Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I will yield.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Connecticut and from New York and others who have been on the floor today to talk about the importance of addressing the--of avoiding, I guess I should say, the potential for the student loan interest rates to rise at the end of June. The fact is that the U.S. workforce needs to have the skills to compete in the global economy, and that means making sure college is affordable because so many of the new jobs that are being created require higher education. The reality is that students today face ever-growing tuition rates, and student loans are a critical bridge for them to cover these costs. But unless we act, over 7 million students--38,000 in my State of New Hampshire alone--who rely on subsidized Stafford student loans will see an increase in their student debt when they graduate. This is a particular problem for students in New Hampshire because our students have the highest average student debt in the Nation. They are graduating with just over $31,000 in debt per student. Not only do they have the highest average debt, but 74 percent of our college students are in debt, and that is the second largest number in the country. So we have the highest average debt and the second highest number of students graduating with debt. Students in New Hampshire and across this country need some relief, and doubling the interest rate is exactly the wrong way we should be going in terms of policies to promote giving every American the opportunity to succeed. We need to encourage our students to go on to higher education, to advanced-degree programs, and to professional schools. Their future employment and our future economy both depend on this. Last week I had the opportunity to visit with two of our State colleges, Keene State College and Plymouth State University. Everyone I spoke with had stories about the escalating cost of college and concern for rising student loan interest rates. Over the past 24 hours I have heard from hundreds more constituents who are anxious about this. Now, to be clear, the legislation we are considering would affect current and future students who will receive subsidized Stafford loans starting July 1. The last thing anyone needs in this economic climate is a reason not to pursue their undergraduate or graduate studies. Meghan Jordan of Amherst is a sophomore at the University of New Hampshire. She told the Union Leader newspaper that student loan debt has become a constant concern for her. Meghan says that her parents would do just about anything to pay for her college education in full, but with two brothers also in college the finances are simply not available. Meghan views the prospect of interest rates doubling as an attack on college students trying to make a better future for themselves. Sadly, she said it feels like it is a punishment for trying to obtain a college degree. When I was at Keene State College in Keene last week, I met Keith Couch, a parent who has a daughter at Keene and a son at Boston College. Between his two kids, his annual tuition bill comes to $90,000. No wonder he is having trouble figuring out from where the money is going to come. He spends hours trying to figure out how his family will make college payments each month. He said loans help bridge that gap. One constituent, Erin, posted on my Facebook wall that her husband recently completed medical assistant courses at Hesser College in Manchester. He is due to start paying his student loans next month, but he hasn't been able to find a job in his chosen field. Erin said that family finances are tight and if interest rates were to double on the loans they have, there is no way they would be able to pay them back. The stories I have heard in New Hampshire are similar to the stories Senator Blumenthal told about Connecticut and what Senator Schumer has had to say about New York and what we are hearing from students and families across the country. Higher education is essential for economic opportunity and personal growth. It is equally essential to the prosperity of our country, and, most importantly, the prospect of higher debt levels affects whether people choose to enter college to begin with. When I was in Plymouth last week at Plymouth State University, a student stood up and said: I want to teach history. Tell me why I shouldn't just drop out of college and be a mechanic. I said: Well, I like teachers myself, and we need more of them. But in this rapidly changing, highly competitive global economy, we should be doing everything we can to make sure college is more accessible to Americans so we don't have students across this country saying: Why shouldn't I drop out if no one supports my getting a college education? It is critical for all of us, and, unfortunately, high debt burdens have serious consequences for individuals, for families, and for the economy. Student loan debt affects where graduates live, the kinds of careers they can pursue, whether they can start a new business, when they can start a new family, when they can purchase a new home, and when they can start to save for retirement. Our students deserve better. We need to get rid of any obstacles that are keeping our students from getting the education they need to succeed. We should not put more obstacles in their way. We need to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to stop this increase in student loan interest rates and to do what is in the best interest of our families and our young people who need that college education. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to join those of my colleagues who are urging that we come together this afternoon, and I am pleased we are going to see votes on the Violence Against Women Act to reauthorize the legislation as it has passed through the Judiciary Committee. As we all know, domestic violence continues to be a serious problem across our country. In New Hampshire, nearly one in four women has been sexually assaulted. At least one-third of New Hampshire women have been victims of a physical assault by an intimate partner. More than one- half of all women in my State have experienced sexual or physical assault over the course of their lifetimes. All of us share in an obligation to stop this epidemic, and VAWA is a proven tool in this fight. The real importance of this legislation lies not in the statistics but in hearing about those women who have been helped by the services that are provided by the Violence Against Women Act. I have had a chance to visit several crisis centers around New Hampshire in the past few weeks, and I have met with the survivors and the advocates who depend on this funding. I went to a crisis center called Bridges in Nashua where I spoke with a survivor of domestic violence. She told me: When you are a victim of domestic violence, you think you are worthless. She said: There are so many times that I would have gone back to my abuser, except that I had the ability to call Bridges crisis line at 2 o'clock in the morning and talk to somebody who could help me so that I knew I was supported. Because of the Violence Against Women Act, the Bridges program can operate and have a crisis line for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the support she got through the Bridges program, this survivor is going back to college, she is free from abuse, and she is going to have a life that is saved because of programs that are supported by the Violence Against Women Act. The law enforcement community has been very supportive of this legislation. They need this bill too. In New Hampshire, half of all murders are domestic violence related. I spoke to the chief of police in Nashua, our State's second largest city. He gets just $68,000 from the Violence Against Women Act funding, but that allows him to have a dedicated unit within the police department that can respond to domestic violence and sexual assault cases. I heard from retired Henniker police chief Timothy Russell. He is a 37-year veteran in law enforcement, and he now travels around the State teaching police officers how to respond to domestic violence cases. It is funds from the Violence Against Women Act that allow him to conduct the specialized training so police officers can identify patterns of domestic abuse and prevent those situations from escalating. Officers are taught to maintain good relationships with crisis centers, and Chief Russell tells them: If you see a victim in trouble, get a counselor on the phone to talk to them. Tell them what their options are. Again, thanks to funding from the Violence Against Women Act, he has resources to bring this training throughout New Hampshire to police officers so they can help the victims. I saw just this kind of cooperation and action when I visited the Family Justice Center in Rochester, NH, this week. They have made a multitude of services accessible in one place so victims do not have to go all over town or all over the county to get the help they need. They can see a counselor, get childcare assistance, and fill out an application for a protective order; women can even get their injuries treated and officially documented. They can get free legal help--all in this Family Justice Center, made possible by a Violence Against Women Act grant. If we do not support this because it is the right thing to do--and I think it is--we should also support this legislation because it saves money. It is a cost-effective approach because, in addition to reducing crime, victims are less reliant on emergency rooms. They are less likely to need State assistance when they can connect with resources. They can get help with childcare and housing and get back on their feet and become productive citizens. This is the type of help every citizen deserves and ultimately makes us all safer. I am also pleased to see there is particular language in this legislation that requires service providers to help any victim of domestic violence regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status. I think Sergeant Jill Rockey, whom I met when I was in Rochester at the Family Justice Center, put it best when she said: When someone calls for help in a domestic or sexual violence case, we don't ask if they are an immigrant or gay. We just go. Well, hopefully, today we will respond in passing this bill with that same sense of urgency. Let's make sure we do not let victims, first responders, or our communities down. Let's give everyone the help they need and deserve. Let's pass this legislation today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) Without objection, it is so ordered. Surface Transportation Act

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, 42 days ago--that is more than 1,000 hours--42 days ago, 74 Senators from this Chamber voted to pass a badly needed, long-term transportation bill. At that time, I joined many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to call on the House to consider the Senate's bill or a similar bipartisan bill that would provide highway and transit programs with level funding for at least 2 years. While the House has not yet passed a long-term bill, I am pleased that they voted to go to conference with the Senate. That means we are one step closer to finally having legislation in place that would support nearly 2 million jobs--about 6,600 of those in New Hampshire-- and a bill that would maintain current funding levels, which would avoid an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. I urge the House and the Speaker to immediately appoint conferees so we can continue moving forward and finally pass a long-term transportation bill. We cannot wait any longer. Mr. President, 937 days have passed since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. If you are counting, that is 2 years, 6 