Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to honor the town of Sandwich, NH, on the occasion of its 250th anniversary. Sandwich is a quintessential New England village between the foothills of the White Mountains and breathtaking Squam Lake. Sandwich was chartered in 1763 by Governor Benning Wentworth and named for John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich. Lord Sandwich held various distinguished positions in British politics and its military, but is perhaps best known for his purported invention of a slice of meat between two slices of bread to sustain him while playing cards. Sandwich's land would later double in size due to many concerns that the original grant was too inaccessible for a permanent settlement. In fact, from this expansion, Sandwich remains one of the largest towns in New Hampshire today. The first settlers arrived 4 years later, and by the early 19th Century the town of Sandwich had grown from uncharted wilderness into a bustling community of farms, schools, churches, traders, and artisans. Sandwich's local fair is a wonderful New Hampshire tradition that celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. The Sandwich Fair has origins as far back as 1886, when local farmers gathered together to show off their livestock in hopes of drawing a crowd to trade and sell their goods. The event quickly grew to include community events such as band performances, beautiful baby contests, and, in the 21st Century, carnival rides. Sandwich's vibrant community, natural beauty, outdoor activities and historic and cultural events continue to draw visitors year-round. I congratulate Sandwich on this important milestone and wish all citizens of Sandwich the best for their next 250 years.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to congratulate the town of Plymouth, NH on their 250th anniversary. Plymouth sits at the geographic center of New Hampshire on the west bank of the Pemigewasset River. Gov. Benning Wentworth granted this plot of land to returning soldiers from the French and Indian War and named it New Plymouth, after the original Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. Plymouth's unparalleled views of mountains, fields and forests provide a stunning backdrop to a bustling town noted for its focus on industry and education, as well as its historical significance. Plymouth's educational commitment began with its earliest settlers, whose children were predominantly literate. This devotion to education continues today through Plymouth State University, one of the area's oldest and finest institutions that counts Poet Laureate Robert Frost as a former faculty member. Every September, the Plymouth population doubles from 4,000 to 8,000 as students return to campus to take advantage of the rich opportunities offered at this university. Plymouth was originally an industrial center known for its buck glove industry, its farming and its logging industry. It was also home to Draper and Maynard, a renowned sporting goods purveyor that supplied baseball gloves to Babe Ruth and his Boston Red Sox teammates. Plymouth's strong tourism and skiing tradition dates back to the 1930s, when the once ubiquitous snow trains brought hundreds of skiers from Boston and other cities to the slopes of the White Mountains. Plymouth has taken great strides to preserve this history and heritage through the recently opened Museum of the White Mountains, which houses treasured art and artifacts from more than a century ago. The town continues to attract tourists hoping to see a quintessential New England town in action and remains a popular year-round destination for camping, hiking and winter sports. I congratulate Plymouth on its 250th anniversary and wish all its citizens a joyous year of celebration of their proud history.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to congratulate the town of Woodstock, NH, on their sestercentennial anniversary. Woodstock actually began as Peeling, NH, as decreed by Governor Benning Wentworth's 1763 charter. After a number of controversial name changes, the town eventually became known as Woodstock in 1840, possibly thanks to inspiration from the name of a novel by Sir Walter Scott. Appropriately, logging was thickly-forested Woodstock's primary industry, aided by the Pemigewasset River's power to run their saw mills and transport timber down to Lowell, MA. The arrival of the Gordon Pond Railroad helped the industry but also leveled thousands of acres of Woodstock forest. These areas have long since recovered and 80 percent of Woodstock's land area is now protected under the White Mountain National Forest, which draws droves of tourists each year. In fact, Woodstock's and neighboring Thornton's forests make up Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, one of the world's longest running ecosystem studies. For 50 years, Hubbard Brook has provided scientists and researchers with critical data and resources that identify and address environmental issues. Woodstock is also home to local favorite Woodstock Inn Station and Brewery, a five time regional restaurant winner of New Hampshire Magazine's ``Best of New Hampshire'' feature. I was pleased to welcome this business to Washington in June for our annual Experience New Hampshire reception, where they shared their delicious craft beers and other products with Senators and their fellow Granite Staters. I congratulate Woodstock on this important milestone and wish the community continuing success for their next 250 years.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize of the 250th anniversary of Thornton, NH. Nestled in the beautiful Pemigewasset River Valley in the White Mountains, the land that became Thornton was originally granted to a small group of settlers on July 6, 1763 and subsequently incorporated in 1781. Thornton is named for one of those original settlers, Matthew Thornton, who would later become the first speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives and New Hampshire's delegate to the Continental Congress. Thornton, who signed Declaration of Independence, was an early and vocal advocate for compete independence from England. Thornton was also the birthplace of Moses Cheney, an abolitionist and conductor on the Underground Railroad. Cheney founded and oversaw the printing of the Morning Star, an abolitionist Freewill Baptist newspaper distributed in New England from 1833 to 1874. Cheney's two sons added to their father's legacy through their own notable contributions to New England. Elder son Oren Cheney was the founder and first president of Bates College in Maine, and his younger brother Person Cheney served as a U.S. Senator and Governor of New Hampshire. Thornton's original colonial meetinghouse, built in 1789, still stands in the center of town. Meetinghouses like this are considered the birthplace of small town democracy. This building hosted town meetings from 1790 to 1954. Today, it is being painstakingly restored by the Thornton Historical Society for future use as a museum to house the town's artifacts and documents from its long and proud history. I honor this town's strong heritage and wish its citizens a wonderful sestercentennial celebration.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the town of Candia, NH. Candia was first settled in 1743 and was colloquially known as ``Charmingfare,'' perhaps due to its many bridle paths and lovely scenery. Gov. Benning Wentworth incorporated the town in 1763 and renamed it Candia, likely in honor of the principal city of the Greek island of Crete, which he had visited after his graduation from Harvard College. With some of the earliest farmed land in New Hampshire, Candia grew into a strong industrial center with the help of the railroad and well- established mills which dominated its economy. Today, Candia has become a popular tourist destination for its quaint New England feel, family- friendly attractions, beautiful scenery and ease of travel. I was pleased to welcome award-winning Candia Vineyards to Washington this past June for our annual Experience New Hampshire reception, where Granite Staters and Washingtonians alike could sample their wonderful wares. Candia will honor this 250th milestone through a yearlong series of celebrations commemorating their long and rich history. I congratulate this wonderful community on their sestercentennial and wish them continued success for their next 250 years.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I congratulate the residents of the town of Lisbon, NH as they celebrate its 250th anniversary. Lisbon's roots date back to 1749, when Samuel Martin went on a hunting trip with his son in the wilderness along the Ammonoosuc River in the White Mountains. This beautiful region made a lasting impression on Martin, who returned to build a small cabin on Henry Pond with his family. This area would soon be settled and named the Gunthwaite settlement, which grew in size as soldiers returned from the Revolutionary War. In 1824, Gov. Levi Woodbury renamed the town Lisbon in honor of his friend Colonel William Jarvis, who had been appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be the United States consul in Lisbon, Portugal. The Ammonoosuc River provided a natural source of power for mills and factories that bolstered Lisbon's industry and helped it grow into a bustling town. At one time, Lisbon's Parker Young Company was the largest manufacturer of piano sounding boards in the world. Lisbon was also the first site in New Hampshire to have a ski rope tow. Many of Lisbon's residents are descended from the town's original settlers and feel a strong commitment to preserving their town's history. Lisbon proudly honors New Hampshire's State flower during its annual Lilac Festival, held every Memorial Day weekend. Lisbon is also known for its public library, which houses nearly 10,000 volumes and serves neighboring towns Lyman and Landaff. On August 10, 2013, Lisbon residents and friends will come together to commemorate their 250th anniversary with music and community events to celebrate their past, present and future. I wish the town of Lisbon a wonderful celebration and congratulate its citizens on this milestone in New Hampshire history.