Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, anybody who has been outside today knows that we had a beautiful day, and the last couple of days have been beautiful, so it is hard to believe that the summer is actually coming to a close. But as it does end, I wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to highlight something that is very important to us in New Hampshire and to the country. That is tourism, particularly the outdoor industry association and its importance to local economies in New Hampshire and across this country. New Hampshire has long recognized the importance of conservation and the economic benefits that come from supporting outdoor recreation. Our beautiful State, like Connecticut, has an abundance of natural treasures, the White Mountain National Forest, our scenic lakes, our coastline--we may only have 18 miles of coastline but it is beautiful, with beautiful beaches and rocky coves. These treasures draw visitors from across New England, from all over the world. Protecting these natural resources is not just good for the environment, it is also critical for our economy. In fact, the outdoor recreation economy supports 53,000 jobs in New Hampshire alone, 6.1 million American jobs across the country. That is more than we have in the construction industry, in the finance and insurance industries or in the education industry. And even in this time of economic recovery, outdoor recreation produces $646 billion in direct consumer spending. Again, that is more than the pharmaceutical industry, motor vehicle parts, and household utilities. Americans today spend nearly as much on snow sports as they do on Internet access, and considerably more on bike gear and trips than on airplane tickets and fees. This is all detailed in a report called the Outdoor Recreation Economy, which is a very interesting analysis of what the outdoor recreation economy means to this country. I recently had the opportunity to visit Eastern Mountain Sports. EMS is a New Hampshire-based business that specializes in outdoor apparel and equipment. At EMS, I saw the direct economic benefit that comes from our support for the development and conservation of outdoor recreation areas. I had a chance to talk to some of the 300 or so employees at EMS. They have stores throughout the east coast, and they are just one example of the countless businesses that have grown strong, thanks to the careful stewardship of our beautiful areas in this country, of the landscapes that so many of their customers visit. One of the ways we have preserved the great outdoors at the Federal level is through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was created in 1965. It protects lands, forests, State and local parks, and critical wildlife habitat. This critical program also helps ensure hunting and fishing access, something also very important to New Hampshire. It supports battlefields, trails, sporting facilities, and outdoor recreation opportunities in every State. Every year since I arrived in the Senate in 2009, I have led a letter with Senator Leahy of Vermont to appropriators that supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The most recent letter was signed by 44 Senators from both sides of the aisle, a very strong showing of bipartisanship from supporters who know this is a program that works for the environment and works for small business. I am also pleased to cosponsor legislation--bipartisan legislation-- that is led by Senator Bingaman, which would permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund with dedicated funding. In New Hampshire, the LWCF has supported more than 650 local recreation and conservation projects and it helps protect locations such as the White Mountain National Forest, the Appalachian Trail, the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and the Silvio Conte Wildlife Refuge. These scenic locations, whether they are enjoyed for relaxation or exercise, support jobs and local economies by increasing the demand for outdoor recreation equipment and by attracting visitors to our State. Those visitors eat in our restaurants, they shop at our small businesses, they stay in some of the most beautiful hotels you will find anywhere in America. The outdoor economy supports tourism, and tourism should be recognized as the economic engine that it is throughout this country. The travel and tourism industry is one of the top 10 industries in 48 States in the country. It supports over 14 million American jobs. In New Hampshire, travel and tourism is our second largest industry, supporting over 60,000 jobs. I had the opportunity yesterday with a number of small business owners and representatives from New Hampshire to visit Brand USA, which is the national initiative that is the result of travel and tourism legislation passed by the Senate and Congress in 2010 to begin advertising the United States outside of this country. They have advertisements now in Canada, in the UK, and in markets that are important as we think about how we can attract visitors to the United States. In New Hampshire, it is not difficult to see why tourism is so important. Visitors are drawn to New Hampshire for our charming attractions, for our landscapes, for our foliage--which is about to begin, actually--and they provide a beautiful environment for families to spend time together. During August my husband and I actually had the opportunity to take all of our grandchildren--our 7 grandchildren; actually, our entire family, 14 of us--up to the White Mountains. We stayed at the Mount Washington Hotel, which is at the base of Mount Washington. It is a beautiful hotel where the Bretton Woods monetary conference was held back in the late 1940s. We had a great time. We went hiking, my oldest grandson went fishing with his father, one of my granddaughters went horseback riding with my daughter, we visited the flume, which is a naturally occurring gorge in New Hampshire, and we ended the several days we were there visiting at a place called Clark's Trading Post, which is a great family business in New Hampshire. They work with black bears that roam the woods of New Hampshire, and they have been working with them for 50 years, so it is a real trained-bear show. In addition to that, they have attractions from New England, they have a railroad, and it is just a great place for the family to spend the afternoon. This was a wonderful trip. It brought our family closer. It allowed the cousins to visit with each other. We came back rested, restored, and we had a great time investing in New Hampshire businesses. As our family saw last month, conservation programs such as LWCF are part of what we need to do to make sure those kinds of experiences are available to everybody in New Hampshire and across this country. They are a part of our responsibility to safeguard our environmental heritage. More than that, as the outdoor recreation economy shows, as so many reports show, they are an economic imperative that supports millions of jobs nationwide. I am going to continue to work to strengthen programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to promote tourism and the outdoor recreation economy, and I urge all of my colleagues to join these efforts because they not only protect America's great outdoors, they support the businesses and the outdoor recreation economy they sustain. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of passing the Violence Against Women Act, and reauthorizing this critical funding for survivors of domestic violence. We have heard about the protections the Senate version offers that the House does not, to women on college campuses, to women on tribal lands, to LGBT victims, and to immigrants. It is important to remember all of the other programs supported by this important legislation. On this day, when preventive health care finally becomes available to 47 million women, including free domestic violence screening and counseling, it is worth taking a look at how domestic violence impacts healthcare for women and families in this country. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, the average cost of health care services for women is more than twice the average cost for men, and this is largely due to the costs and impact of domestic violence. The CDC estimates the direct health care costs associated with domestic violence to be around $4.1 billion every year. And we know this is a conservative estimate, because many victims never come forward. But we have a proven tool in this fight, and that is the protections in the Violence Against Women Act. Since the bill first went into effect in 1994, reporting has increased by 51 percent according to the Department of Justice. The FBI reports that the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 34 percent. And VAWA saved $12.6 billion in its first 7 years alone. It is not just that women are safer because of VAWA, our economy also improves when domestic violence is successfully prevented, because fewer women are going to the emergency rooms, missing work, or deciding they cannot care for their children. I have had a chance to visit several crisis centers in New Hampshire who benefit directly from VAWA funding. Most recently, I visited the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention in Keene, and had a chance to speak with caseworkers and survivors. I spoke with two women who told me that when they decided it was time to leave their abuser, they had no place else to go. And I asked them, ``What would have happened if this center wasn't here?'' ``My husband would have killed me,'' replied one woman. This is why we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This is about women who are in danger, and desperately need our help. I also had a chance to meet some children who were staying at the center. And I would like to take a moment to talk about how important this bill is for them, both children who witness domestic violence, or are victims themselves. Centers all over New Hampshire and the United States have child advocacy programs that offer support groups for children. Dawn Reams, Director of the Bridges Crisis Center in Nashua, NH, described that they have a full-time child advocate who receives funding from VAWA. We know that children are particularly vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal with trauma. And this trauma affects them for their entire lives. A study by the World Health Organization found that children raised in households where domestic violence occurred are more likely to have behavioral problems, drop out of school early, and experience juvenile delinquency. A child who witnesses domestic violence between his or her parents is more likely to view violence as an acceptable method of conflict resolution. Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to become abusers, and girls who witness domestic violence are more likely to become victims of domestic violence as adults. The advocate at Bridges does her best to prevent this cycle by providing safety planning for the children, teaching them that they can live a life free of violence. There is free preventive care for children. She told the story of one young boy, Brian, who was nervous about returning to school. He was supposed to bring with him a story about something fun he had done over the summer. Brian was staying at Bridges with his mother, and it had not been a fun summer. So the child advocate organized a barbeque in a park across the street from the crisis center. This is the type of healing we need more of, and we can start by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to pass the Senate VAWA, for women, for children, for all survivors and for those that have not yet come forward.

Ms. SHAHEEN

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2012, at 2 p.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Doing Business in Latin America: Positive Trends but Serious Challenges.''

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``State of Federal Privacy and Data Security Law: Lagging Behind the Times?''

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today--I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Harkin for their leadership--just as I was proud back in December of 2009 to join Senator Mikulski in sponsoring the women's health amendment to the Affordable Care Act. We are here today celebrating the fact that tomorrow, August 1, women will have access to important health services at no cost. Senator Boxer showed very clearly what a number of those preventive services are. Thanks to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that go into effect this week, women will have access to a broad range of preventive services from well woman and prenatal visits to gestational diabetes screening, and they will have access to those services without copayments or deductibles. So finances will no longer stand in the way of women getting the preventive health care they need. This also has the potential to save our health system money in the long run. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 75 percent of our health care spending is on people with chronic diseases. So by taking these preventive measures, we can slow this growth and the associated cost of disease. One of those preventive measures I want to talk about this morning is screening for gestational diabetes. As cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I understand the importance of gestational diabetes screening and the impact it can have on both the mother and the baby. Gestational diabetes affects almost 18 percent of all pregnancies in the United States. Unfortunately, the number of those cases is increasing. The consequences of gestational diabetes are real. Not only are there significant health effects for the mother and baby during pregnancy, but researchers have found that both the mother and baby may be at risk for developing type 2 diabetes later in life. By getting screened, both the mother and child can be alerted to potential long-term health risks. I want to tell the story of one of my constituents, Megan from Panacook, NH, because she is a great example of why this screening is so important. During her 28th week of pregnancy, Megan was diagnosed with gestational diabetes. The screening she had alerted her to the potential related health issues and they allowed her to get the necessary treatment. I am happy to report that Megan gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Grace. She is now 8 weeks old. Under the Affordable Care Act, all pregnant women will now be able to receive the gestational diabetes screening for free. Tomorrow also marks an important milestone in women's health for another preventive service. Women, beginning tomorrow, will have access to contraception at no cost. Birth control is something that most women use, and it is something the medical community believes is essential to the health of a woman and her family. For some 1.5 million women, birth control pills are not used for contraception but for medical purposes. They can reduce the risk of some cancers. With costs as high as $600 a year, birth control can be a serious economic concern for many women. Being able to now receive birth control for no cost will bring financial relief to so many of those women. Again, I have a story of a young woman from New Hampshire who I think illustrates so clearly why these are such important provisions. Keri Wolfe from Swanzey, NH, is a full-time graduate student at Dartmouth. She is going to benefit from this provision because Keri takes birth control as a medical necessity for treating a health issue that affects her adrenal gland. While Keri is lucky to have insurance, she has to pay her plan's full deductible and then a monthly copay for her birth control. As a student who is trying to balance academic and living expenses, her prescriptions come at a significant cost annually. When her new insurance plan goes into effect, Keri is going to be able to get the full price of her birth control covered. That is great news in making sure she gets the health care she needs. As Governor of New Hampshire, I was proud to sign legislation that required insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage to women with no religious exemption. At that time it was understood by people on both sides of the aisle of all religious faiths that requiring contraceptive coverage was about women's health, and it was a basic health care decision. Yet over the last several months, opponents have continued to roll back contraceptive coverage at both the State and Federal level. Every woman should be able to make her own health care decisions. She should not have to have her boss stand in the way. The provisions that go into effect tomorrow ensure that women can make these decisions. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Harkin for their leadership on women's health. I join them in celebrating these important provisions that are going to make a huge difference for women's health, that are going to be good for women, for families, and for everyone in this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, if the majority leader is finished, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor this evening to talk about an amendment I have filed to the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414. This is the fourth time I have filed this amendment, and it is not on the Cybersecurity Act per se, although it does address energy use, which is one of the critical challenges we face as we are trying to address cybersecurity in this country. This is an amendment that is the substance of S. 1000, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, of which the other sponsor is Senator Rob Portman, and he is a cosponsor on this amendment. What the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act and the amendment I filed does is create a national energy efficiency strategy for the United States. So this amendment is the same language Senator Portman and I filed to the Bring Jobs Home Act and the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, and it is one we are going to continue to file because we think it is important for this amendment and this legislation to have an opportunity for a vote from this entire Senate because we think this is bipartisan legislation that has broad support among our colleagues. This legislation is based on two important premises I have already spoken to in the Chamber: first, that the American public desperately wants Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to address this Nation's energy needs; and, second, that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to meet our energy challenges. Not only does it help us develop a strategy around energy, but it is a strategy that can be supported whether you live in New England, as I do, whether you live in the West, whether you live in the South. It is a strategy that is important whether you support fossil fuels--oil and gas--whether you support nuclear, or whether you support wind and solar. We all benefit from energy efficiency. It is also a strategy that creates thousands of good jobs. There is evidence that the American public wants to see the Senate act on energy efficiency legislation. I think that evidence is overwhelming because last week I started an online campaign asking people to sign a petition calling on Senate leadership to bring this bill to the floor. The text of the petition is what we see here--small print so it is hard to read, but it asks people to support the Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill. I just wish to read a section of it. It says: The Shaheen-Portman Act would help make the United States a global leader in the fastest and cheapest method we have for addressing our energy needs, energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is within our grasp. It uses proven technology that we can manufacture here at home to lower energy costs across all sectors of our economy. In just a matter of days, we have already collected over 4,600 signatures from supporters across the country, and that number continues to grow. Anyone interested in signing the petition and in learning more about the many benefits of energy efficiency can easily do so by visiting my Web site at shaheen.senate.gov. While drafting the bill, Senator Portman and I met with a number of stakeholders so we could better understand the obstacles the private sector faces when they are trying to deploy energy-efficient technology. So we had discussions with people from energy-intensive companies, from trade groups, from those representing the real estate community, from environmental advocates and from financing organizations. The feedback we received about ways to remove these barriers and drive the adoption of energy-efficient technologies became the basis for this legislation. As a result, we have a bill that provides a variety of low-cost tools that will speed this Nation's transition to a more energy-efficient economy. The bill addresses three major areas of U.S. energy use: residential and commercial buildings, which consume 40 percent of all energy used in the country; the industrial sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy; and the Federal Government, which is the country's single biggest user of energy. Highlights of the bill include: establishing advanced building codes for voluntary residential and commercial buildings to cut energy use. I would emphasize that those codes are voluntary. We worked with the real estate and the building industries on those codes. Second, the legislation helps manufacturers finance and implement energy-efficient production technologies and practices because that is one of the biggest obstacles to retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. Third, the legislation would require the Federal Government to adopt better building standards and smart metering technology. Our legislation is bipartisan. In addition to the thousands of signatures on this petition, it has support from well over 200 businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade association. Those groups include: The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Environmental Defense Fund, businesses such as Johnson Controls, Honeywell, United Technologies Corporation. This broad coalition of supporters recognizes that the legislation is an easy first step that will make our economy more competitive and our Nation more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and still meeting the demand for energy saving technologies for individuals and businesses alike. I think it is important to point out that there are real economic benefits. A recent study by policy experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the legislation will achieve savings for consumers and businesses. Specifically, their study found that by 2020, the bill could save consumers $4 billion a year once it is enacted. It would add 80,000 jobs to the economy. In a time when we are worried about growing the economy, when we are worried about the fragile recovery, this is the kind of legislation that will allow us to create good jobs with off-the-shelf technologies. With the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, the Senate has an opportunity to provide the American people with exactly what they want, an effective bipartisan approach to addressing this Nation's energy needs that also creates jobs and grows the economy. I hope we will be able to persuade leadership and my colleagues that this is legislation that merits full debate and a vote on the floor and that we will be able to bring S. 1000 or this amendment to the floor for a vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is fine.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the attention of the world will turn to London as we witness the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Over 10,000 athletes representing 204 nations from around the world will be competing in hundreds of sporting events at the games of the 30th Olympiad. Here in the United States, we will be cheering on the 529 U.S. athletes as they look to bring home the gold for the United States of America. The Olympics no doubt will have countless stories of triumph and disappointment, competition and camaraderie. I rise today to share the remarkable story of one particular athlete who will be competing this year. His story is one of inspiring triumph of character and spirit. But until just days ago, this Olympian had no flag to compete under. This story is about a talented young runner named Guor Marial whose mere survival in southern Sudan defied the odds. Having escaped the bloodshed and violence in war-torn Sudan, Guor found his way to my home State of New Hampshire as a teenage refugee. Who could have imagined that in just over a decade, Guor would be applying for U.S. citizenship and traveling to London to compete in the Olympic marathon? Guor was born in a town in what is now part of the fledgling country of South Sudan. Many of his family and friends, including his brother, were killed at the hands of Sudanese security forces. Many more died of starvation or disease brought on by the violence and unspeakable crimes committed by these Sudanese forces. Before escaping Sudan, Guor was a victim of violence on numerous occasions. As a child, he was kidnapped from his hometown and enslaved as a laborer before eventually finding a way to escape and return to his family. Guor was severely beaten by the Sudanese police and had to spend days in a hospital to recover. Finally, he was able to flee to neighboring Egypt and eventually to the peace and safety of New Hampshire as a refugee seeking asylum. Guor arrived in my home State of New Hampshire in 2001, almost exactly 11 years ago. He remembers that day well and still considers New Hampshire his home. He lived in Concord, the State capital, moving in with the families of his friends, teammates, and his cross-country coach for 2 years in order to graduate from high school. The contrast between Guor's former life and his new life is stark. In Sudan, he was running in fear for his life. In New Hampshire, he was running for the joy of athletic competition and to be part of a team. Amazingly, in only his second official marathon, Guor ran fast enough to qualify for the 2012 London Olympics. Given his unique situation, however, it looked as if the bureaucracy would triumph over his bravery and that Guor might not be able to compete because according to the rules of the International Olympic Committee, permanent residents of a country are not permitted to compete on that country's team. As a result, Guor can't compete under the American flag because he is not yet a full citizen. In addition, Guor can't run for the newly recognized country of South Sudan because it is such a new country, it doesn't yet have an official Olympic committee. The International Olympic Committee suggested that Guor compete as a member of the Sudanese team, and the Sudanese Government extended him an invitation. But Guor rightfully refused, explaining that running for Sudan ``would be a disappointment and an embarrassment to me and the people of South Sudan who died for freedom, including my brother.'' Guor was not comfortable running on behalf of the country that tortured and murdered so many of his family members. That solution would have been cruel and unacceptable. Fortunately, after some pressure by Refugees International and other friends of Guor who wrote to the International Olympic Committee on his behalf, we received the great news this week that the IOC executive board has decided to make an exception for Guor. He will run in the marathon as an independent Olympic athlete under the great Olympic flag. I want to thank the International Olympic Committee for this very appropriate ruling. In addition, I want to thank the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Department of State, and the other friends of Guor who worked so hard to make his participation possible. As he runs under that five-ringed flag, long a symbol of hope for peace in our world, Guor will run with the support of his family, his New Hampshire supporters, Americans everywhere, and his new country, South Sudan. I have a feeling that such support might help him run even faster. We are so proud of Guor in New Hampshire and proud that in the United States someone who has lived through such tragedy and adversity can start a new life and rise to such incredible heights. Scott Hamilton, an American Olympic gold medalist, once said, ``Most other competitions are individual competitions. But the Olympic games is something that belongs to everybody.'' No matter the outcome in London, the story of Guor Marial and the adversity he has overcome belongs to everyone. Win or lose, he will stand as a lasting inspiration for people around the globe and as a tribute to the greatness that is the United States of America. I look forward to welcoming Guor home from the Olympics as a winner, regardless of the outcome of the marathon. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues who have been to the Senate floor earlier this afternoon to emphasize the importance of getting the House to act to pass the Violence Against Women Act. We have passed a bipartisan reauthorization in the Senate and now it is time for the House to do the same. There are provisions in the Senate version of the bill that offer critical protections for survivors, Native Americans, immigrants, the LGBT community, and for students, young women on college campuses. It is that importance of protecting those victims on college campuses that I want to specifically address this afternoon. According to the Department of Justice, 25 percent of college women-- that is 1 in 4--will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within their 4-year college period. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reports that college-aged women are four times more likely than any other age group to face sexual assault. In addition, experts believe that rape and sexual assault are among the most underreported crimes, so that one in four could be even greater. In the Senate-passed legislation, the Leahy-Crapo bill, there are provisions to address the challenges that young women face on college campuses. The legislation we passed here in the Senate requires schools that receive VAWA funds to do the following: State the policies and procedures that are in place to protect victims and provide prevention education for all incoming students. Many young girls arrive on a college campus to live on their own for the very first time. They are struggling to orient themselves in a new environment, and this makes them vulnerable. They need to be given clear guidance about what to do in case they become victims. The legislation also requires institutions to implement a coordinated response both internal and external to the campus. This means that survivors are helped if they want to hold their attackers accountable, whether through a process that the university has set up or by bringing criminal charges and working with the police. This provision tells young women they are not alone; they are supported and their school will help them. The third part of the provision that is very important in the Senate- passed bill is that it would require schools to provide training on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking for campus law enforcement and to members of the campus judicial boards. Last week in New Hampshire my office spoke with Forrest Seymour, the sexual assault prevention coordinator at Keene State College, which is a small college with about 6,000 students in the western part of New Hampshire. Forrest said that all of these provisions in the Senate- passed bill are very important and necessary because universities need more guidance about how to best serve students who are victims of rape, dating violence, and stalking. This is especially important at small universities such as Keene where they have limited resources. Training for campus law enforcement is critical because they are the first responders. School administrators who serve on campus judicial boards also need special training because word spreads very fast on college campuses about whether survivors should feel comfortable going forward. These processes need to be handled with appropriate sensitivity, and the training that is required by the Senate Violence Against Women Act will help make sure these young women feel safe. The Senate-passed version of the bill will help young women like Harmony, who began her first year in college at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire in 2006. She was excited to be there. She made new friends, and she quickly became comfortable in her new surroundings. Unfortunately, one night someone she thought was a friend took advantage of that trust and sexually assaulted Harmony. Harmony was ashamed and confused. She felt violated. She began to question all of her new relationships. She was scared all of the time, and she was sure everyone could tell she was a victim, so Harmony didn't tell anyone. She didn't know where to turn. She was scared that she would not be believed, and she even considered dropping out of school. Fortunately, Harmony did finally reach out and found support. She graduated from Plymouth and now she works as a case manager for survivors of domestic violence in an emergency shelter helping other survivors through the most difficult periods in their lives. Harmony shares her story all over the country, encouraging victims to come forward, promising them they will be believed, they will be supported. If Harmony has the bravery and the courage to make these promises to survivors, so should we. We owe it to the young and vulnerable women on college campuses across this country to pass the Violence Against Women Act now. It is time for the House to act. The session is running out. We need to see this legislation reauthorized. We need to see the Senate version reauthorized so we can guarantee to young women such as Harmony across this country that they will get the support they need. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today the Senate is considering legislation to end tax breaks included in our own Internal Revenue Code that actually help companies that want to ship American jobs overseas. The Bring Jobs Home Act provides not only a tax credit to encourage companies to move jobs back to the United States, but it would end those tax breaks that help companies ship jobs overseas. Offshoring of American jobs has hurt the middle class and it continues to be a real problem. There is no good reason we should continue giving companies an incentive to offshore good American jobs. We can address high unemployment by encouraging companies to bring jobs back to the United States, and the tax credits in this bill will help to reverse the trend and put Americans back to work. In fact, this incentive could help bring 2 million to 3 million jobs back to the United States, according to some economic estimates. So I hope all of our colleagues will support this bill. I also wish to take a few minutes to talk about another way that I think we in the Senate and in Congress could work together in a bipartisan way to create jobs and help the economy. Today I filed an amendment, along with Senator Portman from Ohio, that provides us with a great opportunity to create jobs in America. This amendment is the text of S. 1000. It is the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Portman and myself that will create a national energy efficiency strategy for the United States. Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to improve our Nation's energy infrastructure and our economy's energy independence. It is also something we can all agree on. Whether we are from the Northeast, as I am in New Hampshire, from the South, from the West--all of us can benefit from energy efficiency. What our bill would do, which is the amendment we filed today, is create jobs for our workers, lower energy costs for consumers, and make businesses more competitive. In fact, a recent study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that our bill would create almost 80,000 jobs and save consumers $4 billion by 2020. Also, S. 1000 has broad support on both sides of the aisle. It passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with an 18-to- 3 vote. In addition, there is a large and diverse group of industry, energy efficiency, and environmental stakeholders who have endorsed the bill. That list includes the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, the National Resources Defense Council, Best Buy, and the Environmental Defense Fund just to name a few of the organizations on the list. Anytime we can get organizations as diverse as the ones I just listed to endorse one piece of legislation, it is clear there is broad bipartisan support for the effort. This legislation contains a broad package of low-cost and effective tools to reduce barriers for businesses, homeowners, and consumers who want to adopt off-the-shelf technologies, so we don't have to wait for something to happen in order for the bill to make a difference. These are all efforts that will help consumers, businesses, and homeowners save money. This is an easy first step to make our economy more competitive and our Nation more secure while still meeting pent-up demand for these energy-saving technologies from individuals and business alike. The American public is desperately looking for Congress to work in a bipartisan way on policies to spur growth and create jobs. Energy efficiency legislation represents our best chance to achieve both of those goals this year. We need to get some energy legislation to the floor. I have had the great opportunity to work for the last 4 years with Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Lisa Murkowski, the chair and ranking members of the Energy Committee. We have done some great work in our committee. We passed significant pieces of bipartisan legislation out of the committee. In fact, there are 15 pieces of legislation that have been passed and all but one of those with strong bipartisan votes. Those pieces of legislation are just sitting in committee because we have not been able to get an agreement to bring them to the floor. We can get an energy efficiency policy in place. We can pass this legislation. That kind of an energy efficiency policy would be one that enhances our national security, addresses our energy needs, and puts Americans back to work. We can do it in this Congress if we can bring the Shaheen-Portman energy bill to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what this amendment would do. I hope we have that opportunity. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here to be on the Senate floor to join my colleagues in support of the DISCLOSE Act. We need to bring some transparency to the secret money that is being spent on campaigns across this country. I ask unanimous consent for the following speakers to speak in the order that I am listing them: Senator Klobuchar, followed by Senator Menendez, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Levin, and then myself.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, since the Supreme Court's decision 2 years ago in Citizens United, we have seen a new system of campaign finance emerge. Without limits on donations or limits on spending by outside groups such as super PACs, we have been inundated with mostly political advertisements while candidates from both sides of the aisle struggle to raise more and more money just to keep up. Nearly $170 million has been spent so far in this election cycle by outside groups, and that does not include much the candidates themselves have spent. Just think what good we could do with that $170 million. The rising influence of donors and corporations is a problem. But the larger issue, and the one we are here to talk about--and I wish to recognize the leadership of Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who has done such a great job of raising the importance of this issue. The larger issue is the prevalence of secret money that is increasingly making its way into our campaigns. Millions of dollars of untraceable money have already been spent during this election. This spending is unacceptable because there is too much at stake in this election for Americans who are struggling. By that, I am not talking about the secret donors who can afford to spend millions of dollars on secret political ads. I am talking about middle-class families who are struggling with their mortgages, trying to pay for college, fighting to get their credit card payments mailed in on time. These are the Americans who need our attention. They deserve to know who paid for the most recent negative ad they see on their television. The truth is middle-class families will not be able to catch a break unless we start by reducing the influence of special interests, of big donors, and of corporate lobbyists, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why it deserves our support. We have heard Senator Levin speak very eloquently to the 501(c)(4) organizations, those organizations that are allowed to keep their donors secret. In many cases, they are actually allowed to deduct those contributions. Those secret donors can deduct those contributions from their taxes. It is hard to understand why they should be allowed to do that. It is not right. It is not fair. We need to change the system. Some have objected to requiring disclosure of donors because they say it undermines free speech. Let me address that. Because our democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas--and political speech should enjoy the highest level of protection--we should recognize that citizens always have the right to speak and be heard, especially on matters as important as who should represent them in Washington. That is not what the DISCLOSE Act is about. It is precisely because we need to make sure citizens stay involved in the political process that we need this reform, because freedom of speech does not mean freedom of secrecy. Anonymous political speech by these organizations has no place in our democracy. Accountability, transparency, and credibility must be preserved in our political system. When I talk to voters in New Hampshire these days, they are not optimistic about being heard in Washington. According to the Granite State Poll that is done by the University of New Hampshire, three- quarters of our New Hampshire adults think Members of Congress are more interested in serving special interest groups. One-quarter of New Hampshire adults think they have no influence at all on what the Federal Government does. People throughout New Hampshire and throughout this country do not believe their interests are being represented. What they do support is the kind of legislation we are talking about in the DISCLOSE Act. Three-quarters of New Hampshire adults strongly support a law that would require corporations, unions, and nonprofit groups to disclose their sources of spending when they participate in elections, and this support is not limited to New Hampshire. According to a Greenberg-Quinlan poll recently, 77 percent of voters nationwide, regardless of party, say reforming our campaign finance system is very important. I get a lot of cards and letters from people. Most of the people who write to me and write to all of us sign their names. Because they sign their names, we know who they are and we can respond. We can correct misunderstandings. We can engage in a discussion with them about policies before the Congress. The same should be true for political speech. Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote--and we put this on poster board because I thought it was so apropos to what we have been talking about with the DISCLOSE Act. He said: Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. It is important for donors to own their participation. That is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why we should all vote to support it. I can't finish my remarks without talking about a New Hampshire woman who really represents what we are talking about when we talk about participation in the political process. Her name was Doris Haddock, or Granny D, as we in New Hampshire knew her. Some people may remember that when she was 89 years old, she started walking across America to call attention to the importance of campaign finance reform. In the 14 months she took to walk across this country--and she turned 90 on the way--she traveled 3,200 miles, went through four pairs of sneakers, and everywhere she stopped, she talked about the importance of addressing campaign finance reform so that ordinary Americans could be heard. Well, Granny D died 2 years ago at the age of 100. She left behind 2 children, 8 grandchildren, and 16 great- grandchildren. She also left behind an incredible legacy that embodies the importance of what the first amendment was designed to protect and what it need not protect. We need to make sure people like Granny D can continue to be heard regardless of how much money they have. That is why we need the DISCLOSE Act. The first amendment doesn't protect the rights of shell corporations and dummy organizations to flood our airwaves with negative ads using money from anonymous donors. Let's take a lesson from Granny D and take a stand and pull back the curtain to see who is behind all of this secret money. The DISCLOSE Act will allow us to do that. That is why we should support its passage. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will decide they should join us. It is critical to our democratic process.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues, Senator Landrieu and Senator Casey, in talking about the importance of addressing some of the concerns that face small business. Senator Casey said something that I think is very important. He said, when he goes around Pennsylvania, one of the things he hears from his constituents is that they expect us to work together here in Washington, in the Senate, in Congress, to get things done for the people of this country. I hear that from my constituents. I am sure the Presiding Officer hears that from her constituents. People throughout the country expect us to work together, and they want to see us address the economic challenges we are facing in this country. Well, one of the best ways to address the fiscal issues we are facing is to be able to grow this economy. Nothing is more important to growing the economy, to creating jobs, than small businesses. Senator Casey talked about the recent report that came out from his congressional committee talking about the importance of small business. The fact is that over the last decade, businesses with fewer than 250 employees accounted for nearly 80 percent of all new hires. Economists tell us that about two-thirds of the jobs that are going to be needed to get us out of this recession are going to come from small businesses. In New Hampshire, small businesses are particularly important. We are a small business State. Over 95 percent of all New Hampshire companies have fewer than 500 employees. About 85 percent of New Hampshire companies have fewer than 20 employees. We have to look at how we can help those small businesses continue to grow. Yesterday afternoon, I met with a group of small business owners from New Hampshire. They were all owners of construction companies. The construction industry in New Hampshire has been one of those industries that has been hardest hit in our State, and these businesses still need help. These business owners need help if they are going to be able to keep their businesses prospering and create jobs. The legislation that is before us, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, will help these small businesses. The Landrieu amendment that I want to speak specifically to is critical as we look at how we can provide additional help to these small businesses. I want to talk specifically to two provisions that are in the Landrieu amendment, also known as the SUCCESS Act. The first one would deal with export issues. What I have learned, as I have been working with business and looking at how we can improve our economy and help create jobs, is that giving those small businesses access to international markets is critical. What we know is that about 95 percent of the markets are outside of the United States, and yet only 1 percent of our small and medium-sized businesses actually export. So what we have to do is help in every way we can through our policies to give them access to those international markets. Senator Ayotte and I both serve on the Small Business Committee. We represent New Hampshire. Last year we held a field hearing in New Hampshire, and we heard from small businesses in our State about what we can do here in Washington that might help them export. As a result of what we heard, we have introduced some stand-alone legislation. But provisions in that stand-alone legislation have been incorporated into the SUCCESS Act--the amendment that Senator Landrieu is going to be offering. Those provisions would help our small businesses. One, they would improve governmentwide export promotion. Right now we have a lot of independent silos, independent efforts that exist in different agencies to help small businesses with exporting. What we want to do is provide more coordination among those independent programs. It would also increase State events that are targeted to help small businesses export. Both provisions, as we heard from our small businesses in New Hampshire, are important to them, as they think about what they can do to improve their chances of exporting, getting into those international markets, and having the jobs that can be created as a result. So that is one of the provisions in the Landrieu amendment, the SUCCESS Act, that I think is very important. Senator Ayotte and I and our staffs have worked very hard on this. Another provision that again is from stand-alone legislation that was introduced by Senator Landrieu, Senator Snowe, Senator Isakson, and myself--so it is also bipartisan legislation--would extend the 504 refinancing program through the Small Business Administration. As I go around New Hampshire, I still hear the small businesses in my State saying that they are still having challenges accessing credit. Well, extending the 504 refinancing program is to me a no-brainer as we think about how we can give those small businesses access to credit. What these provisions would do is extend for a year and a half the ability for the Small Business Administration to continue refinancing short-term commercial real estate debt into long-term fixed-rate loans, again, through the existing 504 loan program--something that makes eminent sense, something that we ought to do. So those are two provisions I have worked on specifically with other Members of this body. They are provisions that are bipartisan. I think they have a lot of support. If we can get this amendment to the floor, I think there will be a lot of support for it. And it reflects all of the provisions of the SUCCESS Act that Senator Landrieu has been putting together. Again, I want to end with where I started; that is, the people of New Hampshire and the people of this country expect us to work together to address the issues facing the country. Nowhere is that more important than in what we need to do to help create jobs and helping small businesses have the support they need so they can create the jobs that are going to get us out of this recession. Providing long-term help to those people who are unemployed is absolutely critical. This legislation would help do that. I hope our colleagues, when it comes to the floor, will decide this is one more way we can help small businesses create jobs and grow this economy. I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership and Ranking Member Snowe on the Small Business Committee for her leadership and hope we can move this legislation forward this week.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I couldn't agree more. I thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Vermont for engaging in this colloquy to address the importance of allowing agricultural producers who own heavily forested tracts to access NRCS easement programs. This issue is of critical importance to farmers in New Hampshire, Michigan, and many other States. Multi-year Price Declines

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask permission to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from Michigan and Vermont, Senators Stabenow and Leahy. I wish to address a problem that affects many farmers and agricultural producers in States, including New Hampshire, with significant forest cover. Agricultural producers face tremendous development pressures as the value of land increases. As chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, I know Senator Stabenow has a great familiarity with this issue.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I agree that easement programs are an essential part of the effort to keep land available for agriculture. In New Hampshire, the Farmland Protection Program has provided a crucial backstop against development pressures, but the program has not been as effective as it can be. I know Senator Leahy helped to create the Farmland Protection Program when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee and his State has used this program very effectively.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Pennsylvania in supporting his amendment. This is the last opportunity for a bipartisan amendment to reform sugar subsidies that are costing consumers $3.5 million a year and losing 20,000 jobs a year in this country. This amendment maintains the current sugar program but rolls back the additional subsidies that were provided for sugar in the 2008 farm bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my friend for making that critical clarification. Agricultural producers in New Hampshire and many other States work primarily on small farms. They may actively use only a small number of their acres at any given time, and the rest of their parcels tend to be forested. We need to ensure that Federal programs are tailored to fit local conditions and doing away with restrictions on forested land is an important part of making NRCS easement programs as effective as they can be.