Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here to join my colleague Senator Warren to also express my frustration about what is happening with the nominees to these critical agencies that are being held up by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As Senator Warren said very eloquently, last week the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chose not to appear for the important business of considering the nomination of Gina McCarthy. They made this decision with only a few minutes' notice. As a result, this action prevented an already overdue vote from taking place as scheduled. The refusal to allow a vote on such fundamental business is unacceptable. The EPA conducts vital work to safeguard public health and protect our environment. Yet the agency has been without permanent leadership for months. It is the Senate's duty to act in a timely manner on these kinds of vacancies, and it is clear from Ms. McCarthy's impressive and expansive record that this nominee has earned and deserves a vote. I understand and I respect those Senators who feel they have to vote against a nominee for substantive reasons. However, this failure to even appear at last Thursday's meeting and take a vote shows an alarming level of disregard for the importance of permanent leadership at the EPA and for the Senate's confirmation process. As Senator Warren said, committee Republicans have already asked Ms. McCarthy to answer over 1,100 questions for the record, more than three times what any previous nominee for this position has faced. She has provided 234 pages of answers, and it is past time that the committee held a vote. We need to move forward on filling the position of EPA Administrator so the agency can resume addressing today's public health challenges in the most effective manner. Simply put, the type of obstructionism we saw last week has no place in this Senate, no place in our government, particularly for a position as critical as this one. In addition to its work to reduce harmful pollution at the national level, the EPA plays a vital role in safeguarding public health in our local communities. For example, in my State of New Hampshire, testing in 2009 revealed elevated levels of contaminants in the wells of homeowners living in the town of Raymond because of their proximity to a Superfund site. Following this discovery, we worked with the EPA, with the State Department of Environmental Services, and with the town of Raymond to find a solution that would address the health concerns because the families didn't have safe drinking water. With the EPA's support, the town has extended its water lines to ensure that these homeowners and their families can be provided access to safe clean drinking water. I had the opportunity to view the progress of this construction project in person last year. I applaud the EPA for working with communities on vital local priorities such as this. Communities across our country face public health challenges, and the EPA plays an important role in addressing these challenges. Even now we are working in New Hampshire in a similar situation where wells have been contaminated in the town of Atkinson. We can't continue to delay the Senate's responsibilities to provide agencies such as the EPA with the leadership they need to operate. With 30 years of public service in a variety of roles, Ms. McCarthy has both the experience and the expertise to do the critical job of leading the EPA. Her expansive and lengthy career is rooted in working at the forefront of pressing environmental issues for leading New England Governors of both political parties. Most recently, Gina McCarthy served in Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection under former Republican Gov. Jodi Rell. Before that, Ms. McCarthy served five different Massachusetts Governors, including Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney--the Republican Party's own nominee for President in last year's election. These diverse work experiences on a broad range of environmental issues have provided Ms. McCarthy with the first-hand knowledge of environmental and public health challenges we face. They are evidence of her ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle to address the problems faced as we look at agencies such as the EPA. Ms. McCarthy was confirmed by the Senate to her current EPA post with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2009. That makes the boycott last week even more shocking. In her current role as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Ms. McCarthy has worked with environmental advocates and industry leaders to reduce harmful emissions that threaten clean air. These efforts are particularly significant for downwind regions such as in New England, where we serve as the tailpipe to the rest of the Nation and suffer the effects of pollution from coal-fired powerplants in the middle part of the country. I am sure the Chair understands this issue. In recognition of her successful tenure, Ms. McCarthy has received widespread praise from a diverse group of industry leaders who recognize her ability to find common ground and compromise. Coming from New Hampshire, which is the second most forested State in the Nation, I know New Hampshire's forest products industry will benefit from an EPA Administrator with a strong reputation for constructive dialog. Following Ms. McCarthy's nomination, Donna Harman of the American Forest and Paper Association described her by saying: ``She's very data- and fact-driven, and that's been helpful for us as well as the entire business community.'' Leaders in an array of other sectors have voiced similar appreciation for the way in which Ms. McCarthy values finding common ground. Heaven knows we can use some common ground here. Robert Engel of the American Automotive Policy Council praised the care she takes in listening to stakeholders, saying: We look forward to continuing to work with Gina McCarthy. She has demonstrated a willingness to consider the views of those affected by the agency she has been nominated to lead, and to find practical solutions to issues facing the automobile industry. These words describe a public servant who understands the importance of listening, understanding, and bringing stakeholders together. I am confident Gina McCarthy will be an excellent leader of the EPA. She deserves fair consideration. She deserves a timely vote. I am pleased we received news that there will be a rescheduled vote later this week. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to move forward in good faith and give fair consideration to this nominee. The EPA must have a permanent Administrator who is an advocate for protecting public health and providing valuable support to our Nation's communities. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. We express our true sorrow at the loss of such an admirable, accomplished, and compassionate young man. We would also like to recognize and offer our sympathies to Evan's family, including his mother Eileen, his father John, and his twin brother Conor. We are confident that Evan's friends and family have great pride when they remember the impact that his short life had on so many individuals.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. While Evan earned great success in his academic pursuits, his most profound impact was on the lives of those with whom he interacted. Evan's thoughtful compassion touched the lives of hundreds of acquaintances, friends, and family members. This was evidenced in part by a ceremony held to honor Evan's life at the Timberlane Regional High School Performing Arts Center where nearly 900 individuals honored his memory and celebrated the life that he lived with extraordinary attention to the thoughts and feelings of those around him.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, Senator Ayotte and I wish to commemorate the life of Evan Dube, a young man from Plaistow, NH, whose life was tragically cut short on May 19, 2012. Evan's spirit touched the lives of many in his community, and his legacy as a kind and loving friend will not be forgotten.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the tremendous selflessness and compassion demonstrated by Cameron Lyle of Plaistow, NH. Cameron is completing his senior year at the University of New Hampshire, UNH, and is a 4-year member of the school's track and field team. He elected to forgo his final two meets in order to donate bone marrow to a complete stranger who is battling acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cameron Lyle is a graduate of Timberlane Regional High School and a standout thrower on UNH's track and field squad. He is a member of the National Marrow Donor Program's Be The Match Registry, which he joined as a sophomore along with many of his fellow UNH athletes by completing the mouth swabbing process that is the initial step in registering to serve as a potential bone marrow donor. Nearly 2 years later, Cameron received a call informing him that he was identified as a potential match for a 28-year-old man diagnosed with blood cancer. After additional testing, it was confirmed that despite incredibly small odds, Cameron's marrow was a match. Without hesitation, Cameron decided that he would give up participating in the final track and field meets of his senior year to potentially save another man's life. The story of Cameron and the anonymous recipient of his bone marrow demonstrate the importance of bone marrow registries such as the National Marrow Donor Program's Be The Match Registry. These organizations can provide a critical lifeline for those individuals suffering from immune system, genetic or blood disorders. In addition, bone marrow donor registries serve as a place where patients afflicted with these terrible diseases can turn in hopes of receiving a transplant. While these disorders can be fatal, bone marrow registries give patients the hope of finding a lifesaving donor. Cameron's decision truly demonstrates the strength of his character, but perhaps most importantly, his selfless act will undoubtedly never be forgotten by the man who received another chance at life. I know that residents of New Hampshire are extremely proud of Cameron and admire him for making such an important choice. Once again, I would like to recognize and thank Cameron Lyle for making such a powerful and life changing decision for both himself and the recipient of his bone marrow. I commend Cameron's family, friends and the UNH and Plaistow communities for the support they have shown him in the weeks before and since his surgery. His story is truly memorable.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a remarkable leader, Father Jonathan DeFelice, who will retire as the President of Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH, this June. Father Jonathan, as he is known to his beloved students and college community, has devoted his adult personal and professional life to Saint Anselm College. He lives and works at Saint Anselm in community with his fellow monks of the Order of Saint Benedict, who founded the college in 1889. Under his leadership, Saint Anselm College has become a nationally ranked liberal arts college and model for other institutions of higher education on ways to expand civic engagement and community service among all members of the campus community. Originally a native of Bristol, RI, Father Jonathan attended Portsmouth Abbey School for high school and completed his undergraduate career at Saint Anselm in 1969. He joined the Order of Saint Benedict in 1973, and 1 later was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. Shortly thereafter, Father Jonathan returned to Saint Anselm, where he served in the administration, holding a variety of positions, including dean of freshman students, assistant to the academic dean and dean of students. The capstone of his years of work for his alma mater was his appointment as its president 24 years ago. Father Jonathan believes that student development requires pursuing both academics and extracurricular activities. Building on that philosophy, he helped oversee the creation of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, established at Saint Anselm College to educate citizens and encourage political and civic participation in the United States and abroad. Since its creation, the Institute has hosted hundreds of State and local leaders and international visitors and helped many new American citizens celebrate at five naturalization ceremonies. Every 4 years, Saint Anselm College becomes a main setting for national politics when it hosts numerous activities surrounding the presidential primaries. Father Jonathan has also made service a priority for his students. Today, the college's student-led Meelia Center for Student Engagement manages more than 40 partnerships with New Hampshire non-profits, such as the Big Brother/Big Sister program. Father Jonathan built on that work by founding the State version of Campus Compact, a national initiative that works in cooperation with private sector partners to incorporate community service into college curriculum. Campus Compact New Hampshire is made up of 23 college and university member institutions in the state. Father Jonathan has given back to the State by serving as chair of both the New Hampshire Colleges and University Council and the New Hampshire Higher Education Commission. He was a founding member of New Hampshire's Forum on Higher Education and, most recently, was appointed by Governor John Lynch to serve as director of the New England Board of Higher Education. Throughout his tenure, Father Jonathan's commitment to higher learning has been a valuable asset to New Hampshire. With community service and civic engagement as cornerstones of his presidency, Father Jonathan has created a lasting and significant connection between the State of New Hampshire and the Saint Anselm College community. I thank Father Jonathan for his service and his commitment to improving higher education in New Hampshire.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor again this afternoon to continue my opposition and concerns about the Internet sales tax legislation that has been submitted. I appreciate that we are going to vote on this bill in a few minutes, and I appreciate that I am probably going to lose. But I do think it is important to raise these concerns again because I think we have to take a look at the issues that have been raised and see if there are any ways to address them. There are a number of problems with the bill that in my State of New Hampshire--which has no sales tax--makes it anything but fair. In fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways. First, it is unfair for businesses in my State of New Hampshire and the four other States in this country that do not collect a sales tax. We did not have an opportunity to address this issue through amendments. I think it is not fair for us to pass a bill out of the Senate that fundamentally makes an impact on businesses in States where we have no ability to address the imposition of these taxes. I also think we should not pass a bill that is going to create unnecessary new redtape for small companies across the country. One of the real benefits of the Internet has been the innovation and the job creation it has spawned. What this legislation does is put in place redtape that is going to put small companies that sell online at a severe disadvantage, making it harder for them to compete with large online retailers. As a former small business owner myself, I know how time consuming regulations and compliance can be. Make no mistake about it, we are creating a bureaucratic morass for small businesses under this legislation. Small companies will be looking at complying with 46 different State laws. They are going to face audits or lawsuits, potentially, in some of these States. Small business owners, who are working hard to grow their companies, do not need additional paperwork to distract them from running their companies. I fear that is what this bill will create. I urge my colleagues to take another look and see how we can address those concerns. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I really came down to the floor today to continue my opposition to the Internet sales tax legislation that is before us. The proponents of this legislation claim it is about ``fairness,'' but when you really think about it, this bill is anything but fair. In fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways. First, the legislation is particularly unfair for businesses in my State of New Hampshire and in the other four States in this country that do not collect a sales tax. I filed amendments, as I know a number of my colleagues have--my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has filed a number of amendments--that I hope can help address this issue. But I think it is important for everyone here, especially those who are concerned with creating new redtape, to understand how this legislation is going to affect small businesses. This proposal is going to put new regulatory burdens on small companies across the country, not just in New Hampshire. As a result, it is going to put those small businesses at a disadvantage, making it harder for them to compete with large online retailers. As a former small business owner myself, I understand how time- consuming regulations and compliance requirements can be. Make no mistake, the bureaucratic nightmare we are going to be creating for small businesses under this legislation is real. I think it is worth talking for a minute about what that process is going to look like for the small online retailers. In a recent piece for the Daily Beast, writer Megan McArdle went through what the process would be like for a small business. She pointed to the SBA guidebook for small businesses when they collect sales taxes in multiple States. The guidebook tells small businesses: Generally, states require businesses to pay the sales taxes they collect quarterly or monthly. You'll have to use a special tax return for sales taxes, and report all sales, [all] taxable sales, [all] exempt sales and amount of tax due. Not paying on time can result in penalties. As always, check with your state or local government about the process in your location. McArdle points out that, despite claims from the proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act that tax collection will be easy and streamlined, the bottom line for a small business is that ``you've still got to keep fifty states worth of records and file 40-odd states worth of returns.'' McArdle went on to say: For Amazon--the actual target of these laws--this is trivial. Their staff of crack accountants can probably roll these things out before their Monday morning coffee break. For a small vendor, however, that's a whole lot of paperwork. And that is what this legislation is really about--those small business owners who are working hard to grow their companies. They do not need an additional paperwork burden to distract them from running their companies. Let me provide one example. There is a small company in the town of Epsom, NH. It is called Michele's Sweet Shoppe. Michele's sells popcorn and other gourmet treats both at their brick-and-mortar store in Epsom and online. This is a small business that is growing, and it wants to create jobs. They sell locally in New Hampshire at their brick-and- mortar store, but a big part of their future strategy for growth is taking advantage of new markets through the Internet. Under this legislation, however, there is an arbitrary ceiling on this company's growth because as they get closer to $1 million in online revenue--as they have said to me--they are going to have to ask themselves, is it worth going through the bureaucratic nightmare of complying with 46 different States' sales taxes? Unfortunately, for them and for too many other businesses, the answer is more than likely to be no. For Amazon and online retailers, this is not even a question. This is exactly the reason why this bill is good for big businesses and bad for small businesses. It makes it harder for small mom-and-pop stores to compete. Small businesses--certainly in New Hampshire and in most of the country--are really the economic engine of our economy. Two out of three of the new businesses that are going to be created are going to be created by small business. We should really think twice before we pass this kind of legislation that will keep them from growing and that is really designed to help those big businesses. I support a number of amendments to this bill. I would like to see them at least voted on. I hope some might be adopted because I think they would make the legislation fairer for small businesses. One of those is a bipartisan amendment we have worked on with Senator Toomey to raise the threshold for small businesses under the legislation. I have also filed an amendment to address a fundamental flaw in the legislation that I think must be addressed because this legislation is anything but fair to States such as New Hampshire, States such as Alaska, Montana, the other States in this country that do not collect a sales tax. This is a proposal that fundamentally violates State sovereignty. It enables one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on the 49 other States and territories without their approval, and it provides zero benefit for the non-sales tax States while it creates an additional and unnecessary burden on our small businesses. That is why I filed an amendment to create an exemption for businesses in States such as New Hampshire. States will be able to force New Hampshire companies to collect sales taxes--especially when our States get no benefit whatsoever--and this amendment is designed to prevent that. I am disappointed this evening that it does not look as though we are going to be allowed to vote on any of these amendments, although I am still hopeful that we might get a hearing. I urge my colleagues, again, to think twice about this legislation. I urge them to look at the amendments when they are filed--if we are able to get an amendment process--and to think about supporting those amendments so the legislation really could live up to its billing as the Marketplace Fairness Act because right now it certainly does not meet that standard for the State of New Hampshire and our small businesses. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. My friend from Alaska and I, as she pointed out, represent States neither of which has a sales tax. Would the Senator agree with me that if this passes it sets a dangerous precedent that says at any point this Congress could impose on States such as ours, despite what we have chosen to do in our home States, a tax we may totally disagree with, and that that is a very dangerous precedent for us to set?

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I came to the floor this evening to address what is known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, but before I do that, I wish to applaud Senator Coons for his work on the master limited partnerships legislation. I think it is a great bipartisan approach to one of our energy needs. I also applaud Senator Murkowski for her leadership on the Energy Committee and for her willingness to work in a bipartisan way to try to move an energy agenda from which this country can benefit. I thank both Senators very much for their efforts, and I look forward to working with both of them on the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency legislation, which I know that committee heard this week. I really appreciate the efforts to move that forward as well. So I thank both Senators very much.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, my friend from West Virginia says this bill is important for his State. I understand that, but this is a bill that doesn't work for my State of New Hampshire. His suggestion that if States don't like it they have the option not to participate just doesn't work because the businesses in my State of New Hampshire are going to be affected. This is a proposal that fundamentally violates State sovereignty. It enables one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on the 49 other States and territories without their approval. This legislation would impose new burdens on small businesses not only in New Hampshire but actually across the country. I represent a State that does not have a sales tax. There are still some States in this country that don't have sales taxes. So my colleagues can understand why I oppose this measure, because this legislation will hurt small, online, family-owned businesses in New Hampshire--businesses that have no experience collecting sales taxes whatsoever. The proponents of this legislation have said small businesses will not be affected, thanks to the exemption for businesses with less than $1 million in revenue. That is just not true. This legislation creates a disincentive for Internet firms to grow and create jobs for American workers. We know that the margins for so many small online retailers are very slim. I will give you an example. I have heard from a small business owner in Hudson, NH. Hudson is down along the border of Massachusetts. I know the Acting President pro tempore knows it well. This small business owner's business is approaching $1 million in revenues, and he has about six employees-- just six employees. Now, under the Internet sales tax legislation before us, this company would be considered a large business--revenues over $1 million--because they are almost there. But if this legislation passes, the company's plans to grow will be in doubt. They are going to be forced to reconsider whether they are going to continue to grow, continue to hire more employees, because this arbitrary threshold creates a real disincentive for them to grow. Now, e-commerce has been a real boon to small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It has helped companies find new markets. It has helped them add new revenues. But for companies looking to grow through online sales, this legislation represents a real ceiling for growth. That is why I have joined with a number of my colleagues to call on the Senate to rethink this legislation. We need to think through its unintended consequences. Small businesses across the country--not just in non-sales tax States, such as New Hampshire, but small businesses across the country--will see their tax burdens increase. I want to give just a few examples of the new burdens that are going to come with this legislation. First, as I mentioned, each State has different sales and use taxes, so businesses would need new software to figure out how to collect and remit the right taxes. It is my understanding that the States, under this legislation, would be responsible for providing that software to the businesses in their State. I think this creates an unfunded mandate, for the State of New Hampshire to have to provide that software for the small businesses in the State that would be affected. 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 would also have to deal with audit and enforcement actions from out of State. In other words, they would have to answer to taxing authorities in places where they have no representation whatsoever. And 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. So these are just a few examples of the many unintended consequences this legislation would create. I intend to join with a number of my colleagues in filing amendments to improve this bill, including ways that we can protect States rights and small businesses. If the State of New Hampshire does not want to participate because we have no sales tax and we do not think our businesses should be forced to collect Massachusetts sales taxes or Maine sales taxes or Vermont sales taxes online, then it seems to me we ought to be able to opt out of this legislation. The citizens and small businesses in New Hampshire that will be affected by this legislation deserve a full hearing on these issues, and I urge my colleagues to join us in addressing these defects before we pass this bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I couldn't say it any more eloquently than my friend from Oregon whose small businesses are facing the same kind of discrimination our small businesses in New Hampshire are facing. I came straight from the airport--my flight was delayed; so I wasn't here to vote no on this legislation that I think has not been thought through carefully because, as