months, and 27 days. If the House does not join the Senate and support a reasonable bipartisan transportation bill that is paid for, States and towns will not have the certainty they need from Washington to plan their projects and improve their transportation infrastructure. According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure--the highways, the railroads, the transit systems, the bridges that knit our economy together--cost businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. That is because we are not making the investments we need to make. And this is no time to further stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate for businesses to succeed. In New Hampshire, we very directly experience the consequences of this uncertainty. The main artery that runs north and south in New Hampshire, Interstate 93, is congested. Currently, we have a project underway that would reduce that congestion on our State's most important highway. It would create jobs. It would spur economic development. Although this project has been underway for several years, the pace of the project has slowed dramatically because we do not have a transportation bill in place. Businesses and developers along the I 93 corridor cannot hire workers or invest for the future while the project remains uncertain. We need to act now to unleash the economic growth this project and transportation investments across the country will make possible. We know that projects such as Interstate 93 produce good jobs. New Hampshire's Department of Transportation said that work on just one section of the highway--just one section, between exits 2 and 3-- created 369 construction jobs. And all around the country we have projects like Interstate 93 that are waiting on Congress to complete this effort. For every billion dollars we spend in infrastructure investment, it creates 27,000 jobs. It should not be so hard to get this done. If Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe can agree on legislation, then the House ought to be able to agree on legislation. Cities and businesses need the certainty as we get to the new construction season. And the longer the House waits to appoint conferees, the harder it will be for Congress to pass a long-term bill. I urge the House to swiftly appoint representatives to negotiate with the Senate so that we can come together and make the Federal investments necessary to get transportation projects moving and get people back to work. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service is a fundamental part of our Nation's history and what it means to be an American. In fact, it was actually talked about in our Constitution. Nationwide, the Postal Service employs 550,000 Americans, and it serves as the linchpin of an industry that contributes over $1 trillion to our economy. I have heard from a number of businesses in New Hampshire--one being Goss International in a neighboring community, which has been a major competitor in the area of printing presses, and now they are making wind turbines, or parts of wind turbines. They are very concerned, as is a company called Polaris Direct, about what is going to happen to our Postal Service and are we in Congress going to resolve this issue. In New Hampshire, the Postal Service provides thousands of jobs, as well as a critical economic connection for many of our rural communities, which are not often in some areas of New Hampshire connected to the Internet, so they don't have high-speed broadband, and the Postal Service is their connection with much of the outside commerce and community. Today, as we know, the Postal Service is facing a fiscal crisis that threatens its future. We should all be concerned about Draconian proposals that seek to slash 220,000 good jobs, close 3,700 post offices, and make mail delivery slower across America. The bill before us today attempts to avoid the worst of these outcomes, and I commend all of the bipartisan managers of the legislation, including Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Carper, for their tireless work to save the U.S. Postal Service. I was proud to join a group of 28 Senators who pushed for important changes to the bill in an attempt to better protect rural post offices, develop new sources of business, and maintain the reliable and timely service Americans have come to expect. Some of these changes have been incorporated into the legislation, and I think they are an important step toward improving it. With that said, I think we have more work to do. I know there are a lot of people in this body who wish to see us debate a number of amendments related to the bill and try to make changes to improve the work already done. Rural communities rely on the Postal Service, and I think Congress and this Senate should improve the legislation to make sure that people have a real voice in the process when their post office is threatened. If we don't act, the Postal Service could go bankrupt or could be forced to make devastating service cuts. So while this legislation is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture tomorrow so we can consider relevant amendments and make sure this important American institution, the U.S. Post Office, is saved for all Americans who so desperately need the services it provides. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to join my colleagues who were here earlier to talk about the bipartisan Senate-passed Transportation bill. I give credit to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member, for all of their good work on this legislation. They joined three other committees that also passed their portions of the bill with strong bipartisan support. I think we could all agree that transportation is one of the Federal Government's core responsibilities. It has been far too long since Congress updated and reformed Federal transportation programs. Every committee that worked on the Senate's long-term Transportation bill passed it with a strong bipartisan vote. When the bill came to the floor, 74 Senators from both parties voted in favor of the Transportation bill. Now I urge the House of Representatives to follow our lead in the Senate and act on a long-term bipartisan transportation bill. I think they ought to take up the Senate bill. The Senate's Transportation bill is about strong bridges, good jobs, and dependable roads that businesses count on to move goods and reach customers. The Senate bill reauthorizes transportation programs for 2 years, it maintains current funding levels, and it does not increase gas taxes. Repeating that, it doesn't increase gas taxes, and it is fully funded. Cutting funding for transportation right now would be a very dangerous choice. We are seeing emerging economies, such as China and India, spending roughly 9 percent of their gross domestic product per year on roads, bridges, public transportation, and infrastructure. At the same time, in the United States, we are spending about 2 percent. That is half of what we were spending in the sixties. At this rate, we will not be able to stay competitive with the rest of the world. That is a macro reason why we need to pass the Transportation bill. The bill is fully paid for, it doesn't increase the deficit, and most of the funding comes, as usual, from the gas tax. To make up the gap in funding, we came up with bipartisan ways, including stiffer penalties on tax delinquents and by shifting unused funds designated to clean up underground storage tanks. The Senate's Transportation bill is about making our investments more efficient so that we spend less on overhead and more on roads and bridges. I think several people have talked about the fact that this is a good time for States to be able to borrow. There are low interest rates. We can get a lot for our money. That is what I heard in New Hampshire when I talked to our transportation officials, that interest rates are very low right now. This bipartisan bill streamlines the number of Federal transportation programs from over 90 to 30. For the first time it requires States to collect data so we can measure what kind of bang we are getting for our buck. Not only is it a reform bill that is more efficient, but it is more accountable. I think that is why groups from the AFL CIO to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this bill. They have come together to support a bill that is truly bipartisan and that would support nearly 2 million jobs nationwide and, in my State of New Hampshire, about 6,600. There have been a lot of reports about the difficulties facing the House in finding an agreement on a transportation bill. I think the Senate has provided a very good model that maintains current funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. What we need now is for the House to join the Senate and produce a reasonable, bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that can give local governments and businesses some certainty before the height of the construction season. State and local transportation projects budget and plan based on the idea that the Federal Government will provide a consistent level of long-term funding. When you are planning a multimillion dollar project that employs hundreds of people, it is critical to know what your budget is going to be more than just a couple months in advance. We would not run a business that way, and we should not expect the government to run that way. If the House doesn't pass a bipartisan, long-term, transportation bill, States and towns won't have the certainty they need from us in Washington to plan their projects and improve their systems. According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. This is no time to stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate that our businesses need to succeed. In New Hampshire, we have seen firsthand the real-world consequences of uncertainty in Federal transportation funding. Our Interstate 93 corridor runs from the capital in Concord down to the Massachusetts border. It runs pretty much the length of the State. Right now we have a project underway that would spur economic development in the southern half of that highway. It has been underway for several years, but the pace of the project has lagged because there has been no certainty around our highway bill. It has been impossible for businesses and developers around the I 93 corridor to predict the future of the project. At a time when the number of people working in the construction industry in New Hampshire is the lowest in a decade, it is unacceptable that we cannot provide certainty for this project. We know highway projects like Interstate 93 produce good jobs. New Hampshire's Department of Transportation has said that just one section of Interstate 93, between exits 2 and 3 close to the Massachusetts border, created 369 construction jobs. All around the country, there are projects just like Interstate 93 that are stalled while we wait for the House to pass a bipartisan long- term transportation bill. We need to come together and make the Federal investments that are necessary to get these projects moving and get people back to work. Investing in transportation creates jobs and the conditions that our companies need to succeed. It is, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says, a core function of government. It should not be an issue for politics or partisanship. I urge the House to take up the Senate bill. Congress needs to work together to pass a transportation reauthorization bill before the March 31 deadline.