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which is also known as Shaheen-Portman. I am very pleased to be here with my cosponsor Senator Rob Portman. He has been a partner in developing this legislation. I thank him for being such a great partner and because he has to go catch a flight, I am going to defer, yield to him for his remarks, if I could. I will yield to him for a question so he can speak to this bill and get to his flight on time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I assume the question is, will this bill pass the Senate?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I would say absolutely it will pass the Senate. It will do that because it represents almost 3 years of meetings, negotiations, and broad stakeholder outreach in an effort to craft the most effective piece of legislation with the greatest chance of passing not only the Senate but the House as well so it can be signed into law. This bill, as has been explained so well, is a bipartisan effort that is designed to boost the use of energy efficienct technologies. It will help create private sector jobs. It will save businesses and consumers money. It will reduce pollution. It will make our country more energy independent. This legislation will have a swift and measurable benefit to our economy and our environment. As Senator Portman said, a study by experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that last year's version would have saved consumers $4 billion. This may be a little hard to read on the chart, but you can see it reduces energy costs. In doing so, it saves consumers $4 billion a year. It would create about 80,000 jobs, if it were passed, by 2020. It would also be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road. The United States needs a comprehensive national energy policy. We are too dependent on foreign oil. We are overly reliant on an outdated energy infrastructure. We need to utilize a wide range of energy sources, including natural gas, oil, nuclear, and renewable such as wind, biomass, and solar. But we cannot just focus on the supply side. We also need to think about how we consume the energy once we have it. Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to reduce our energy use. Energy-saving techniques and technologies lower costs, they free up capital that allows businesses to expand and create jobs and allows our economy to grow. We can start by improving our efficiency now by installing ready and proven technologies, things such as modern heating and cooling systems, smart meters, computer-controlled thermostats, and lower energy lighting, to name a few. There are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy to conserve energy, to create good-paying private sector jobs. In fact, there are countless examples of energy efficiency success stories in the private sector that I have had the good fortune to see as I have traveled around New Hampshire. I visited small retail businesses, manufacturing companies, ski areas, apartment complexes, and municipal buildings throughout New Hampshire. They are all using energy-efficient technologies to lower costs, to improve working conditions and, most important, to stay competitive. Not long ago I had the opportunity to visit a company on the seacoast in New Hampshire called High Liner Foods. It is a seafood processing plant. It requires a lot of energy to operate. In fact, at one point the 180,000-square-foot facility consumed roughly 2 megawatts of power at any given time during normal operations. So next to the core costs of personnel and fish, because it is a fish processing plant, energy was their biggest expense. But by installing efficient lighting, new boilers, various demand-response techniques such as adjusting its lighting to dim when no employees are in the area, establishing HVAC setpoints, High Liner Foods is making great strides in reducing energy consumption. It has allowed them to expand their footprint in the State and to be more cost-effective in their production. This week I had the opportunity to visit the first LEED-certified auto dealership in New Hampshire. It is the first Toyota auto dealership that is LEED certified in New England, which I know the Presiding Officer will appreciate, being from the neighboring State of Massachusetts. They have implemented a number of effective energy- efficient initiatives to cut their energy cost, including the installation of solar panels, efficient lighting, and an impressive energy dashboard to monitor energy use throughout their entire service. Their customers can come in, they can touch this interactive dashboard, they can see what is going on throughout the physical plant. I have also visited some great New Hampshire companies that also are producing energy-efficient technology. We have a company in New Hampshire called Warner Power, which has made the first breakthrough in transformers in over 100 years. Studies show that inefficiency in transformers results in a loss of about 5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. With the wide-scale use of Warner Power's innovation, the Hexaformer, and their control system technology, the company estimates that 1.5 percent of all transformer energy losses could be eliminated. This would save the country 60 terawatts of electricity a year. That is equal to about five times New Hampshire's entire annual electricity consumption. So energy efficiency is an excellent example of a bipartisan and affordable approach that can immediately grow our economy and improve our energy security. In addition to being affordable, efficiency is widely supported because its benefits are not confined to a certain fuel source or a particular region of the country. It is clearly one of those areas where we can all come to some common agreement, whether we support fossil fuels or whether we support alternatives such as wind and solar. So it is no wonder, as Senator Portman said, that this legislation enjoys such a broad, diverse coalition of support. It has received more than 250 endorsements from businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade associations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the National Resources Defense Council and the Painters Union. These are the types of nontraditional alliances that have helped us to get this bill to the floor. The legislation provides a roadmap to create and implement a national strategy to increase the use of energy efficiency technologies in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of our economy. It provides incentives and support, not mandates, for residential and commercial buildings in order to cut energy use. This is very important because buildings consume about 40 percent of all energy in the United States. The bill strengthens voluntary national model building codes--I would emphasize that these are voluntary--to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, while working with States and private industry to make the code-writing process more transparent. It also trains the next generation of workers in energy-efficient commercial building design and operation. The legislation also assists our industrial manufacturing sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy. It directs the Department of Energy to work closely with the private sector industrial partners to encourage research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy-efficient technology and processes for industrial applications. It helps businesses reduce energy costs and become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy-efficient electric motors and transformers. It establishes a voluntary program called SupplySTAR, which is modeled on the successful ENERGY STAR Program, to help make company supply chains more efficient. Finally, the legislation requires the Federal Government, the single largest user of energy in the country, to adopt more efficient building standards and smart metering technology. It requires the Federal Government to adopt energy-saving technologies and operations for computers. It allows Federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans for new Federal buildings using the most current building efficiency standards. The best part, as Senator Portman said, is the cost of this legislation is fully offset. It reallocates funding that has not been used from existing programs. I thank Chairman Ron Wyden and his ranking member Lisa Murkowski from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for their great support in getting this bill to the floor. This is a bipartisan, affordable, and widely supported piece of legislation. Most importantly, it is an effective step in addressing our Nation's very real energy needs. I thank Senator Portman, Senator Wyden, and Senator Murkowski for all of their help with this bill. I look forward to debating the bill on the floor of the Senate, to listening to amendments, and to passing this bill out to the House and finally having it signed into law. I hope my colleagues will join me in this debate.