the Senator from Oregon points out, it is going to affect innovation and the ability to use the Internet in a way that I think most of this should be used. It is going to set up a whole new set of rules that are very difficult for our businesses in New Hampshire and Oregon to comply with. I think it is not the best way for us to go about taxation and doing it in a fair way. Sadly, as a result of this legislation, if it passes, as the Senator pointed out, we are going to see a whole different set of rules for one set of businesses than for another and that just isn't right. So I plan to come down to the floor and speak at greater length about this tomorrow, but I wanted to come this afternoon, when I heard the Senator was speaking as I came from the airport, to join the Senator in opposition to the legislation and point out that I certainly would have voted no and intend to continue to do everything I can to try to address what I think is a very unfair way to deal with taxation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my friend from Oregon to try and amend this legislation to address some of the concerns that we, along with a number of other members of this body, share. It should be an interesting week.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you. So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has done an excellent job. While I appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Dakota, I actually think that in order to deal with the budget challenges facing the country, we have to look at both revenues and spending. One of the areas of spending that have been the most problematic has been health care costs. It has been one of the fastest growing costs for the Federal Government, and what we have to do is look at how we can lower the health care costs. The amendment I proposed that we are going to vote on this morning, amendment No. 438, is one that actually reduces health care costs. In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, women's access to affordable health care has improved. Women now have access to a wide range of preventive services, such as well-women appointments, screenings for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and counseling for domestic violence. All women now have access to contraceptive coverage for free through their insurance plans. Ninety-nine percent of women report that they have used birth control at some point in their lives, and access to birth control is directly linked to the decline in maternal and infant mortality. I think that is a really important message we need to get across to people. There is a direct connection between access to birth control and maternal and infant mortality. Access to birth control can also reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to overall good health outcomes. Sadly, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies in the industrialized world, and preventing unintended pregnancies just makes fiscal sense. Studies have found that medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies can cost taxpayers up to $12 billion a year. My State of New Hampshire has one of the lowest teen birth rates in the country. As Governor, I was proud to sign a law that required health care plans to cover contraception. It was a law that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in our legislature. The fact is that accessible family planning matters, and it can make a difference. Despite the research which shows that investments in women's health make sense, we continue to see efforts to deprive women from receiving the most basic of care. The amendment I am going to be offering this morning will protect women's access to primary and preventive health care, to family planning, and to birth control. At the most basic level, this amendment ensures that a woman's family planning decisions are ones she makes with her doctor and her family, and that they are not dictated by government or by her employer.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Isakson. I was a Governor for three budgets, and we were able to balance them every other year every cycle because biennial budgeting gives us an opportunity to prioritize scarce resources and provide more oversight to the budgeting process. This is idea whose time has come. We need this reform and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, and the other opponents of this amendment. Senator Alexander said that States should be able to decide what to do about taxes. Well, in New Hampshire we have decided. We don't want a sales tax. We don't collect one, and we don't ask our small businesses to collect one. And the fact is that this amendment would harm small, family-owned retail businesses in New Hampshire. I talked to a business in Hudson, NH, which is along the border with Massachusetts. He has six employees, and he is about to reach $1 million in sales. He said that under this legislation, his company would have to start collecting taxes not just in New Hampshire but for 45 other States. It would put him at such a disadvantage that he could not continue to grow. Just as Senator Wyden said, what these businesses are going to do then is go look for someplace else where they don't have to worry about collecting these taxes over the Internet. I agree with Senator Alexander. I think we should ensure States rights and ensure that small businesses are protected, but we don't do that by passing this amendment. I yield back my time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, amendment No. 438 establishes a deficit- neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to basic health care, including family planning and birth control. It ensures that employers cannot deny coverage for contraceptives. We have seen that improving access to preventive care, including contraception, is good health policy, and as a result it means healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for the work he has done to look at the tax loopholes that should be closed and to bring attention to really the fairness we should have in our Tax Code. I am here to join my colleagues in talking about the importance of passing a budget that will address our debt and deficits and protect middle-class families while investing in our future job growth. I applaud Senator Murray for her leadership and the work of the Budget Committee in bringing this document before us. We have made significant progress in the last few years to get the American economy growing, and we have taken real action to reduce our deficits, but there is more we can do on both fronts, and the budget before us addresses both of these urgent priorities in a responsible way. No one is questioning the need to address our debt and deficits. The question is, Can we do this in a responsible way? Can we come together in a way that protects our economic recovery? Unfortunately, because of continued political stalemate, we have seen the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration go into effect. Now we need to come together to support a plan to address these harmful automatic cuts because they are hurting small businesses. They are having an impact on our economic recovery. They are forcing furloughs of public employees--in New Hampshire, people such as our Portsmouth Naval Shipyard workers and our air traffic controllers. They are creating economic uncertainty that is putting our economic recovery in jeopardy. I have had the chance to travel around New Hampshire in the last month or so and talk to companies that are concerned about the impact of these automatic cuts. One of those companies I visited is called Cirtronics, which is a manufacturing company in Milford, NH. The company employs about 150 people, and it manufactures a diverse array of products, from circuit boards, to medical equipment, to defense and homeland security products. Cirtronics doesn't have any direct government contracts, but many of its clients do. As a result, the company is facing a lot of uncertainty under sequestration. According to its CEO, Geraldine Ferlins, this uncertainty is getting in the way of the company's growth. She said: How do you plan without knowing how you will be affected? You hear about how CEOs are hesitant to hire. This is why. Another company in Salem, NH, called Micro-Precision Technologies is a small, family-owned business with about 20 employees that makes semiconductors used in the military, aerospace, medical, and communications industries. About 80 percent of Micro-Precision's business is with the Department of Defense. Sequestration has meant that their orders are down about half for the month of January. They had been planning to hire two new people, but unfortunately they cannot do that because they are so uncertain about what is going to happen. That is why we need a better approach to addressing our budget situation. We need a plan that looks at all areas of our spending--at our domestic, at our defense, at our mandatory programs--as well as at revenues through tax reform. That is exactly the approach that was taken by the Budget Committee in passing out the budget resolution that is before us this week. That is why I supported it. It replaces the harmful cuts under sequestration with a balanced mix of responsible spending cuts as well as additional revenues. So instead of across-the- board cuts, the budget makes targeted cuts to several areas. It cuts health care spending without harming beneficiaries; it reduces defense spending cuts, as we wind down our operations in Afghanistan; and it results in reduced interest payments on our debt. The budget also provides a balanced approach by ending, as Senator Levin pointed out, the unfair tax breaks for the wealthiest and for big corporations. I certainly applaud Senator Levin and Senator Whitehouse, and I was really glad to hear that Senator McCain has joined them in addressing these unfair tax breaks. The budget does all this, and yet it still invests in our economy in a way that allows it to grow. It provides much needed funding for our aging transportation infrastructure. It creates an infrastructure bank that is a bipartisan idea that allows us to get a greater bang for the taxpayer buck. There is no doubt that we have to do more to fix our debt and deficits, but we need to do it in a smart, responsible way. That is what this budget does. I certainly hope we will be able to come together this week to replace the harmful cuts under sequestration with a comprehensive and responsible plan for addressing our debt and deficit. That is why I intend to vote for this budget--because it does exactly that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia Senator Isakson for his eloquent and thoughtful remarks in support of the biennial budgeting amendment. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the legislation we introduced last week, in fact. I am pleased to point out on the floor with us is Senator Angus King, my neighbor from Maine, who is also a sponsor of biennial budget legislation. I appreciate we have the budget resolution before us. I think it is an important step toward returning to regular order. But the fact is, as my colleague just pointed out, since 1980, we have only had two budget processes that have finished on time, according to schedule. We have had every President since that time, since Ronald Reagan, endorse a biennial budget. As my colleague said, I have been there and done that. As Governor of New Hampshire, as the Governors of 19 other States, we have biennial budgets. It has worked very well--because as this amendment would do, and as the biennial budget process would do, it would give us the chance to spend the first year of the budget cycle working on the budget, looking at programs and preparing for the budget and then the second year in oversight, so we can make sure what we are spending our money on is effective and is doing what we want it to do. It would give us a more transparent process and would, hopefully, allow us to address what has been one of the real challenges we have faced in Congress; that is, getting a budget through on time, according to the process. As my colleague from Georgia pointed out, as we think about addressing the debt and deficits facing the country, as we think about investments we need to make going forward, thinking about how we can use the process in a way that is more effective, that works better, is something we also ought to be including. We have had a lot of momentum that is built around the biennial budget legislation. In the last Congress, we had 37 bipartisan cosponsors. We had the support of then- budget chair Kent Conrad and ranking member Jeff Sessions. So we have some momentum. I think we clearly have an opportunity. I hope we will take advantage of it and that our colleagues will support this effort. I thank my colleague for his leadership.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to address Senator Toomey's amendment, which would remove the provisions around biofuels, amendment No. 115. I think it is important to point out that this is really more than a budget issue. The Presiding Officer understands, as he and I worked together to address this when we passed the Defense authorization bill. This is really a national security issue. I had the opportunity, as chair of the Water and Power Subcommittee in Energy, to go down to Norfolk to have a hearing aboard the USS Kearsarge to talk about exactly what the Navy--and they are reflective of the military--is doing to address energy use. I saw some very amazing progress in terms of their reduction in energy use, their energy efficiency. I saw some of the things they are doing, such as using solar blankets and small, compact batteries out in the field. This allows them to do their mission much better. They pointed out that our access to energy is complicated by political unrest and by threats to our supply lines around the globe. We spend billions to protect these fragile supply lines. Oil prices are set on a global market, often driven by speculation and rumor. Our military is too often exposed to price shocks. The military consumes about 300,000 barrels of oil a day, which is about $30 million a day. The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States, with 93 percent consumed by the military. For every dollar rise in a barrel of oil, the Navy incurs a cost of $30 million at current prices. Last year the Navy incurred a $1.1 billion budget shortfall because the cost of a barrel of oil increased by $38. The commander of the Pacific Fleet was forced to cut $200 million from its flying and steaming costs because of those cost increases. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Department of Defense came up $5.6 billion short for military operations and maintenance because it needed to spend more on fuel than anticipated. As I saw in Norfolk on the Kearsarge, each of our services is making real progress on energy efficiency and moving to alternative fuels. This is not the time to hinder those efforts. The per-gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under Navy contracts has declined more than 90 percent over the past 2 years, and it is going to continue to decline. The Navy and the Department of Defense have been on the leading edge of innovation and technological achievements over the last 200 years. This is another example of innovation and technological advancement. Last year the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, sent a letter to my office advocating his strong support for the Navy's efforts on biofuels and urging Congress to provide him with the flexibility to continue this effort. He states: I support the Secretary of the Navy's efforts . . . to accelerate the establishment of a domestic alternative fuels industry through DPA, Title III. This effort will enhance our energy security by diversifying the supply of fuels. Restricting this biofuel effort will ``impede America's energy security.'' I applaud my colleague Senator Toomey for the efforts he made to look at what we are spending in government to attempt to reduce those costs. He and I are working very closely in an attempt to reduce the cost of sugar subsidies in this country. This is a situation where, for short- term gain, they would risk the long-term benefit. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment and ensure our military continues to be on the leading edge of energy security for the world. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak on an entirely different issue, but before I do that, I would like to commend Appropriations Chair Mikulski--and I do like saying that, Appropriations Chair Mikulski--and Ranking Member Shelby for all of the work they and their staffs and the other Senators on the Appropriations Committee have done to try to put together a continuing resolution that is going to keep this government open. I share the frustration and the concern we have heard expressed on the floor tonight about the hold-up when we thought there was agreement to get this done. So I appreciate all the work that has been done, and hopefully we can get past this and get this bill done.