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am proud to be able to join my colleagues on the floor this afternoon in honoring Senator Barbara Mikulski for her service to Maryland and for the endless contributions she has made to the people of this country. It is very hard to adequately describe a political icon such as Barbara Mikulski. For all of us women in politics, she is a model of what we can aspire to or what we would hope to aspire to. I just want to tell a simple story about Barb that I think reflects her ability to get along with people, her zest for life, as so many of my colleagues have described, and the connection she makes that makes a difference for people. She and I were on a flight with four other Senators to the security forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a couple of years ago, and the weather was bad, so our flight was diverted to Bangor, ME. It was winter in New England, and of course, when there is bad weather in New England in the winter, it sticks around for a while, so we were trapped overnight in Bangor. Most of us just sort of sat there waiting to figure out what was going to be done while we waited for a flight the next day, but not Barbara because she doesn't sit still. She is never afraid to pick up the phone and take action, and that is exactly what she did. Barbara dialed up her old friend and colleague--the colleague of all of us-- Senator Susan Collins, and said: Guess where I am. And that is how those of us who were on that flight--the six Senators and the Secretary of Homeland Security--wound up joining Senator Collins and the legendary Troop Greeters of Bangor, ME, in welcoming troops at the airport as they returned home from overseas. So what had earlier seemed like an inconvenience turned into a fabulous opportunity to thank our brave men and women in uniform and to have a good time while we were doing it. You find those kinds of things happening if you spend time with Barbara Mikulski. It is a byproduct of her relentless energy, her drive to better her community and our Nation as a whole, her deep commitment to fighting for women's health, and her unfailing grace and gumption as a legislator, a colleague, and a friend. As has been said, she got her start as a social worker trying to make the lives of men and women in her native Baltimore a little easier to bear. She was working in the service of values that were taught to her by her family, who owned the neighborhood grocery store. And as so many have commented, she often tells the story of her father opening the store early so that steelworkers coming in for the early-morning shift would have time to buy their lunch. Barb has carried that spirit, those values she learned from her family in that grocery store here to the Senate, and often those values are sorely needed here. As dean of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, she has built a sense of community within the caucus. Her bipartisan women's dinners are legendary. And, of course, what happens at those dinners stays at those dinners. Those are Mikulski's rules. But we really don't need to look any further than that wintry night in Maine to know how effective she has been in making things happen for people. I look forward to more of her dinners, to more conversations with the Senator, to more chances to work with her as she fights on behalf of women and seniors and veterans and all those who don't have a voice in government and at the table. I thank the Senator for her friendship, for her leadership, and for her many years of service. 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, when I talk to owners, operators, and employees of small businesses in New Hampshire, one thing I hear consistently is that access to capital is a real challenge. While our community banks have increased their lending, capital access from large banks and other entities has been very hard to come by. As a result, small businesses fighting to grow and create jobs continue to be constrained in their efforts. I am glad the Senate is planning to move forward with this legislation that will address capital formation and will take some additional steps to help those small companies get the financing they need to grow, but as we take that step forward, it is equally important that we do not also take a step back. That is why I believe it is critical for the Senate to extend two venues of small business financing as part of this debate: the Export-Import Bank and the Small Business Administration's 504 refinancing program. These programs, which bring no cost to the taxpayers--let me say that again: these programs bring no cost to taxpayers--provide financing options for so many small businesses in New Hampshire, in West Virginia, and across our country. We have an important opportunity to ensure that such important avenues to capital remain available in the coming years by extending these programs as part of the small business capital package we are currently debating. So first let me begin with the Export-Import Bank, which is a vital agency that helps many small businesses secure the financing they need for export deals. This is critical because exports are such an important part of the markets that are available to businesses today. Mr. President, 95 percent of markets exist outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of small and medium-sized businesses are doing business outside of the United States. So businesses need access to these international markets. Last August, Senator Ayotte and I held a Small Business Committee field hearing in New Hampshire, and it was on small business exporting. We heard how difficult it can be for a small company to sell its products overseas. It is particularly challenging for a small business to get financing for its foreign deals. That is where the Export-Import Bank makes such a significant impact. Mr. President, 87 percent of the Export-Import Bank's transactions support small businesses. So I think there is a misconception about whom the Ex-Im Bank really helps. Eighty-seven percent of their transactions support small businesses. Last year alone, the bank helped finance more than $6 billion in export sales from small companies in the United