Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the efforts to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards or MATS. This far-reaching resolution would severely and permanently undermine EPA's authority to protect our Nation's air from harmful and dangerous pollutants. In New Hampshire, we have long enjoyed bipartisan cooperation when it comes to crafting policies that ensure clean air, a strong economy, and healthy citizens. We do have coal-fired powerplants in New Hampshire, but they have scrubbers on them to clean up the air. When I was Governor, we passed the pollutant bill to address mercury, and it passed with bipartisan support. Nobody appreciates our clean air more than a woman named Lia Houk, from Henniker, NH. She has lived with cystic fibrosis for the past 40 years. In order to breathe, she must use a nebulizer three times a day and has to exercise daily to clear her lungs. When pollution poisons the air, she suffers from chest tightness and lung hemorrhaging that can lead to hospitalization. Pollution also worsens the long-term effects of cystic fibrosis, such as lung scarring, and it causes her disease to progress more rapidly. To protect Lia and millions like her, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and it has long been one of our most successful public health and environmental laws. Yet despite the success of the Clean Air Act, we now face efforts to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic air pollutants. At issue are the new mercury and air toxics standards, which will require powerplants to control the pollution that affects Lia and others who suffer from respiratory problems. For the first time, the standards set Federal limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases that powerplants can release into our air. These standards will eliminate emissions of these poisonous chemicals from the powerplants by 90 percent by 2015. The new nationwide standards are based on widely available pollution control technologies that are already in place at powerplants across the country. They represent a realistic, achievable goal. Yet opponents of MATS argue the environmental regulations will hurt the economy. That is simply not true. These standards will benefit our health, our economy, and our environment. By removing the largest source of many of these toxins, the new standards will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year. America's children will be spared 120,000 asthma incidents and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. That is particularly important for us in the Northeast. The Presiding Officer, who is from Rhode Island, knows what this is because we are in the tailpipe of the Nation in New England in the Northeast. We get all the pollution coming out of the Midwest from those dirty powerplants. In New Hampshire, we have one of the highest children's asthma rates in the country because of that pollution. Far from being job killers, these regulations will mean new work for the innovative American companies that supply the equipment needed for plants to comply with the law. In fact, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found that enactment of these standards would create a net gain of 117,000 jobs. Of course, clean air is also vital to the tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which, in my State, is the second largest industry. All the beautiful sights of our State, from the White Mountains to the Great Bay, can only be enjoyed if our air is free of smog and clean to breathe. So as we consider whether to keep the Clean Air Act in place, we don't have to choose between helping people such as Lia or helping our economy. We can and we must do both. I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution that Senator Inhofe has offered and to continue to protect the health and welfare of our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in talking about why it is so important to pass this transportation bill. I thank Senator Whitehouse for organizing this effort. In New Hampshire, we understand what Senator Klobuchar was saying, that it is important to get this bill passed so we can get our construction season underway. We have a limited amount of time. In only 17 days, this Nation's surface transportation programs are going to shut down unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. In March, nearly three-quarters of this Senate voted to pass a bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that maintains current funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and in gas taxes. This legislation is important as we look at roads and bridges and mass transit that are going to have support. It is important as we look at the jobs in the construction industry and manufacturing businesses that depend on our transportation system. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion in highway spending, we support about 27,000 jobs. I was pleased last week to see an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House vote to reject policies that will cut spending on roads and public transit by one-third. If that had passed, an estimated 2,000 New Hampshire jobs would have been lost. I think that vote sends an important signal to members of the conference committee that there is a strong bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress to support funding for crucial investments in our transportation network. I call on the House to work with the Senate in a similar bipartisan manner, as we did in the Senate, to pass transportation policies that put Americans back to work and generate economic growth. We have seen it in New Hampshire, where we have 29 construction projects that are going to be on hold if we cannot get transportation legislation passed here. We have seen it with Interstate 93, one of our main corridors going up and down the middle of our State, which has been delayed because of the delay in passing this transportation bill. If we are unable to set aside election year amendments, unable to set aside this partisan politics and come together to do what is right for our country and our economy and pass a transportation bill, it will be putting this country in a very difficult situation. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the highway trust fund will run out of money next year--sometime in 2013. We are not exactly sure when. But that will mean funding to States will face drastic cuts without any reauthorization to shore up that revenue. And were the highway trust funds to run out of money, projects in this country would grind to a halt; it would decimate jobs in the construction industry. We cannot afford that. Investing in transportation creates jobs and creates the conditions for our small companies to succeed. It should not be an issue about politics or partisanship. I urge our colleagues on the House side-- because they are the ones holding this up--to come together and pass a transportation reauthorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Toomey to talk about what truly is an egregious oversight in the underlying farm bill we are considering. This morning, the Senate is going to have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would repeal the Sugar Program. As Senator Toomey has pointed out, I submitted several amendments. One would reform the Sugar Program. The one we are going to vote on this morning is the one to actually repeal the program. I, as does Senator Toomey, hope we will get a vote on both, but I certainly hope people will vote against the tabling motion to repeal the Sugar Program. The underlying farm bill we are considering reforms almost every farm program we have. Every farm group has had to sacrifice with this farm bill so we can reform these programs. Unfortunately, there is one glaring exception to these reforms; that is, the Sugar Program. We need to reform the sugar subsidy because it costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion each year in the form of higher prices. That is almost double the world average. We can see on this chart--which shows sugar prices over the last 30 years since 1981. This is the world price for sugar, and that is the U.S. price. We can see demonstrated very graphically--no pun intended--that we in America are paying almost twice what the world price is for sugar. It also