However, the limits on the credit are not indexed to inflation, and so their value has actually decreased over time. In fact, the limits have been increased just once in the past 25 years. The tax credit simply is not keeping pace with the growing cost of childcare. The Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act would update and improve this tax credit so it responds to the increasing burden of childcare costs. First, the bill would increase the amount of childcare expenses that are eligible for the credit. Right now families can only claim expenses up to $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more children. That just doesn't make sense in New Hampshire or anywhere else in the country. In New Hampshire the average cost of childcare can exceed $12,000 for a single child. This bill increases the tax credit starting in 2015 and indexes the cost to inflation so they will continue to keep pace with rising childcare costs. The bill also makes the tax credit fully refundable and phases out the credit for families making over $200,000 a year. It better targets how the money is spent. Right now the tax credit is poorly targeted. It provides zero benefit for too many families who need it the most. By making the credit refundable, the bill better targets the tax credit to families who are most in need of childcare assistance. I have been working on early childcare and education for most of my public career, especially during my years as Governor of New Hampshire. One of the lessons I have learned is that providing access to early and affordable childcare and education is not just about helping families make ends meet--although that is an important piece of it--it is also a short-term and long-term issue for our businesses and our economy. As Governor I worked with the New Hampshire business community and established the Governor's Business Commission on Child Care and Early Childhood Education to engage business leaders in addressing the State's childcare and early education needs. We did a study that looked at the impact of the shortage of quality childcare in New Hampshire back in the 1990s. We found that businesses were losing up to $24 million a year as a result of childcare-related absenteeism, and nearly one in four employees was forced to change jobs or switch to part time as a result of their inability to find satisfactory childcare. We have many national studies that show that quality, dependable childcare for employees is vital to a company's productivity. In fact, researchers estimate that childcare breakdowns leading to employee absences cost businesses $3 billion a year because parents are concerned about where their kids are. In addition, a majority of companies report that employee absenteeism is reduced when quality childcare services are offered. Employee turnover is also reduced, and we know how important employee retention is to a business's bottom line. The long-term benefits to our workforce are also clear. Research shows that quality childcare and early childhood development are critical to preparing our children for tomorrow's jobs. We know that the first 5 years are the most critical in the development of a child's brain. During these years children develop their cognitive, social, emotional, and language skills that form a solid foundation for their lives. Research shows that children who received quality childcare do much better in school; they are less likely to drop out; they are more likely to read at grade level; they are less likely to repeat grades; they are less likely to need special education; and they are less likely to get into trouble. The experiences children have in their first few years will affect them, their families, and our society for the rest of their lives. I think it makes more sense for us to invest in early childhood care and education because we can either spend the money then or we can spend a whole lot more money later. When kids don't get a good start in life, they wind up getting into trouble and can end up in prison. I used to talk about the cost of early care and education being about $1 for $7 that gets spent at the other end if we don't pay for these costs. It is a whole lot cheaper to pay for childcare than it is to pay for prison. That is why we have to respond to the rising cost of childcare. We have to ensure that working families can afford quality childcare. The legislation we introduced this week will help working families in the short term, and it will especially help working mothers as they go to work. It will support the early development of our children, which is so critical to our future, our economy, and our workforce. I am hopeful we can get a lot of sponsors for this legislation and get bipartisan support just as the credit had when it passed in 1976 so we can provide the help that working families need. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.