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to celebrate and recognize the 250th anniversary of the town of Haverhill, NH. Haverhill, first known as Lower Coos, was settled by citizens from Haverhill, MA and incorporated by Governor Benning Wentworth in 1763. Haverhill is situated on our State border, next to the mouth of the Ammonoosuc River, and shares much of its heritage with its sister city of Newbury in Vermont across the Connecticut River. Haverhill's location at the end of the Old Province Road was critical to its rapid development; this road, one of the earliest highways in New Hampshire, served as a supply route connecting the northern and western settlements with the seacoast. Haverhill's village of Woodsville hosted a railway supply enterprise that played an important role in the early years of the Boston, Concord and Montreal Railroad. Haverhill may have looked remote on a map, but it was clearly a town on the move. Today, visitors to Haverhill may visit the oldest covered bridge still in use in New Hampshire, the Haverhill-Bath Bridge, built in 1829 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Haverhill Historic Society has painstakingly curated many artifacts from the town's long and industrious history and hosts fascinating lectures throughout the year. Haverhill is also home to the Museum of American Weather, which offers an unusual and insightful view into New England history through its exhibits documenting weather events across our region. The town of Haverhill will celebrate its semiquincentennial jointly with Newbury, VT through a series of events this year, culminating in an old-fashioned skating party in December. I congratulate Haverhill on 250 years of accomplishments, and thank its citizens for their many contributions to the Granite State.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate the town of Hampton, NH, on the occasion of its 375th anniversary. Coastal Hampton is one of the 4 original New Hampshire townships chartered by the General Court of Massachusetts. It was first settled in 1638 under the name Winnacunnet, an Algonquian word meaning ``pleasant pines. `` One year later, Winnacunnet's Puritan settlers renamed the town ``Hampton'' to honor the birthplace of their leader Reverend Stephen Bachiler, a colorful figure whose descendants still populate Hampton today. Hampton was a modest but bustling community whose early industry centered around farming and fishing. All that changed with the arrival of the railroad in 1840. Visitors from Boston and other cities soon discovered the charms of Hampton's stunning coastline, aided by the Exeter, Hampton and Amesbury Trolley line, which connected inland mill towns to the seacoast. Today, thousands of visitors flock to Hampton's beaches to surf, sunbathe, or take to the high seas on chartered fishing or whale watching expeditions. The Hampton Historical Society will host a series of events throughout 2013 to commemorate this important milestone through a series of lectures and town-wide activities. I congratulate this beautiful town on 375 years of success and thank them for their contributions to our great State.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, we all know that on July 1 interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. I have twice voted to extend the 3.4-percent rates to protect our Nation's students. Unfortunately, both times we had those votes the extensions were defeated. Without congressional action, the 6.8-percent interest rates will stand as current law. I think today we are going to vote for a bipartisan compromise to keep student loan interest rates low this year. I plan to vote for that compromise, but I have some concerns about it. I do want to thank my colleagues who have spent many hours coming to an agreement that can pass this body. This is a bipartisan compromise, and I think it is very important we work together to address this issue. While the compromise isn't perfect, our undergrads and our graduate students will be able to go to college this fall with peace of mind knowing the interest rates are well below those they would otherwise face. In fact, this compromise will save $30 billion in interest debt for students over the next 4 years. Undergraduates borrowing this year will save about $2,000 over the course of their studies, and graduates could save between $4,000 and $9,000. Today, assuming it is offered, I also plan to vote for the Reed- Warren amendment to lower the cap on interest rates. I would have supported Senator Murray's effort to allocate any resulting savings to shore up Pell grants, which would help fund those students who need it the most, but I understand we are not going to be able to vote on that amendment. While today's vote is important to keep student rates low for this year's students, I wish to be very clear I do not consider this compromise to be a permanent fix for our students. Included in the bill is a requirement for a study to be conducted by the nonpartisan and independent Government Accountability Office which will analyze the cost of running the student loan program. Once we have the results of the study, we should use the information to determine what course of action is best for our students. One thing is very clear: Any solution should not come at the expense of our students. Affordable higher education is one of the best investments we can make in our country. It is essential to growing this Nation's economy, to creating jobs, and to protecting the middle class. Our businesses need educated workers to compete in the new global knowledge-based economy. In an immigration bill the Senate recently passed, which I voted for, we increased the number of highly skilled workers businesses could bring in because there is currently a shortage in this country of those highly skilled workers. I supported that, but that is a crutch, a short-term fix. We should be educating American students for these high-skilled jobs. In my home State of New Hampshire, the student loan debate is a very important one. Last year a survey found our State had the highest average student debt in the Nation, at $31,408 per student. Nearly three-quarters of New Hampshire students have some amount of student loan debt--the second highest percentage of students with debt in the country. We must protect our students. We should not be trying to solve the fiscal challenges facing this country on the backs of our students. We can't afford to price middle-class families out of a college education. Studies show adults with degrees from 2- and 4-year colleges have far higher family incomes than adults who have high school degrees. In fact, according to a recent study from Georgetown University, people with bachelor's degrees earn about $1 million more over their lifetimes than those who don't have a college degree. We need to get rid of any barrier that stops students who want to pursue degrees. Recently, I met a woman named Anne, from Manchester, who had been a recipient of student loans. She was able to go to school and get a degree because of Pell grants. Anne will quickly tell you that without aid she would never have even thought about pursuing a college degree. She is now working in a professional capacity and she is contributing to her community in so many ways. Unfortunately, Anne is now worried about her daughter, a single mother who works part-time and who has limited options to pursue her own dream job because of the high cost of education. Anne told me: These kids are our future. We cannot limit them in this way; student loans should not be an obstacle that is insurmountable. She is right. We need to make it easier and more affordable for Americans to go to college, not harder and more expensive. I also heard from a woman named Patricia. She is 45, a single mother with three children under 18 years of age. She is currently a student at Granite State College who is relying on loans to get her degree. For the past 10 years, she and her family have been in and out of homeless shelters. She grew up as the youngest of nine children in a family where the option of college was never even considered or discussed. Patricia has an incredibly tight family budget. Student loans are critical to her getting a degree and ultimately being able to provide for her family. Sadly, any increase in student loan interest rates could limit Patricia's ability to continue her education. The bottom line is clear. We all know it. We have to make college more affordable. It is essential for our students, it is essential for their futures, and it is essential for the future of this country. If we expect to compete in this global economy, we have to make sure we have the high-skilled workforce we need, and that means making sure those young people who want to go to college can afford to get that degree. It is just too important for our country's future to fail at this. I thank the Chair, and I would just note that I will be voting for the bill, but as I said, I certainly hope we are all committed to making greater progress and making college education more affordable. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I rise to congratulate all of these people who worked so hard on immigration reform. I think it was a tremendous success for this Senate to address an issue that has long been outstanding in this country and to come to a resolution that received such strong bipartisan support. Despite that success one of the things we were not able to do is address what is going to happen with student loans which, without any action by Congress, we know that subsidized direct student loans will increase on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. There are a number of proposals currently on the table. There are negotiations underway, and I think all of that is positive. As we think about the challenge our young people face, it is important we think about getting rid of obstacles that prevent them from going on to college and from getting degrees in higher education. Last month I had the privilege to speak at the commencement ceremony at Keene State College, one of New Hampshire's great public colleges. The students were celebrating their graduation. They were eager to put their education to work and find meaningful employment. Their optimism, their sense of hope, and their enthusiasm to make a difference was palpable. As I looked out across the audience that afternoon, I knew that a number of those students, probably up to 66 percent, according to national statistics, had borrowed money to get their degree. These students and their families viewed higher education as so important that they were willing to take on significant loans to get that degree. It made sense for these students, particularly since recent studies have shown that higher education is one of the key factors driving upward mobility in the United States. Earlier this year the Pew Foundation's Economic Mobility Project showed that even during the most recent economic downturn, a 4-year college degree provided protection in the labor market for recent college graduates. Making college affordable for our students is essential to growing this country's economy, it is essential to creating jobs, it is essential to protecting the middle class, and it is essential to providing those future opportunities for our young people. On the one hand we know we have to make higher education more affordable and available to our young people. Yet on the other hand, over the last 30 years, tuition and fees have increased 167 percent at private 4-year colleges and 257 percent at public 4-year colleges. If we adjust that for inflation, that means tuition has increased faster than the cost of gasoline, health care, and other consumer items. As we are thinking about how to deal with these student loan interest rates, it is important that we provide some protection for our students. If we don't, we are going to price middle-class families out of a higher education. In my State of New Hampshire the student loan debate is especially critical. Last year, and for several years before that, New Hampshire had the highest average student loan college debt in the country at a little over $31,000 per student. Not only do we have the highest average loan debt, we also have the second highest percentage of students with debt in the country. As I listen to these young people, I know the high cost of student loans is financially crippling. We have heard from some of those students who talk about the challenge they face as the result of the cost of their student loans. Julianne from Gilmanton wrote ``her education is crushing her.'' She earned a master's degree, she works for a New Hampshire State agency, and is an adjunct faculty member at two local colleges. To finance her education, one that she thought and people told her would guarantee a job after graduation, Julianne took out more than $220,000 in loans. Last year alone she paid over $13,000 on those student loans. She can't buy a house. She can't secure credit. Even though she makes a respectable income, she says she can't pursue being an active member of the community because she has those student loans hanging over her head. Lauren Beaudin is another young person we have heard from. She graduated from West High School in Manchester a couple of years ago, and she received an undergraduate degree in biology. Her degree is in one of the STEM subjects, one of the things that is so important to this country. When she graduated she looked at her job options. After considering some entry-level jobs that paid $25,000 to $30,000, she decided she needed to go on and get a master's degree, which would provide her better opportunities. She is now 22, enrolled in a master's of biology program, and has accumulated already over $100,000 in loans. She is concerned about struggling to find a job. She writes: I am not alone. This an entire generation of my peers in this country who did the same. We followed our dreams and earned our degrees because this is America, and you can be what you want to be, as long as you work hard. We have worked so hard. We will keep working hard. But will it be enough? What will it be like for our kids when we are still burdened by our loans after we start families and they [our kids] want to go to colleges with even higher tuition and borrowing rates? Recently, I had a chance to speak with Barbara Ruth Layne, who is the executive director of Financial Aid at Granite State College, one of our other public colleges in New Hampshire. Last year alone Barbara and her colleagues helped students access $9 million in Federal loans, significant help for students who want to get that advanced degree and need financial help to do that. Barbara is quick to point out that the number of students helped and the amount of financial aid they have received doesn't illustrate the human cost those loans take on a student. To illustrate the point, she told me the story of a student who lives in the North Country of New Hampshire. The student is 35, and she has two young children. She struggles to make ends meet. She gets child support sometimes, and she supplements that income with food stamps. She visits the local food pantry. Her children get clothing from the local church. In the winter she gets some fuel assistance, not enough, because we have had to cut the fuel assistance program, so she borrows money from her family to use a kerosene heater on cold nights to heat her home. This student understands that education is her only way out, the only way she can break the cycle of poverty. She met with counselors at Granite State College and developed an educational plan. Although she is being careful in borrowing, the debt she is going to graduate with is more than she has ever earned in her working years in 1 year. While her education is going to prepare her for the job market, she knows the payoff isn't immediate. She will continue to struggle to make the payments on those student loans and to care for her family. With a budget such as she is dealing with, any additional cost of those student loans is going to impact this woman and her family. Similar to so many of us I have been moved by these students who have worked so hard to achieve their education goals and the jobs of their dreams. They recognize education is an investment and higher education is the path to middle-class success and economic opportunity. I think higher education is one of the best investments we can make in our country. It is important not just to those young people who are getting those degrees to give them the jobs that make them prosperous in the future that they are going to be able to support families on, but it is critical for America to compete in the global economy. We should be doing everything we can to make America a magnet for jobs, to ensure our workers have the skills they need to compete, and to help Americans get ahead. We have to do everything we can to make sure we keep higher education affordable for our young people. We must address those costs and not try to balance the costs of higher education on the backs of our students. I am hopeful we will continue to work on how we address the student loan interest rate, that we will be able to come to some agreement on how to do that in a way that is not going to cost our young people their futures, is not going to cost America its future, and is not going to price families out of the cost of higher education. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mihaela Ghita, a graduating senior at Manchester High School West in Manchester, NH. There is much to celebrate about Mihaela's academic achievements, but one of her most notable accomplishments is that she has never missed a day of school since the day she entered first grade. Mihaela is an active member of West's school community. She competes in throwing events for the school's track and field team and is also a member of West's gymnastics squad. In addition, Mihaela has gone above and beyond academic requirements by completing an extended learning opportunity, volunteering to read with and tutor the school's special needs students. She is also an active volunteer in the greater Manchester community. Mihaela's dedication to her education and her commitment to being present to learn every day is truly admirable. As a former public school teacher and parent, I understand and appreciate how unusual and unique it is for a student to attend every day of school for an academic year, but it is truly impressive that she has never missed a day at any point in her studies. The maturity and sense of dedication that Mihaela has demonstrated will serve her well in whatever field she chooses. I am confident that Mihaela will achieve success in her future pursuits. High school graduation is a special time in a student's life, and I am pleased to rise today to recognize Mihaela's unique attendance accomplishment. However, I would also like to extend my sincerest congratulations to Mihaela and all of her classmates who will be joining her on Saturday, June 15, 2013, for their graduation ceremony. While the students may be heading in different directions, they will always share the common bond of being graduates of Manchester High School West. Once again, I would like to recognize Mihaela Ghita on achieving her exemplary attendance record. I know that her family, her friends, and the entire West community join me in congratulating her and celebrating her many accomplishments.