costs us about 20,000 jobs every year. We are doing all this--we are affecting consumers and hundreds of thousands of jobs--to benefit fewer than 5,000 sugar growers. To benefit those 5,000, all of us are paying more, and we have been paying more, as this chart clearly indicates, for the last 30 years. How does the subsidy program work? Senator Toomey did a great job of explaining it, but it essentially manipulates the market. It controls how much sugar is grown in the United States. It restricts how much sugar comes into the United States from outside the country. It sets a floor on sugar prices by providing a government guarantee to sugar growers on what they are going to get paid, and it requires the government, in some cases--this is what is truly outrageous--it requires the government to buy sugar off the market and then sell it to ethanol plants at a loss to taxpayers. The proponents of this program say it doesn't cost us any money? What our amendment would do is phase out this outdated program over the course of a couple years. I wish to respond to some of the claims we have heard from those who support this Sugar Program. The first is that it doesn't cost taxpayers any money. That is if we ignore the fact that consumers are paying out of one pocket; they may not be paying as taxpayers in taxes, but they are paying out of the other pocket as consumers. But, in fact, that is not even accurate when it comes to taxpayer dollars. A recent study by Iowa State University showed that the program costs $3.5 billion a year to consumers in the form of higher prices, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates this program will cost taxpayers directly in the coming years. CBO has scored this amendment as saving millions of dollars for taxpayers in the next decade. So repealing the Sugar Program, according to CBO, will save millions for taxpayers in the next decade. Those who support the Sugar Program also claim prices just aren't that high and that consumers actually benefit from the sugar subsidy. That is absurd. We can see graphed out very clearly what consumers are paying. Consumer groups, such as the Consumer Federation and the National Consumers League, support our amendment because the sugar subsidy costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion a year. Subsidy supporters cite a study which was paid for by the sugar industry to support their data. That is not accurate. Using data from USDA shows a very different story, because for wholesale prices which represent two-thirds of the sugar bought by businesses in the United States, the effect of the Sugar Program is obvious, and it is hard to argue with this drastic difference as displayed on the chart. What we have is a hidden tax that is designed to benefit a small powerful interest group. Again, studies have found that consumers are paying a cost to the tune of $3.5 billion a year. The supporters of the sugar subsidy also say this program doesn't get in the way of job creation. This is an argument that just doesn't hold up when we look at the facts. Multiple studies have found we are sacrificing hundreds and thousands of jobs by keeping sugar prices high. In 2006, the Department of Commerce found that for every job protected in the sugar industry, three were lost in manufacturing. A recent study from Iowa State University found that we are sacrificing 20,000 new jobs created every year due to the sugar subsidy program. So we are losing 20,000 jobs every year because of the sugar subsidy. There is no evidence sugar reform is going to hurt job creation; in fact, it is going to help. We have a small business in New Hampshire, a family-run business called Granite State Candy. They have been doing very well. They would like to expand, but because of the high cost of sugar they are having trouble thinking about how they are going to pay for that. There is nothing more definitive than the illustration Senator Toomey showed earlier today and that I showed yesterday on the floor which is from a Canadian brochure designed to attract businesses in the confectionery industry to come to Canada. It points out how much less they are going to pay. Here it is. It points out how much less businesses are going to pay for sugar in Canada and how much more beneficial it would be for companies to do business in Canada rather than the United States. It says very clearly: Consider these hard facts: Sugar refiners import the vast majority of their raw materials at world prices. Canadian sugar users enjoy a significant advantage. The average price of refined sugar is usually 30 to 40 percent lower in Canada than in the United States. Most manufactured products containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA region. If one needs any other evidence, that is it. It is clear we are losing those jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against tabling this amendment today. This may be our only chance to reform the Sugar Program in this farm bill. Tabling this amendment would be a vote to support special interests, those fewer than 5,000 sugar growers, at the expense of over 600,000 employees in the food industry and millions of consumers. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow, who has done such a great job of chairing the Agriculture Committee. She and Ranking Member Roberts really have done amazing work to bring this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan, and it is legislation that makes some significant reforms in the farm programs we have had. In New Hampshire, many of the programs that are authorized in the farm bill are critical for our farmers and our rural communities, as well as for the protection of our natural resources. I hope we do have some agreement so that we will be able to actually have a full debate on this bill in the remainder of this week and in the upcoming week. As I said, this legislation makes much needed reforms to our farm programs, and it helps to reduce the deficit. For all of that terrific reform and the work that has been done, Senator Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts deserve real appreciation and thanks from this body. However, there is one glaring exception to the reforms that have been made in the bill; that is, the bill contains no reform to the Sugar Program. The sugar subsidies we provide to farmers in America are really unique because what the Federal Government does is to artificially restrict supply and provide a subsidy that keeps prices for sugar in the United States at nearly twice the world average. These are high prices that hurt consumers. They hurt businesses. In fact, a recent study found that the program costs Americans $3.5 billion a year. Let me explain how the subsidy works. First, the Federal Government sets a floor on sugar prices through guarantees. So they guarantee how much is going to be paid for the price of sugar. These price floors ensure that sugar growers and processors will always receive a minimum price for sugar regardless of what happens on the world market. But sugar prices have been far higher than the minimum price for years now, and that is thanks to some additional, very egregious government controls on sugar. Under the sugar subsidy program, the Federal Government tells sugar growers how much they can grow. These restrictions are called marketing allotments, and they limit how much sugar is available on the market and restrict the ability of buyers and sellers to trade sugar freely. So this is not a market enterprise when it comes to sugar in the United States, and no other U.S. crop is subject to these same kinds of government controls. As a result, in the United States we have severe supply shortages which keep sugar prices artificially high. The last component of the subsidy program for sugar is trade restrictions. The Federal Government severely restricts the amount of sugar companies can import into the United States. So only about 15 percent of sugar in the United States is imported at those lower world average prices. Again, no other crop is subject to the kinds of restrictions and price controls I have just described. The result is a subsidy that hurts hundreds of thousands of businesses and consumers and only benefits about 4,700 sugar growers. Unfortunately, the farm bill before the Senate, while it contains a lot of reforms, contains no