States. It has set a goal of increasing this volume by an additional $3 billion in the coming years, and it has created a new Global Access for Small Business Initiative which is designed to dramatically increase the number of small companies taking advantage of its programs. In fact, I think this new initiative is terrific. The Ex-Im Bank came to New Hampshire and unveiled this initiative. Again, this bank assists small businesses at no cost to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, right now this no-cost small business program is in jeopardy. Unless we act soon to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, it will hit its lending cap and it will be forced to cut off its support for small businesses. We just cannot afford to let that happen. Without the bank small businesses will lose a significant amount of foreign sales and the jobs they maintain. Last year the bank supported over 288,000 American jobs. As more small companies become aware of the bank's programs, more businesses will be able to access new markets and create new jobs. So I want to give an example because, as I said, last year we had the Chair of the Export-Import Bank in Portsmouth, NH. They unveiled their new small business initiative, and they met with a number of small businesses that were interested in exporting. One of those small businesses was a company called Skelley Medical, which is a medical equipment company that is based in Hollis, NH. Before our event, Skelley Medical was unaware of the programs the Export-Import Bank offered. Two weeks later, just 2 weeks after this event, Skelley took out a policy with the bank. That put Skelley in a position to expand its sales overseas. Right now, Skelley Medical is looking to finance deals in as many as five international markets. That is all thanks to the help of the Export-Import Bank. Without the Export-Import Bank, that kind of small business success story will not happen. It would be a real mistake for this Senate to pass a capital access bill without this critical reauthorization. The second program I would like to talk about is another no-cost program that deserves to be extended. That is the Small Business Administration's section 504 refinancing program. With bipartisan support, the Senate passed the Small Business Jobs Act 2 years ago--well, about a year and a half ago. That Small Business Jobs Act created this 504 program to help small businesses refinance existing loans under the SBA's 504 lending program. Again, what we are hearing, as my colleagues know, as I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, is that this difficult real estate market we are in has made it challenging for many successful businesses to refinance their real estate deals. They cannot get access to capital right now, particularly in the real estate industry, which has been so hard hit during this recession. What this SBA program allows is for small businesses to lock in long-term, stable financing so they can free up capital to invest in their companies and hire new workers. Although this program got off to a slow start, the Small Business Administration has made important changes to ensure that it is working better now for small businesses and for banks. As a result, we are starting to see a significant increase in volume. In New Hampshire, lenders see this program becoming a real success in the near future. Alan Abraham, who is the president of the Granite State Development Corporation in New Hampshire, has said that ``banks and borrowers are now understanding the significant benefits of the program.'' He told me: We are starting to field many [more] phone calls requesting information on the policies, and we anticipate dozens of New Hampshire small businesses could benefit from extending this program. We should not cut this program off at the knees just as we are beginning to see substantial returns--again, without costs to taxpayers. This program is scheduled to sunset in September. I believe it is important for the lending community to know as soon as possible that the program will continue into 2013 so that they can devote the resources necessary to continue this initiative's budding success and also so that we can provide the certainty so many companies tell us they need. We should extend this program. We should address the Export-Import Bank's reauthorization. That is why, as we look at the Landrieu-Reed- Levin substitute amendment, it includes these provisions. It includes reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and it includes the extension of the SBA 504 program. It also includes a number of other provisions that address some of the concerns that have been expressed by the House-passed capital formation bill. Senators Landrieu, Reed, and Levin were on the floor earlier and very eloquently elaborated on those changes. I urge my colleagues to support that substitute amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and to extend SBA's 504 Loan Program. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to that Landrieu-Reed-Levin amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It provides essential services to women and families across the United States. I have seen in my home State of New Hampshire where one program I wish to talk about funds Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors. It is called STOP. It provides law enforcement the tools they need to combat domestic violence. This was a lifesaving service for a women named Kathy, who was in an abusive relationship for 6 years. Kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving her with black eyes and bruises. Once her partner Mark threw her down the stairs. Things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed on. One day, Mark grabbed Kathy by the throat, lifted her off the floor and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of their 3-year-old child. That was the last