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise to honor the life and service of 1LT Paul Michel DeMeo, who died on May 14 while stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Lieutenant DeMeo was a rifle platoon leader assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division. Born at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands on October 1, 1989, the son of an American physicist at the base, Paul grew up around service members and knew that he wanted to join the military from a very young age. After his family moved to Derry, NH, when he was 13 years old, Paul attended high school at Pinkerton Academy, where he eventually became the school's first Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps participant to attend a military academy. Paul completed his undergraduate education at West Point in 2011 and went on to graduate from the infantry officer leadership basic course, the U.S. Army Ranger School, and the U.S. Army Airborne School. As a rifle platoon leader, Paul was responsible for training, material support, and readiness of 38 paratroopers. He was awarded a number of honors for his service, including the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Air Assault Badge, the Parachutist Badge, and the Ranger Tab. Paul was an avid swimmer who joined the swim team in Kwajalein at the age of 4. He also showed tremendous promise on the tennis court at a very early age. In fact, when he was only 8 years old, the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands invited him to represent the country in tennis at the 2000 Olympic games. However, Paul wisely declined the offer, considering himself just a bit too young for the competition. Paul will be remembered for his exceptional leadership ability, his confident smile, and his strong loyalty to his fellow soldiers, especially paratroopers under his command. Paul dedicated his life to the service and protection of our country. He worked to make himself the best he could be and to answer the call of duty to defend our way of life. For this, we are forever grateful. Paul is survived by his parents, Paul and Lucienne DeMeo; his brothers, Nathen A. and Pascal J. DeMeo; his sister, Danya Aleesa DeMeo; and his maternal grandmother, Amonia Valbrun. He also leaves behind his girlfriend, Hannah Farmer of Charlotte, NC and his paternal grandfather, Paul J. DeMeo. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life and service of Lieutenant Paul Michel DeMeo.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to to recognize Carol Mack, principal of Matthew Thornton Elementary School in Londonderry, NH. Carol's dedication to the school's faculty, the Town of Londonderry and the students and families who comprise the school community has shone throughout her 25 years of service to Matthew Thornton. While I know that her leadership will be missed by the school community, I join Carol's family and friends in recognizing her impact and achievements and celebrating her retirement. Carol's connection to Matthew Thornton began in 1983, when her son Jack was a first grade student at the school and she served as a volunteer. Carol then accepted a position as a teaching assistant at the school, and eventually decided to return to graduate school to attain a Master's Degree in education. Upon completion of her professional degree, Carol rose quickly at Matthew Thornton, serving first as a substitute teacher, then a first grade teacher, and eventually becoming the school's assistant principal. Carol's dedication and hard work was recognized statewide when she was named Assistant Principal of the Year by the New Hampshire Association of School Principals in 2002. In 2004, Carol moved into a new role as principal of Matthew Thornton Elementary School. Her leadership, vision and commitment to the school's betterment was recognized again in 2012 when the New Hampshire Parent Teacher Association named Carol its Administrator of the Year. But as a former public school teacher, Carol's rewards have come from the students with whom she works on a daily basis. Her vision and leadership undoubtedly inspired generations of students to make the world a better place. I would like to thank Carol Mack for her hard work on behalf of countless residents of New Hampshire. I am sure that she will be truly missed by the families, staff, and most importantly, the students, of Matthew Thornton Elementary School. I know that her family, including her husband Andy and her children Karen, Cindy and Jack, and their spouses Andrew, Chris and Missy, and her friends, colleagues and community join me in congratulating and celebrating her notable work and the positive impact that she has had on thousands of young lives.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe and to introduce legislation aimed at modernizing the way the United States addresses this critical national security challenge. My bill, the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, requires the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive and well- resourced regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance cooperative threat reduction and related nonproliferation efforts in one of the most critical regions to U.S. national security interests: the Middle East and North Africa. Fifty years ago, in 1963, President Kennedy famously said that he was ``haunted'' by the possibility that the United States could soon face a rapidly growing number of nuclear powers in our world. At the time, he predicted that by 1975, there could be as many as twenty countries with nuclear weapons. However, thanks to strong, forward-thinking and innovative American leadership on the nonproliferation agenda, including efforts like the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nunn-Lugar program, we have so far averted Kennedy's nuclear nightmare. Recent WMD-related developments, including Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and Iran's nuclear program, have begun to test the limits of our nonproliferation regime. I am afraid we may be quickly reaching an important crossroads--one where we either prove President Kennedy wrong for a little while longer, or find out that his nightmare prediction was simply a half-century too soon. As WMD-related materials and know-how continue to spread, the challenge of WMD proliferation is getting more diffuse and harder to track. Our focus and our resource commitment need to match the severity of this emerging threat. Now is the time for us to recommit to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda and to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. will continue to lead in curbing the threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons around the world. We should start in one of the most dangerous, most unstable regions in the world today: the Middle East and North Africa. Nowhere is the proliferation challenge more glaring than in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where political instability and deeply-rooted violent extremism sit atop a complex web of ethnic differences, a history of violence and extremism, robust military capabilities, a growing collection of unsecured conventional and possible WMD-related weapons and a variety of inexperienced and potentially unstable governments brought into power by the Arab Spring. Continued upheaval in Syria and the threat posed by the Assad regime's substantial chemical weapons stockpile pose a grave challenge to U.S. interests. Iran's continued illicit development of its nuclear program and its movement towards an advanced nuclear weapons capability threatens the U.S. and our allies and could lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda continue to operate throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and their direct ties to the Iranian and Syrian regimes only exacerbates the threat posed by these groups as they seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction or know-how. Add to these threats the fact that the Arab Spring and continued revolutions across the region have brought popularly elected, yet untested governments into power that possess minimal capability and very little experience in countering WMD proliferation. In the face of this growing and complex challenge, it is obvious that the Middle East and North African region represents the next generation of WMD-related tests for the United States. Yet, our resources and our programming are not getting ahead of the threat. In fact, the nonpartisan ``Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy'' estimates that, excluding programs in Iraq, only two percent of last year's nonproliferation-related programming, or approximately $20,000,000 of an estimated $1,000,000,000, was spent in Middle East and North Africa countries. Luckily for us, we have a successful model for engagement on this issue that we can fall back on. Just over two decades ago, Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar initiated what has proven to be one of the country's most effective foreign policy efforts. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program has led to the successful deactivation of well over 13,000 nuclear warheads, as well as the destruction of over 1,400 intercontinental ballistic missiles and almost 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents. Because of Nunn- Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free and Albania is chemical weapons free. The principles of Nunn-Lugar can and should be more fully translated into the Middle East and North Africa. Congress has long supported expanding CTR into the Middle East, but it was only last fall that the Administration finally completed the bureaucratic changes necessary to more robustly engage in this region. It is time we expand and ramp up our CTR efforts to prevent the potential proliferation of WMD-related weapons, technologies, materials, and know-how in this difficult and volatile part of the world. That is why I am introducing the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, which is aimed at modernizing our CTR and nonproliferation programs and expanding them more comprehensively throughout this region. The bill calls for the President to develop and implement a multi- year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance CTR and nonproliferation in the Middle East and North Africa. The strategy requires an integrated, whole-of-government commitment to building on the cooperative threat model demonstrated by Nunn-Lugar's successes, the initiation of new CTR programs with newly elected partners in the region, and plans to ensure burden-sharing and leveraging of additional outside resources. The bill allows for the support of innovative and creative assistance programs aimed at enhancing the capacity of governments in the region to prevent, detect, and interdict illicit WMD-related trade. Activities could include: Encouraging and assisting with security and destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; Promoting the adoption and implementation of enhanced and comprehensive strategic trade control laws and strengthening export controls and border security, including maritime security; Promoting government-to-government engagement among emerging political and public policy leaders, including the possibility of training courses for parliamentarians and national technical advisors; Promoting activities that seek to work with civil society organizations, media representatives, and public diplomacy officials to help develop a culture of nonproliferation responsibility among the general public; The possible establishment of nuclear, chemical, or biological security Centers of Excellence in the Middle East; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon regional nonproliferation programs and institutions already in place, including such multilateral initiatives as the December 2010 Gulf Cooperation Council conference on the implementation of UNSCR 1540 or the Arab Atomic Energy Agency and its Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon previous multilateral initiatives, including the Group of Eight's Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction or the White House-led Nuclear Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 to more fully incorporate and include countries of the Middle East and North Africa region; Encouraging countries to adopt and adhere to the IAEA Additional Protocol; Promoting and supporting WMD- related regional confidence-building measures and Track Two regional dialogues on nonproliferation and related issues; Working collaboratively with businesses, foundations, universities, think tanks and other sectors, including the possibility of prizes and challenges to spur innovation in achieving appropriate Middle East and North Africa nonproliferation objectives; Supporting and expanding successful existing Middle East and North Africa partnerships, including the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance; Promoting the establishment of professional networks that foster voluntary regional interaction on weapons of mass destruction-related issues; or enhancing United States-Europe cooperation on combating proliferation in the Middle East and North Africa region. The threat posed by WMD-related materials falling into the hands of terrorists remains our greatest and gravest threat. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Every senior leader, when you're asked what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.'' To date, we have largely kept WMD materials out of terrorists' hands. Unfortunately, however, being successful ``to date'' is not good enough. When it comes to terrorism and WMD in our world, the reality is that the international community cannot afford to make a single mistake. We cannot be complacent because one miscalculation . . . one unprotected border . . . one unsecured facility . . . could all lead to a mushroom cloud somewhere in our world. We need to remain vigilant, to think ahead, and to anticipate where the next threats will come from and adapt to get ahead of it. That is why I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and pass the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013. We need to demonstrate that the United States will continue to lead the international community in curbing the threat posed by WMD proliferation. My legislation does just that. I hope the Senate will support this important effort. Before yielding the floor, I want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, at the White House and at the Departments of State and Defense who contributed to this legislation. I also want to give special thanks to the Co-Chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy, including David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector and Michael Yaffe, whose report, ``U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,'' served as the inspiration for this legislation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe and to introduce legislation aimed at modernizing the way the United States addresses this critical national security challenge. My bill, the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, requires the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive and well- resourced regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance cooperative threat reduction and related nonproliferation efforts in one of the most critical regions to U.S. national security interests: the Middle East and North Africa. Fifty years ago, in 1963, President Kennedy famously said that he was ``haunted'' by the possibility that the United States could soon face a rapidly growing number of nuclear powers in our world. At the time, he predicted that by 1975, there could be as many as twenty countries with nuclear weapons. However, thanks to strong, forward-thinking and innovative American leadership on the nonproliferation agenda, including efforts like the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nunn-Lugar program, we have so far averted Kennedy's nuclear nightmare. Recent WMD-related developments, including Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and Iran's nuclear program, have begun to test the limits of our nonproliferation regime. I am afraid we may be quickly reaching an important crossroads--one where we either prove President Kennedy wrong for a little while longer, or find out that his nightmare prediction was simply a half-century too soon. As WMD-related materials and know-how continue to spread, the challenge of WMD proliferation is getting more diffuse and harder to track. Our focus and our resource commitment need to match the severity of this emerging threat. Now is the time for us to recommit to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda and to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. will continue to lead in curbing the threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons around the world. We should start in one of the most dangerous, most unstable regions in the world today: the Middle East and North Africa. Nowhere is the proliferation challenge more glaring than in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where political instability and deeply-rooted violent extremism sit atop a complex web of ethnic differences, a history of violence and extremism, robust military capabilities, a growing collection of unsecured conventional and possible WMD-related weapons and a variety of inexperienced and potentially unstable governments brought into power by the Arab Spring. Continued upheaval in Syria and the threat posed by the Assad regime's substantial chemical weapons stockpile pose a grave challenge to U.S. interests. Iran's continued illicit development of its nuclear program and its movement towards an advanced nuclear weapons capability threatens the U.S. and our allies and could lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda continue to operate throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and their direct ties to the Iranian and Syrian regimes only exacerbates the threat posed by these groups as they seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction or know-how. Add to these threats the fact that the Arab Spring and continued revolutions across the region have brought popularly elected, yet untested governments into power that possess minimal capability and very little experience in countering WMD proliferation. In the face of this growing and complex challenge, it is obvious that the Middle East and North African region represents the next generation of WMD-related tests for the United States. Yet, our resources and our programming are not getting ahead of the threat. In fact, the nonpartisan ``Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy'' estimates that, excluding programs in Iraq, only two percent of last year's nonproliferation-related programming, or approximately $20,000,000 of an estimated $1,000,000,000, was spent in Middle East and North Africa countries. Luckily for us, we have a successful model for engagement on this issue that we can fall back on. Just over two decades ago, Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar initiated what has proven to be one of the country's most effective foreign policy efforts. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program has led to the successful deactivation of well over 13,000 nuclear warheads, as well as the destruction of over 1,400 intercontinental ballistic missiles and almost 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents. Because of Nunn- Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free and Albania is chemical weapons free. The principles of Nunn-Lugar can and should be more fully translated into the Middle East and North Africa. Congress has long supported expanding CTR into the Middle East, but it was only last fall that the Administration finally completed the bureaucratic changes necessary to more robustly engage in this region. It is time we expand and ramp up our CTR efforts to prevent the potential proliferation of WMD-related weapons, technologies, materials, and know-how in this difficult and volatile part of the world. That is why I am introducing the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, which is aimed at modernizing our CTR and nonproliferation programs and expanding them more comprehensively throughout this region. The bill calls for the President to develop and implement a multi- year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance CTR and nonproliferation in the Middle East and North Africa. The strategy requires an integrated, whole-of-government commitment to building on the cooperative threat model demonstrated by Nunn-Lugar's successes, the initiation of new CTR programs with newly elected partners in the region, and plans to ensure burden-sharing and leveraging of additional outside resources. The bill allows for the support of innovative and creative assistance programs aimed at enhancing the capacity of governments in the region to prevent, detect, and interdict illicit WMD-related trade. Activities could include: Encouraging and assisting with security and destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; Promoting the adoption and implementation of enhanced and comprehensive strategic trade control laws and strengthening export controls and border security, including maritime security; Promoting government-to-government engagement among emerging political and public policy leaders, including the possibility of training courses for parliamentarians and national technical advisors; Promoting activities that seek to work with civil society organizations, media representatives, and public diplomacy officials to help develop a culture of nonproliferation responsibility among the general public; The possible establishment of nuclear, chemical, or biological security Centers of Excellence in the Middle East; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon regional nonproliferation programs and institutions already in place, including such multilateral initiatives as the December 2010 Gulf Cooperation Council conference on the implementation of UNSCR 1540 or the Arab Atomic Energy Agency and its Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon previous multilateral initiatives, including the Group of Eight's Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction or the White House-led Nuclear Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 to more fully incorporate and include countries of the Middle East and North Africa region; Encouraging countries to adopt and adhere to the IAEA Additional Protocol; Promoting and supporting WMD- related regional confidence-building measures and Track Two regional dialogues on nonproliferation and related issues; Working collaboratively with businesses, foundations, universities, think tanks and other sectors, including the possibility of prizes and challenges to spur innovation in achieving appropriate Middle East and North Africa nonproliferation objectives; Supporting and expanding successful existing Middle East and North Africa partnerships, including the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance; Promoting the establishment of professional networks that foster voluntary regional interaction on weapons of mass destruction-related issues; or enhancing United States-Europe cooperation on combating proliferation in the Middle East and North Africa region. The threat posed by WMD-related materials falling into the hands of terrorists remains our greatest and gravest threat. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Every senior leader, when you're asked what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.'' To date, we have largely kept WMD materials out of terrorists' hands. Unfortunately, however, being successful ``to date'' is not good enough. When it comes to terrorism and WMD in our world, the reality is that the international community cannot afford to make a single mistake. We cannot be complacent because one miscalculation . . . one unprotected border . . . one unsecured facility . . . could all lead to a mushroom cloud somewhere in our world. We need to remain vigilant, to think ahead, and to anticipate where the next threats will come from and adapt to get ahead of it. That is why I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and pass the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013. We need to demonstrate that the United States will continue to lead the international community in curbing the threat posed by WMD proliferation. My legislation does just that. I hope the Senate will support this important effort. Before yielding the floor, I want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, at the White House and at the Departments of State and Defense who contributed to this legislation. I also want to give special thanks to the Co-Chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy, including David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector and Michael Yaffe, whose report, ``U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,'' served as the inspiration for this legislation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. It is my understanding that I have 10 minutes to speak. Will you confirm if that is correct?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here today to speak to the importance of bringing much needed reform to the Federal Sugar Program. I understand that this is not something the Presiding Officer supports and that this is not something the Agriculture Committee addressed in the farm bill. I think it is important to try to address some of the misinformation that is out there. We have been hearing a lot of talk about the need to protect America's sugar farmers. What we haven't heard is that sugar remains the most tightly controlled commodity market in this country. We currently have what I believe is an outdated program that offers a sweet deal to a small group of sugar growers and processors at the expense of too many other American businesses and at the expense of American consumers. What the amendment that I have offered with a number of cosponsors will do is reform the Sugar Program to make U.S. manufacturers more competitive and to reduce prices for consumers. It will lower sugar price support levels, and it will reform the excessive restrictions on domestic supply and import quotas for sugars. These reforms would save taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this legislation would save $82 million over the next 10 years. I think it is important to keep in mind the amendment we have introduced does not eliminate the safety net for sugar producers. It simply makes some moderate commonsense reforms in the program. Sugar growers would still be supported by the Sugar Loan Program and protected by import restrictions and domestic market allotments. In fact, this amendment simply returns us to the same policies that sugar producers themselves supported as recently as 2007. Since 2008, sugar prices in the United States have soared to record highs and they have consistently reached levels that are about twice the world pricing of sugar. In fact, the Sugar Program has cost consumers and businesses as much as $14 billion over the last 4 years. This amendment would provide a smart, practical, and pragmatic fix to the policies that are currently in place, and it is a bipartisan proposal. There are 18 other Senators from both sides of the aisle who have joined on this amendment. Again, we have been hearing about jobs that would be lost in the sugar industry if we make these moderate reforms, but the reality is we are already losing and have lost too many valuable manufacturing jobs across this country as businesses close or move overseas in search of lower prices. We can see some of this illustrated on this chart. These are sugar-using jobs in the food industry, and there are more than 30 times as many of these jobs as there are in sugar production and processing. So we can see sugar-using food and beverage jobs, which is the blue, compared to sugar farming, production, and processing, which is the red. That is 590,669 compared to 18,078. And where do these numbers come from? Well, in fact, they are from the U.S. Census and the Department of Commerce. Unfortunately, between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 of these jobs, the manufacturing jobs, were lost in sugar-using industries. In fact, the U.S. Department of Commerce has estimated that for every one sugar- growing job that is saved through high sugar prices, approximately three manufacturing jobs are lost. So again, let me put the numbers into perspective, as this chart does. There are less than 5,000 sugar growers and processors in the country. U.S. data shows there are about 18,000 total jobs in the sugar industry, compared with almost 600,000 jobs in the sugar-using industry. We have also been hearing this amendment would allow for an increase in foreign sugar into the U.S. market. This amendment maintains the current import quotas for each country. Let me repeat that: It maintains the current import quotas for each country. It allows the Secretary of Agriculture to modify these quotas if he or she determines it is necessary, just as they were able to do before 2008. The fact is this amendment would have no impact on sugar imports from Mexico because under the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA, Mexico currently is the only country without a quota for sugar importation, and that is true whether we pass this amendment or not. That is true under the current system. So even if we don't pass reforms, the argument that Mexico is coming in and bringing sugar into the country is true, there is sugar coming in from Mexico, but the fact is that is the way it is under the current program. Currently, sugar is the only--let me repeat, the only-- commodity program that was not reformed in the committee-passed farm bill that is under consideration now. Let me be clear: I think the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--Senator Stabenow and the committee--did a great job on that bill in most areas because they provided savings and they reformed the program. So it is particularly puzzling to me why they totally left the sugar subsidies out of the bill, that they did nothing to reform the Sugar Program. I don't think any program the Federal Government operates should be immune from updates and improvements. We need to act, and we need to act now, to reform the Sugar Program and to protect those workers who are in the food industry that use sugar, and protect consumers who are spending more money than they should for the cost of sugar. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. This amendment would address the only program within the farm bill that hasn't been reformed: the Sugar Program. What we have now is a sweet deal for sugar growers and a bad deal for consumers. Right now, according to the Department of Commerce, we are losing three jobs in manufacturing for every one job we save in the sugar grower industry. That is not a good deal for job creation in this country. We need to change it. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Ms. SHAHEEN

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Fischer and I, rise today to speak about the alarming crisis of sexual assault within our nation's military. Three particularly disturbing cases have arisen in recent weeks. First, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was arrested for sexual battery, and an Army first sergeant is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct at Fort Flood. Finally, the Army also relieved a lieutenant colonel from his post for a domestic dispute that violated a stalking protection order. What is most concerning is that all were responsible for either handling sexual assault cases or managing policies pertaining to military sexual assault. We have seen three incidents of this kind in a period of two weeks. The fact that the cases involved multiple services speaks volumes to the need to elevate all Sexual Assault Prevention Response, SAPR, jobs to the level of importance that they deserve. Given the challenge of addressing the sexual assault crisis, we need the best and brightest taking on these jobs in our military today. We should take steps to ensure that these jobs are on par with those that the military values most. This will address one of the primary factors at the heart of the issue--the need for cultural change in the military. It starts with increasing the value of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions and enforcing a rigorous application, intense record review and an interview process that screens applicants prior to selection for those duties. While we appreciate Secretary Hagel's efforts to ensure that candidates for these jobs are rescreened, retrained and recertified, the bigger issue is making sure that there is a robust process in place to get the highest caliber candidates into all Sexual Assault Prevention and Response jobs at the start. We firmly believe that changes to the military justice system are critical, but we also believe that changing military culture will require transforming the process by which we fill these positions. It will also require holding the leadership accountable for selecting those individuals. That is why, today, we are introducing legislation that will make the highest-level Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions nominative ones. Nominative jobs, also referred to as ``high visibility,'' are given that designation because of the caliber of person needed to fill them. These are some of the most significant, challenging and highly desired positions in the military. Transitioning SAPR jobs to a nominative process enables direct leadership involvement from the commander, who would now hand-pick the person to fill the role. Furthermore, there is a level of prestige that comes with taking nominative jobs because they are recognized as premiere jobs within the organization. Applicants know up front that these jobs will be challenging and career-enhancing. As such, only the best of the best need apply. This crisis has reached a breaking point that requires more than the traditional process for filling military positions. We can no longer be comfortable placing the service member in a SAPR position solely based upon individual career paths and personal aspirations. As proven over the last several weeks, there are holes in that process. We need to enact a stringent application, record review and interview process that holds leaders accountable for SAPR job selection and increases the likelihood of getting the best possible applicants. There is a sense of urgency surrounding military sexual assault that requires answers now. Secretary Hagel was correct in saying, ``Sexual assault has no place in the United States military'' and that ``the American people, including our service members, should expect a culture of absolutely no tolerance for this deplorable behavior.'' We could not agree more, but we are also of the belief that the change in culture with respect to sexual assault will require more than education and awareness training. Our military needs to develop a culture that gives preeminence to jobs related to sexual assault prevention. We know that military leaders share our concerns and appreciate the leadership demonstrated thus far. We trust that they will also acknowledge the benefits of making SAPR jobs nominative positions. We hope my colleagues in the Senate will take up and pass this legislation as we attempt to address the scourge that is sexual assault in our military.

Ms. SHAHEEN

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Fischer and I, rise today to speak about the alarming crisis of sexual assault within our nation's military. Three particularly disturbing cases have arisen in recent weeks. First, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was arrested for sexual battery, and an Army first sergeant is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct at Fort Flood. Finally, the Army also relieved a lieutenant colonel from his post for a domestic dispute that violated a stalking protection order. What is most concerning is that all were responsible for either handling sexual assault cases or managing policies pertaining to military sexual assault. We have seen three incidents of this kind in a period of two weeks. The fact that the cases involved multiple services speaks volumes to the need to elevate all Sexual Assault Prevention Response, SAPR, jobs to the level of importance that they deserve. Given the challenge of addressing the sexual assault crisis, we need the best and brightest taking on these jobs in our military today. We should take steps to ensure that these jobs are on par with those that the military values most. This will address one of the primary factors at the heart of the issue--the need for cultural change in the military. It starts with increasing the value of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions and enforcing a rigorous application, intense record review and an interview process that screens applicants prior to selection for those duties. While we appreciate Secretary Hagel's efforts to ensure that candidates for these jobs are rescreened, retrained and recertified, the bigger issue is making sure that there is a robust process in place to get the highest caliber candidates into all Sexual Assault Prevention and Response jobs at the start. We firmly believe that changes to the military justice system are critical, but we also believe that changing military culture will require transforming the process by which we fill these positions. It will also require holding the leadership accountable for selecting those individuals. That is why, today, we are introducing legislation that will make the highest-level Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions nominative ones. Nominative jobs, also referred to as ``high visibility,'' are given that designation because of the caliber of person needed to fill them. These are some of the most significant, challenging and highly desired positions in the military. Transitioning SAPR jobs to a nominative process enables direct leadership involvement from the commander, who would now hand-pick the person to fill the role. Furthermore, there is a level of prestige that comes with taking nominative jobs because they are recognized as premiere jobs within the organization. Applicants know up front that these jobs will be challenging and career-enhancing. As such, only the best of the best need apply. This crisis has reached a breaking point that requires more than the traditional process for filling military positions. We can no longer be comfortable placing the service member in a SAPR position solely based upon individual career paths and personal aspirations. As proven over the last several weeks, there are holes in that process. We need to enact a stringent application, record review and interview process that holds leaders accountable for SAPR job selection and increases the likelihood of getting the best possible applicants. There is a sense of urgency surrounding military sexual assault that requires answers now. Secretary Hagel was correct in saying, ``Sexual assault has no place in the United States military'' and that ``the American people, including our service members, should expect a culture of absolutely no tolerance for this deplorable behavior.'' We could not agree more, but we are also of the belief that the change in culture with respect to sexual assault will require more than education and awareness training. Our military needs to develop a culture that gives preeminence to jobs related to sexual assault prevention. We know that military leaders share our concerns and appreciate the leadership demonstrated thus far. We trust that they will also acknowledge the benefits of making SAPR jobs nominative positions. We hope my colleagues in the Senate will take up and pass this legislation as we attempt to address the scourge that is sexual assault in our military.