reforms to this subsidy program. I have introduced several amendments, but the one we are going to be voting on tomorrow is one that would repeal the subsidy so that prices are determined by the market instead of government controls. For the past 1\1/2\ years, I have been working with our colleague, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, on bipartisan legislation--the SUGAR Act--which would phase out the Sugar Program over several years and eliminate government control of sugar prices. Unfortunately, Senator Kirk can't be here tomorrow for this vote because he is continuing his recovery, but I am pleased there is a bipartisan group of our colleagues who have joined in support of this sugar reform. In particular, Senators Lugar, McCain, Durbin, Toomey, Lautenberg, Coats, Portman, Feinstein, and my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, have all joined me in calling for elimination or significant reform of the Sugar Program. This is a big concern for us in New Hampshire and other States around the country that actually make candy or other products that rely on sugar. In New Hampshire, we are the American home of Lindt chocolates. We also have a number of other small candy companies. As this chart shows, American manufacturing companies such as Lindt pay almost twice the world average price for their sugar. In fact, prices have gone up considerably since Congress passed the last farm bill in 2008. We can see that this blue line at the bottom is the world price of raw sugar. This red line is the U.S. price of raw sugar. This green line at the top is the U.S. wholesale refined sugar price. So while we can see how much higher that raw sugar price is, we can also see what it does to the refined sugar price, and we can see how significantly it has increased since the last farm bill. Again, the sugar subsidy program is able to keep these prices so high because it distorts the market. In addition to the minimum prices guaranteed by the government, the Federal Government drastically restricts the supply of sugar in the United States, with only about 15 percent of sugar sold coming from abroad--thanks to those import restrictions. The government controls how much each individual sugar processor can sell, and that further restricts supply on the market. Again, the result of these government controls is to keep the artificially high prices for sugar that are reflected on this graph. These high sugar prices hurt job creation. According to the Department of Commerce, for every one job protected in the sugar industry through this program, we are sacrificing three jobs in American manufacturing. A recent study by an agricultural research firm called Promar suggests that the program--the sugar subsidy, that is-- costs 20,000 American jobs each year. In addition, a recent analysis that I referred to earlier found that the program also costs consumers $3.5 billion every year in the form of artificially high sugar prices. These really are pretty startling numbers, but I wish to talk about how this subsidy program affects just one of the small businesses in New Hampshire. We have a company called Granite State Candy Shoppe. It is a small family-owned candy manufacturing company in Concord, NH, the capital of New Hampshire. Sugar is that company's most important ingredient. Jeff Bart, who is the owner, tells me that the artificially high cost of sugar has forced the company to raise prices on their goods but, more importantly, the subsidy has also prevented the company from hiring new workers as quickly as it would like to. So while Granite State Candy Shoppe would like to grow and expand, the sugar subsidy is really slowing down that expansion because of the high price of sugar. Granite State Candy Shoppe is just one of many companies that want to grow but are forced to slow down their expansion due to an outdated, unnecessary government program that benefits relatively few sugar cane and sugar beet growers nationwide. High sugar prices also put American companies at a competitive disadvantage with foreign manufacturers. Since foreign companies can get sugar so much cheaper, it is tempting for American companies to look elsewhere to manufacture their candy. In fact, low sugar prices are a major selling point for foreign governments encouraging candy companies to relocate. We just copied this cover of a brochure from Canada. It says: Canada--North America's Location of Choice for Confectionary Manufacturers. Consider these hard facts. Sugar refiners import the vast majority of their raw materials at world prices. Canadian sugar users enjoy a significant advantage--the average price of refined sugar is usually 30 to 40 percent lower in Canada than in the United States. Most manufactured products containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA region. So we are losing these jobs to Canada and to other places-- 20,000 jobs a year--in businesses that need sugar as a major ingredient. This outdated program puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage, and it should go. That is why I hope our colleagues, as they are considering this amendment tomorrow morning to repeal the Sugar Program, will decide to support it. I hope we will not have opposition to voting on the amendment from any of our colleagues in the Senate. We have had consumer and business groups calling for the repeal of the Sugar Program for years now. The Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League have joined business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers in support of this amendment. These groups support reforming this program because they recognize that these special interests are hurting consumers and they are hurting American businesses. So I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment tomorrow. Help us grow small businesses and create those American jobs. Let's reform the Sugar Program. It is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, actually, I am not here to play the blame game. I am here to talk about a place where we in the Senate have found real bipartisan consensus. It is an issue that is critical to us in the State of New Hampshire and to all the Senators because, in 23 days, our country's surface transportation programs are going to shut down unless Congress can come to an agreement on critical legislation. Nearly 3 months ago, 74 Senators voted to pass a measure that would reauthorize these programs through the end of fiscal year 2013, providing much needed certainty to our States and to private industry. In this Chamber, Senators from vastly different ideologies were able to lay aside those differences and come up with bipartisan ways to pay for this bill, to streamline Federal programs, and to make our transportation investments more efficient, so we spend less on overhead, more on roads and bridges and other transportation projects. This process was not easy, as everyone remembers. It required compromise from both sides to ensure that we could put together legislation that would bring America's transportation policies into the 21st century. But if Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Barbara Boxer, the chair of that committee, can come together and figure out how to put together a transportation bill, there is no reason why our adjoining body over in the House cannot do the same thing. I have been very disturbed by recent news that the House is less interested in finishing this bill than in approving a host of unrelated policies. There is a time and a place for us to consider whether some of the amendments that have been proposed on the Transportation bill in the House, such as whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous material, but the Transportation bill is not one of those places. We need to focus on policies that will encourage the types of investment in our highways, in our railroads, in our bridges that put Americans back to work and spur economic growth. We just heard the unemployment rate went up slightly for the last month. We have legislation pending that came out of the Senate that would put people back to work. Every billion dollars we spend in transportation funding puts 28,000 people to work, and we have the House fiddling while construction workers all over this country are out of work. The conference committee needs to focus on transportation policies that will reduce congestion, that will create jobs, and that unleash economic development. We have a project similar to that in New Hampshire. It is one of our most important roads. It is the corridor that goes from our largest city of Manchester down to the border with Massachusetts. It has too much traffic on it today. It is a safety concern. We need to finish this road. We are being held up from doing that because of the failure of the House to be willing to go along with what the Senate did and reach agreement. Our Department of Transportation in New Hampshire has said that work on just a single portion of this highway, Interstate 93, will put to work 369 people in the construction industry, which is still struggling. That is the industry in this country that still has the biggest impact from this recession. Last year in Nashua and Portsmouth, NH, construction employment declined by 7 percent. Job creation in that industry remains stagnant in New Hampshire and nationwide and we need this legislation to get these folks back to work. It is not only construction jobs that depend on Federal investments in transportation; it is our economy as a whole. The deteriorating condition of America's infrastructure, its roads, its railroads, its bridges, costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity, and this is a bill that a broad coalition of people are behind. Both the AFL CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that we need transportation legislation. Despite the importance of this spending to American workers and businesses today, the House plans to vote on a motion to cut Federal transportation investment by one-third. The Federal Highway Administration found that cutting funding so severely would put 2,000 people in New Hampshire alone out of work, one-half million people in the country out of work. This is a time when we should be creating jobs, not destroying them. Cutting funding at this time would be so shortsighted. Brazil, China, and India are all spending about 9 percent of their GDP per year on infrastructure, roads, bridges, public transportation. What we are spending in the United States is roughly 2 percent. That is half of what we were spending in the 1960s when there was real bipartisan support for policies from both President Kennedy and President Dwight Eisenhower to invest in projects such as our Interstate Highway System. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that investment in our Interstate Highway System was one of the best decisions in our Nation's history. Members of both parties need to come together as we have for decades and focus on reasonable bipartisan policies that will end the uncertainty that States and private industry are facing when it comes to our transportation legislation. On June 30, it will have been 1,000 days since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. Congress needs to come together now and pass a transportation reauthorization bill before we get to the end of those 1,000 days. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my dear friend, Harvey L. Schwartz, who passed away on April 13 at his home in Harrisville, NH. While I was not able to attend Harvey's memorial service on May 20, I did send a remembrance to be read, and wanted to share these thoughts with my colleagues on a truly remarkable man. Harvey was born in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression into a family of modest means living in Brooklyn, NY. He graduated from Brooklyn College and then Columbia Law School. Harvey's career began at Time, Inc., where he was groomed for leadership in the company's executive training program. Later, he answered his country's call, serving with the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps in Japan during the Korean War and then in these very halls as an aide to Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky. He went on to have an impressive career in international business with a focus on Latin America. It was experience that, Harvey would readily admit, greatly expanded his worldview. Harvey and his wife, Nell, moved to New Hampshire in 1987. Fortunately for my fellow Granite Staters and me, they put down lasting roots in our State. During his later years in New Hampshire, Harvey called upon his years of experience in the public and private sectors at home and abroad, to find common ground and to unite when too often there were calls to divide. Harvey was a proud Republican, but he was also a consensus builder and a problem solver. I think my colleagues would agree that we could use more people like Harvey Schwartz today. I ask unanimous consent that my May 20 remembrance be printed in the Record. The material follows. I was very sad to hear the news of Harvey's passing, but I understand he had requested this event be a celebration of his life, so I will keep this reflection upbeat. We were all extremely fortunate when, in 1987, Harvey and his beloved Nell chose to settle down in the lovely and historic town of Harrisville. From then on, Harvey had a great impact on New Hampshire. I first became aware of Harvey's impact on the state through the critical role he played in helping block the proposed Route 101 bypass through Harrisville. That was an impressive feat and one that would most likely have failed were it not for Harvey's involvement. Community leaders, business leaders, political leaders of every stripe listened to Harvey. I was especially hopeful they would listen to him when, to my surprise, he supported my run for governor! Though Harvey was a staunch Republican, his spirit of bipartisanship was strong, and one that I admired a great deal. While I was Governor, we held an Executive Council Meeting in Harrisville. It was a proud day for Harrisville, and therefore, a proud day for Harvey. Unfortunately, while we were there, a rather challenging issue facing our state government required immediate consideration. Harvey, as creative and giving as always, offered up his beautiful home with its breathtaking view of Mount Monadnock for a private emergency meeting. Once again, Harvey was finding solutions for his state. Harvey's enthusiasm for public service and his community were evident to all who knew him. Over the years, we worked closely on the issues that matter for New Hampshire, particularly how we provide economic opportunities for all of our citizens, especially our state's young people. In fact, right until his passing, Harvey served as director of the High Bridge Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to providing high school students in New Hampshire with the tools necessary to thrive in a changing economy. He was doing his part to prepare the next generation of Granite Staters. Harvey was a great consensus builder. At a time when too many focus on what divides, Harvey worked to unite. Harvey, you will be missed, but your legacy will be honored and remembered for generations to come because of your hard work and your dedication to New Hampshire. And for that, we all thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join our colleague and leader on so many issues that affect women and families, Senator Mikulski. I am here today to join her and our other colleagues who will be coming to the floor to talk about something that is a real matter of fundamental importance for our country. Workers should have equal access to every opportunity that will help them put food on the table, send their children to school, and save for retirement. Unfortunately, here we are in 2012 and still millions of American women lose nearly a quarter of their potential earnings to pay discrimination. Almost 50 years after the landmark Equal Pay Act banned wage discrimination based on gender, women in our country continue to be paid just over three-quarters of what their male counterparts receive for performing the exact same work. Every day this wage gap exists is a further injustice to current workers, such as my daughters, and to future members of the workforce, such as my granddaughters and so many other granddaughters of Members of this body. Pay discrimination does not just hurt the employee, it endangers the families who depend on these women. One in three working moms is her family's only source of income. With the money that mother loses to pay discrimination every year, she could be paying housing and utility costs on her home or she could be feeding her family, with money to spare. Back in the early 1980s, I chaired a task force for New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Women looking at women and employment. What we found was discrimination in a whole range of areas, including, of course, pay discrimination. The conclusion of the report was that kind of discrimination against women does not just hurt women who are affected, it hurts their families, their children, their husbands, and it has a ripple effect throughout our economy. As Governor, I signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay discrimination in New Hampshire and to require equal pay for equal work. In the year before that law was signed, women in New Hampshire made 69 percent of their male colleagues' wages. Today they make 78 percent. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, women made less than 60 cents for each $1 earned by men. Today we make 77 cents. So we have made some progress, but clearly we still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do. I recently heard from a woman named Marie in New Boston, NH, about her experience with pay discrimination. She wrote: I worked for many years in a male-dominated company where the fresh-out-of-college boys were paid substantially more than I was for the same position. She continued to recount that she actually trained these same men to do their jobs, and yet she still was not paid at the same rate. Since the Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963, the gender gap impacting wages has only narrowed by an average of half a cent per year. So at this rate, it is going to take another 45 years for that gap to close entirely. The Paycheck Fairness Act would make commonsense updates to the law by requiring pay differences to be based on legitimate business reasons. It would also protect women whose employers try to shirk their responsibilities by prohibiting employees from discussing their salaries. Finally, this important legislation would create a program to strengthen women and girls' negotiation skills so they can seek directly the pay they deserve. It is long past time for us to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan. It is good for women and their families, and it is good for the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that I could be here today to join you, to join Senator Whitehouse and our colleagues who have been working to try to bring to light for the public the serious and ongoing problem of excessive campaign spending. I congratulate Senator Whitehouse for all of his work in leading this effort. It has been very important. This excessive spending has been a problem for the last 2 years, since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, because their decision has allowed for the formation of what has been called super PACs, which are really organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of money without ever having to disclose where that money came from. So the public doesn't know who is spending the money, doesn't know how the decisions about spending are made. We are actually in the middle of the first Presidential election since that Supreme Court decision, and we can see the dramatic impact of that spending. There are now more than 500 super PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission. They are permitted to raise and spend unlimited amounts of secret money to fund political advertisements. Again, I want to emphasize the fact that we do not know where this money is coming from. We do not know if it is coming from corporations. We have heard a lot of stories and seen a lot of stories that there are very wealthy individuals who are putting up money for these super PACs. But the amount of money that has been spent by these super PACs so far this election cycle alone has just topped $100 million. Nearly $80 million of that came from just five groups. As we are looking at this money being spent, it is important for all of us to reflect on our national priorities. What does it say about our country that we allow this kind of deluge of money to flood our electoral process? Who is really being represented? Are average voters in America being represented in this process? To provide some perspective, I think it might be useful to examine what else this amount of money could pay for. In the past few weeks we have been discussing the importance of providing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault with the resources they need by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. What has already been spent so far by these super PACs, $100 million, could fund all of the domestic violence and sexual assault assistance in the State of New Hampshire for 20 years. It could serve more than 320,000 victims. The New Hampshire job training program provides workers with valuable instruction at community colleges across our State. It prepares workers for high-skilled jobs and creates a stronger economy. With the $100 million that has been spent by these super PACs, we could train 288,434 workers in New Hampshire. Mr. President, $100 million would provide low-income heating assistance to more than 135,000 households. That is enough to keep New Hampshire's neediest families warm for three winters. The starting salary for a police officer in the city of Manchester, the largest city in New Hampshire, is $50,000. With $100 million we could put an additional 2,000 police officers on the street. Instead, this money is being spent on political advertisements, millions of dollars from groups that refuse to disclose their donors. Most of these expenditures are being made on attack ads. According to a study by the Wesleyan Media Project, at this point during the last Presidential campaign in 2008, just 10 percent of the ads were negative. Now, in this Presidential campaign, 70 percent of those ads are negative. It is no wonder that Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with our political process. The challenges confronting this country are significant. We need Americans to be engaged and invested in our political process, not throwing up their hands in frustration as the attack ads pile up. We need campaign finance reform. I have been pleased to work with the Presiding Officer, with Senator Whitehouse, and with all of our colleagues in developing the DISCLOSE Act, which makes some important changes to our system. Senator Whitehouse described the DISCLOSE Act very well. It will make sure voters know who is paying for all of these campaign ads. It does not eliminate super PACs, but it is a very important step in the right direction. I urge all our colleagues to join us in calling for change and urging reform of our campaign finance system. I urge everyone in this body to support the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this week we celebrate National Small Business Week. Small businesses are so important to job creation in this country. So much of the innovation that takes place in this country happens as the result of the work of small businesses. Two- thirds of the jobs we expect to be created to lead us out of the recession and through this recovery are going to be created by small businesses. It is important that in this Chamber we do everything we can to support small businesses. I am pleased that I have been able to be a member of the Small Business Committee. I applaud the leadership of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe, the chair and ranking member, for all of the good work they have done for small business. I can tell you from my own personal experience just how important small businesses are. My husband and I started our married life and for 8 years ran a family business. It put us both through graduate school and gave us a downpayment on a house. It employed a number of young people for 8 years. It taught me a lot about meeting a payroll and making sure we could take care of our employees, help make sure they had good jobs. So I have had that personal experience to make me understand just how critical small businesses are to our economy. I am here on the floor also to talk about bipartisan legislation that my colleague from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, and I are introducing today to boost small business exporting. Just as small businesses are the backbone of so much of this country's economy, they are clearly the backbone of New Hampshire's economy. It should come as no surprise to all of our constituents in New Hampshire that both Senator Ayotte and I serve on the Small Business Committee because we know how important those businesses are to our State. We both recognize how critical it is for us as a delegation to work across the aisle and across Chambers when possible to help the small businesses in New Hampshire provide the good jobs the residents of New Hampshire need. So I am glad Senator Ayotte and I are working together to introduce legislation to help remove barriers to exporting for small businesses in New Hampshire and across the United States. The bill we are introducing today, the Small Business Export Growth Act, is the result of a Small Business Committee field hearing that we hosted together in Manchester, NH, last August. We held that hearing because we recognized that exports offer a tremendous opportunity for small businesses. Unfortunately, for so many small businesses, those foreign markets have remained an untapped resource for most of them. Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of our small businesses export. That is a particularly shocking number when we compare to it large businesses because over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas. So we have to do more to help our small businesses get into those international markets. At our field hearing we heard about some of the barriers our small businesses face when they try to go global. Our legislation is an attempt to remove some of those barriers so that small businesses can access new sources of revenue and create jobs. One of the problems we heard about is that navigating the Federal bureaucracy can be a special challenge for small businesses that wish to export. I know the Presiding Officer and I can both appreciate that because we know how hard it is for us to navigate the Federal bureaucracy. Senator Ayotte and I heard from two such New Hampshire companies that rely on State and Federal offices to help them export. I want to talk about one of those companies specifically. It is a company that is called Secure Care. Secure Care has developed a technology that protects Alzheimer's patients who may wander away from their home or their place of residence. It also protects newborns who are still in the maternity ward. Grace Preston, who is the international sales manager for Secure Care, told us that the company has significantly expanded its growth by selling overseas. Grace also told us that Secure Care could not have done that without Federal and State export programs working together. In New Hampshire, we are very fortunate because our State and Federal export services work seamlessly, and that has been important in helping our businesses grow their exports. In 2010 New Hampshire's exports grew about 40 percent. That was almost twice the national average and the most of any State in the country. So it has been very critical to our small businesses. But we also heard that State and Federal agencies don't always have that same collaborative relationship in other places across the country. According to our former New Hampshire trade director, Dawn Wivell, these services sometimes, in some places, can overlap or, even worse, sometimes there are agencies that refuse to work together. Our bill attempts to require better coordination to make more successes like Secure Care a reality across the country. Our bill also encourages the Federal Government to do more to promote the opportunity of exporting and to get the word out about Federal export programs. Foreign markets can be daunting for small businesses, but that should not stop our innovators from trying to compete. Our small businesses must be assured that the Federal Government will help them when considering exporting. Part of our responsibility is to try to do everything we can to put into place policies that help small businesses when they want to try to export. I thank Senator Ayotte for her cooperation and for the work we have done together. I thank both Senator Ayotte and her staff, along with mine, for working on this issue. I look forward to advancing this legislation in the Senate and to continue to recognize the important role that small business plays in our economy.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this week we celebrate National Small Business Week. Small businesses are so important to job creation in this country. So much of the innovation that takes place in this country happens as the result of the work of small businesses. Two- thirds of the jobs we expect to be created to lead us out of the recession and through this recovery are going to be created by small businesses. It is important that in this Chamber we do everything we can to support small businesses. I am pleased that I have been able to be a member of the Small Business Committee. I applaud the leadership of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe, the chair and ranking member, for all of the good work they have done for small business. I can tell you from my own personal experience just how important small businesses are. My husband and I started our married life and for 8 years ran a family business. It put us both through graduate school and gave us a downpayment on a house. It employed a number of young people for 8 years. It taught me a lot about meeting a payroll and making sure we could take care of our employees, help make sure they had good jobs. So I have had that personal experience to make me understand just how critical small businesses are to our economy. I am here on the floor also to talk about bipartisan legislation that my colleague from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, and I are introducing today to boost small business exporting. Just as small businesses are the backbone of so much of this country's economy, they are clearly the backbone of New Hampshire's economy. It should come as no surprise to all of our constituents in New Hampshire that both Senator Ayotte and I serve on the Small Business Committee because we know how important those businesses are to our State. We both recognize how critical it is for us as a delegation to work across the aisle and across Chambers when possible to help the small businesses in New Hampshire provide the good jobs the residents of New Hampshire need. So I am glad Senator Ayotte and I are working together to introduce legislation to help remove barriers to exporting for small businesses in New Hampshire and across the United States. The bill we are introducing today, the Small Business Export Growth Act, is the result of a Small Business Committee field hearing that we hosted together in Manchester, NH, last August. We held that hearing because we recognized that exports offer a tremendous opportunity for small businesses. Unfortunately, for so many small businesses, those foreign markets have remained an untapped resource for most of them. Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of our small businesses export. That is a particularly shocking number when we compare to it large businesses because over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas. So we have to do more to help our small businesses get into those international markets. At our field hearing we heard about some of the barriers our small businesses face when they try to go global. Our legislation is an attempt to remove some of those barriers so that small businesses can access new sources of revenue and create jobs. One of the problems we heard about is that navigating the Federal bureaucracy can be a special challenge for small businesses that wish to export. I know the Presiding Officer and I can both appreciate that because we know how hard it is for us to navigate the Federal bureaucracy. Senator Ayotte and I heard from two such New Hampshire companies that rely on State and Federal offices to help them export. I want to talk about one of those companies specifically. It is a company that is called Secure Care. Secure Care has developed a technology that protects Alzheimer's patients who may wander away from their home or their place of residence. It also protects newborns who are still in the maternity ward. Grace Preston, who is the international sales manager for Secure Care, told us that the company has significantly expanded its growth by selling overseas. Grace also told us that Secure Care could not have done that without Federal and State export programs working together. In New Hampshire, we are very fortunate because our State and Federal export services work seamlessly, and that has been important in helping our businesses grow their exports. In 2010 New Hampshire's exports grew about 40 percent. That was almost twice the national average and the most of any State in the country. So it has been very critical to our small businesses. But we also heard that State and Federal agencies don't always have that same collaborative relationship in other places across the country. According to our former New Hampshire trade director, Dawn Wivell, these services sometimes, in some places, can overlap or, even worse, sometimes there are agencies that refuse to work together. Our bill attempts to require better coordination to make more successes like Secure Care a reality across the country. Our bill also encourages the Federal Government to do more to promote the opportunity of exporting and to get the word out about Federal export programs. Foreign markets can be daunting for small businesses, but that should not stop our innovators from trying to compete. Our small businesses must be assured that the Federal Government will help them when considering exporting. Part of our responsibility is to try to do everything we can to put into place policies that help small businesses when they want to try to export. I thank Senator Ayotte for her cooperation and for the work we have done together. I thank both Senator Ayotte and her staff, along with mine, for working on this issue. I look forward to advancing this legislation in the Senate and to continue to recognize the important role that small business plays in our economy.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I applaud my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for the work he has done on the FDA legislation--as he pointed out, the good work that has been done by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get to this bill, to move it forward and to have a responsible and reasonable amendment process. So I hope we can move it forward this week and actually see its passage on the floor because it is so important to so many people who are dependent on what the Food and Drug Administration does in this country. (The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen pertaining to the introduction of S. 3218 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Many crisis centers that receive grants from VAWA do use their general funds to assist women with transportation costs who could not otherwise afford them. I believe that is a use of funds consistent with the intent of Congress to expand services to all women and families who are victims of domestic violence. Do you agree?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. You know well the issues facing rural communities in Vermont, as I do in New Hampshire. Domestic violence occurs as frequently in rural areas as it does in cities, and many women in rural settings do not have access to a car or public transportation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask permission to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. I would like to address a problem that affects many women who are victims of domestic violence. We have addressed a variety of important concerns with the Senate's recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act, and I hope the House will promptly pass that important, bipartisan bill. A major barrier for women seeking services in New Hampshire and across the country is lack of transportation. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, you may have encountered this issue also.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Senator from Vermont for engaging in this colloquy to address the importance of providing transportation services to women and families in need. I thank him, too, for his leadership on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It has helped so many women over the years, and I know it will continue to save the lives of women in New Hampshire and across the county.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is a real problem. Many women initially rely on the police or an ambulance to remove them from unsafe situations, but their problems continue once they reach a shelter or crisis center. They have no way to get to court for hearings related to protective orders, child custody and divorce. One of the directors of the crisis center in Berlin in the North Country of New Hampshire spends at least 25 percent of her time taking women to and from court. Due to recent State budget cuts, the closest courthouse is 45 minutes away. That is a significant investment of time and money.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I also appreciate the bill's new language emphasizing the importance of providing services to women in rural or geographically isolated areas. Identifying this particularly vulnerable population will be helpful for those centers which focus services on women and families in these isolated areas. I believe this provision makes clear the intent of Congress to supplement the costs of reaching these women and bringing them to safety.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. And I thank the Senator for including language in the reauthorization of VAWA recently passed by the Senate that further clarifies that transportation services are an acceptable use of VAWA funds. The bill adds language in the new victim services definition in section 3 to include ``other related supportive services'' and in section 102(a) adds ``other victim services'' to the victim services purpose area in the grants to encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders. Both of these changes would provide even more ability than under current law for VAWA grants to cover crucial transportation services.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Yes, that is exactly right. The Violence Against Women Act provides support for important services like medical treatment, counseling, shelter, and legal assistance to seek protective orders. Clearly women need to be able to get to these centers in order to take advantage of these important resources.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. It does. When you are a woman in a violent situation, not having access to transportation is more than an inconvenience, it can be life threatening. One woman in Atkinson, NH, called the local crisis center for transportation because her husband would not let her have access to the car keys and controlled the family's finances entirely. She was simply trapped.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleague, Senator Menendez, and I think some of our other colleagues who will be here soon, to reaffirm our commitment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. That act recently passed out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote that recognizes our bipartisan commitment to end domestic and sexual abuse, stalking, and dating violence. The House of Representatives will soon be taking a vote on their proposed counterpart to the Violence Against Women Act, and I want to address some of the concerns I have with the bill that is on the floor in the House. What we have seen in this country is that domestic violence has a significant impact on families, on victims. It comprises the very stability of our towns and communities. The Violence Against Women Act provides essential resources for victims and for law enforcement. I was pleased to see so many of us in the Senate put politics aside and support this important reauthorization. Unfortunately, the House version of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act does not provide the same level of protection for victims, and it does not include some resources that have specifically been requested by law enforcement. In the House bill protections are diminished for college students, for lesbian, gay, and transgender victims, for immigrants, and for Native Americans. The Senate bill strengthens the Violence Against Women Act to provide more protections to more women and their families. The House bill weakens the law by failing to state that same-sex couples will have equal access to services, by decreasing protections for immigrant victims, and by declining to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts. One example of some of the changes in the House bill, where I think it fails, is around protections the Senate bill provides to women students on college campuses. The Senate bill provides strong protections that have been omitted in the House bill. The Senate bill includes a provision requiring a university to implement prevention programs, teaching all students, male and female, how to help prevent sexual violence and dating violence, including bystander education. The Senate bill also requires a university to make reasonable accommodations for students who need to change their living, working, or academic situation as a result of being victimized. For example, if a young woman is the victim of an assault and her attacker lives in her dorm, what the Senate bill would do is require the university to help that young woman find another place to live. Unfortunately, these kinds of protections are not included in the House bill. The Department of Justice recently estimated that 25 percent of college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a 4-year college period, and women between the ages of 16 to 24 will experience rape at a rate that is four times higher than the assault rate for all women. There is no doubt this is a serious problem. The safeguards we implemented in the Senate bill must be preserved if we are to provide the protections that young women and men in college deserve. When we were working on our reauthorization in the Senate, I had a chance to meet with case workers at crisis centers and with some of the victims of domestic violence in New Hampshire. I heard from one woman who said if it had not been for that 24-hour hotline and her caseworker at the Bridges Crisis Center in Nashua, she would never have been able to leave her abuser. She was finally able to stand up for herself and end the terrible cycle of abuse because of the Violence Against Women Act. All victims should have equal access to these important resources, and it is imperative this bill provide that. So I urge my colleagues in the House to insist on these essential components so we can move forward on this reauthorization and we can protect all of the victims of domestic violence. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, with summer approaching, the travel season will soon be in full swing, and this week we celebrate National Travel and Tourism Week. It is a time to call attention to the importance that travel and tourism play in our national economy and in the creation of jobs. I know the Presiding Officer understands this issue very clearly because, for his State of Alaska, like the State of New Hampshire, travel and tourism is a very important industry. The fact is that the travel and tourism industry is one of the top 10 industries in 48 States, and it supports over 14 million American jobs. In New Hampshire, travel and tourism is our second largest industry, and it supports over 60,000 jobs in New Hampshire. The Travel Promotion Act, which Congress passed in 2010, and of which I was very proud to be one of the cosponsors, will help the United States compete for foreign travelers. This year we will begin to see the impact of this landmark legislation. For most of our history, the United States has been one of a very few developed countries that did not advertise overseas. The Travel Promotion Act changes all of that because it created what is called Brand USA. It is a low-cost public-private partnership, and Brand USA has just started rolling out an advertising campaign for America. Brand USA is going to leverage millions of dollars in contributions to the private sector to help encourage more foreign travelers to bring their dollars to the United States. This is important because what we have learned in New Hampshire is that overseas visitors tend to stay longer when they get to America and they tend to spend more money. For the first time we are going to be advertising overseas to attract visitors to come to the United States. But there is even more we can and should do working together to support the travel sector. Traveling and tourism rely on a good infrastructure, on keeping our highways, our bridges, and our airports running. That is essential for the travel industry to grow. That is why it was so important that this year--after many years of trying--we finally reauthorized the FAA, and with that legislation are putting in place a new NextGen system of air traffic control that is going to allow our airplanes to get from point to point faster and more efficiently. That is why it is so critical that we pass the highway bill that is pending in Congress, which is at a committee of conference. We passed that bill in the Senate on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and now we need to get this bill out of the Congress. We also need to look at ways to improve our visa system so we can make it easier for foreign travelers to come to the United States. We need to pass legislation--and there are several bills that have been introduced--that will help us clear the backlog of visa applications so we can make sure those travelers who want to come to the United States are going to be able to do so, again bearing in mind that those overseas visitors tend to stay longer and spend more money. I want to conclude by highlighting what is an exciting new campaign in New Hampshire to help build New Hampshire's reputation as a world- class travel destination with something to offer for everyone. I know a lot of people have been to New Hampshire every 4 years as part of our Presidential primary. A lot of people are familiar with our State's slogan, ``Live Free or Die.'' This slogan actually captures what was uttered by GEN John Stark, who was a Revolutionary War general talking about the British during the Revolution. A few days ago our State Division of Travel and Tourism Development launched a new campaign to promote New Hampshire to show the world what we have to offer as a unique travel destination, and that campaign very cleverly plays on our famous State slogan. We can see in this advertisement ``Live Free and Explore.'' It is one of our beautiful lakes. We can see the family out canoeing. We also have another one, ``Live Free and Reconnect.'' Here is a family out hiking. We can see some of our mountains in the background. They are not quite as high as the mountains in Alaska, but we think they are a great place for families to come and explore. Hikers can enjoy and reconnect and relax. This one is ``Live Free and Discover.'' Again, kids getting ready to jump into one of our lakes. We can see the wilderness in the background. This is another great example of one of the opportunities New Hampshire has to enjoy our beautiful State. We are very proud of what New Hampshire has to offer. We have a new logo that shows how you can visit our travel and tourism site on the Web and see what New Hampshire has to offer. We hope all of those who come to experience our Presidential primary will come back every 4 years and maybe in the meantime look at what we have to offer for enjoying the natural beauty and activities of the State. We would like that, but I understand that all of us here in Washington have very busy schedules and sometimes finding time to travel is difficult. Fortunately, soon we are going to have a great opportunity for everyone on the Hill to experience what New Hampshire has to offer without even leaving the building. On June 6, the New Hampshire State Society and our office are going to be hosting a reception called ``Experience New Hampshire.'' It is a great opportunity to experience New Hampshire's signature hospitality, our history, our culture, and our scenic beauty. I invite all of my colleagues to enjoy New Hampshire beverages, to taste some of the menus from our historic grand homes, our charming inns, and to come and celebrate with us. As we celebrate travel and tourism this week, I hope all of us will take a few minutes to reflect on the importance of this industry to our State and local economies and to the country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.