straw. Kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her call the local police. Kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order and Mark was charged with assault. As is often the case, the criminal and civil procedures overwhelmed and frustrated Kathy. At times, she even considered dropping the whole thing. But, fortunately, funding from the Violence Against Women Act made it possible for Kathy to have an attorney who could help her. Thanks to this assistance from STOP and the Violence Against Women Act, Kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children, as well as support payments, and ultimately she was able to make a fresh start, free from abuse. Some critics of this legislation have said that the Violence Against Women Act ``has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence.'' They have said that these funds ``have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives.'' I think Kathy would disagree. This body should not be divided on this issue, and I am so pleased that Senator Murkowski has joined us today. Ending the horrific, degrading and painful cycle of domestic abuse is an effort that must transcend party affiliation. We know these programs work, and I know that we have a strong and effective leader in Susan Carbon, who is a former judge and now the Director of the Office of Violence against Women at the U.S. Department of Justice. Susan Carbon is from New Hampshire and in my time as Governor of New Hampshire, I was privileged to have Susan as a member of the Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and she chaired our Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. Susan has been in the trenches. She has seen what happens when women are unable to obtain help for themselves and for their families, and she knows that VAWA helps save lives. She needs these essential programs to be reauthorized as quickly as possible in order to continue her great work. There are too many victims who need our help. It is time to tell them, ``We hear you and we know you're out there even if you're not speaking up right now. We want to help you find your voice.'' We have the chance to make a difference, and the American people are depending on us to act. Madam President, I urge the leaders to bring the Violence against Women Reauthorization Act to the floor, and I implore my colleagues to unite around this important effort. This body should not be divided on this issue. As I said, I am so pleased to have Senator Murkowski join us on the Senate floor today to point out that this is a bipartisan issue.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing the Housing Crisis in Indian Country: Leveraging Resources and Coordinating Efforts.''

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Key to America's Global Competitiveness: A Quality Educaiton'' on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. This morning I wish to pick just one of these amazing women and tell her story. Shad Begum is the executive director of the Union of Women's Welfare in one of the most extremely conservative districts in all of Pakistan. As the founder and executive director of the program the Union of Women's Welfare, she provides political training, microcredit, primary education, and health services to women throughout her community. She not only encouraged others to run for office, she herself ran for a district counselor seat in 2001 and 2005, winning the seat against local conservatives who tried to ban women from participating. Despite numerous threats to her life and her family, including calls for suicide attacks against her by local extremists, she continues to work to improve the lives of women throughout Pakistan. Ms. Shad is one of 10 remarkable women the State Department honored this year. Every one of these 10 stories is inspirational, but they also represent literally millions of women around the globe who are out there fighting and suffering to be heard. There are countless women who don't receive the recognition they deserve and who continue to be silenced by persecution and harassment. Today we recognize, honor, and celebrate all of those nameless, faceless women around the world who are continuing the fight. Far too many women remain excluded from full participation in society, to the detriment of their communities, their countries, and the world. Although strides have been made in recent decades, women across the globe continue to face significant obstacles in all aspects of their lives, including the denial of basic human rights, discrimination, and gender-based violence. According to the World Bank, women make up 70 percent of all individuals living in poverty. Women account for 64 percent of the adults worldwide who lack basic literacy skills. Women continue to remain vastly underrepresented in national and local governments around the world. So there is no doubt that we have a lot of work to do, but all of society benefits when women are more fully integrated into their communities and their villages around the world. In the words of President Obama, ``Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity--men and women--to reach their full potential.'' As we reflect on the past, present, and future achievements of women, I believe it is important to recognize the vital and untapped resource that women represent for our world. The ability of women to realize their full potential is critical to the ability of a nation to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, political and social stability, and enhanced security for all its people. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues Senator Cardin and, earlier, Senator Murray this morning in commemorating International Women's Day. It is a day observed around the world, and it celebrates the economic, political, and social achievement of women--past, present, and future. It is a day that recognizes the obstacles women still face in the struggle for equal rights and equal opportunities. One year ago today, I, along with a group of bipartisan Senators, introduced and passed a resolution in the Senate recognizing the significance of the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day. Today is the 101st anniversary and, as is the centennial milestone before it, it is a testament to the dedication and determination of women and men around the world to address gender inequality for the good of all people. There are more than 3.3 billion women in the world today. Across the globe, women are participating in the political, social, and economic life of their communities in an unprecedented fashion, playing a critical role in providing and caring for their families, contributing substantially to the growth of economies, and advancing food security for their communities. Yesterday I had the wonderful, humbling, and inspiring opportunity to recognize and celebrate the 10 recipients of the 2012 State Department International Women of Courage Award. This prestigious award, which is the only award in the State Department given only to women, annually recognizes women who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women's rights and empowerment around the globe, often at significant risk to themselves. These award winners, including activists in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia, politicians in Turkey and Afghanistan, and representatives from six other countries, are truly remarkable and inspirational women. I ask unanimous consent to have all of their names and brief bios printed in the Record so that they are properly recognized by the Senate.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Merkley, the Presiding Officer, and the others of my colleagues who will come to the floor this afternoon to speak out against the Blunt amendment. Over the past year, we have come to the floor many times to speak out against the attacks on women's health. Since this Congress began, we have seen assaults on Planned Parenthood, on Federal funding for family planning and on contraception. But now we are facing the Blunt amendment which is even more extreme and far reaching than we have seen in all those other attempts to politicize women's health. This proposal would affect health care not just for women but for all Americans. It will affect the care of our children, of our husbands, and our wives. In short, the Blunt amendment would let your boss make your health care decisions instead of you and your doctor. The amendment would empower corporations or any other employer to deny virtually any preventive or essential health service to any American based on any religious or moral objection. I would point out that in the bill, religious and moral objections are not defined. So it can be whatever anybody interprets it to mean. Under the amendment, an employer could claim a moral or religious basis in order to deny things such as coverage for HIV/AIDS screenings or counseling, prenatal care for single mothers, mammograms, vaccinations for children, or even screenings for diabetes if the employer claims a moral objection to a perceived unhealthy lifestyle. While this amendment could affect men, women, and children, make no mistake; at the most fundamental level, this debate is about a woman's access to contraception. Supporters of the amendment want to turn back the clock on women's health. They want to deny women access to preventive health services. Birth control is something most women use sometime in their lifetime, and it is something that the medical community believes is essential to the health of a woman and her family. I would point out the decision that the Blunt amendment claims to be addressing is one that was made not for political reasons but for medical reasons by the Institute of Medicine, and it was made because contraception is important to women's health. It prevents unintended pregnancies. The United States has the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the developed world. Approximately one-half of all pregnancies here in America are unintended. Contraception can help women and families address this. Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality. In fact, the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality has estimated that 10 percent of infant deaths could be prevented if all pregnancies were planned. For some 1.5 million women, birth control pills are not used for contraception but for medical reasons. As the Presiding Officer pointed out in that poignant letter from your constituents who pointed out all of the reasons that women could take contraceptives, it could reduce the risk of some cancers, and it is linked to overall good health outcomes. As Governor of New Hampshire, I was proud to sign a law back in 1999 that requires health care plans to cover contraception. At that time, we heard little controversy, little uproar, virtually no concerns about religious exemptions to the law. The bill in New Hampshire back in 1999 passed the Republican-led State legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, in the House, almost as many Republicans voted for the bill as Democrats. I think that was because 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 about basic health care coverage. For 12 years, that law in New Hampshire has been in place with little opposition because it has worked. And it is particularly unfortunate, as we are having this debate about women's health, thinking about what happened back in New Hampshire, to see this debate become so politicized. It is not right. It is not what is the best interest of women's health, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Blunt amendment. The decision about a woman's health care should be between her, her doctor, her family, and her faith. Let's not turn back the clock on women's access to health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor.