Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President I come to the floor today with a number of my women Senate colleagues to talk about what happened yesterday at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. They held a hearing on the administration's decision to make sure that women have access to affordable contraception, but guess who was missing. The women. This is a picture of the first panel from yesterday's hearing. Not one woman was seated at this table, not one woman at the table, yet the topic was women's health. What is more difficult to understand is that when female members of the House committee asked for a woman to testify along with the men, they were denied. Their request was simple: to allow Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law School student, to testify on this panel of all men. As a woman she could speak firsthand about how this rule would impact women. But their request was denied because the chairman said Sandra Fluke was unqualified. How can a woman be unqualified to talk about women's health care? Yet every one of these men on the panel was deemed to be qualified to talk about women's health care. I am disappointed. I know it is a disappointment that is shared by millions of women across this country. I am saddened that here we are, in 2012, and a House committee would hold a hearing on women's health and deny women the ability to share their perspective. Time and time again, women have been silenced in this discussion, a discussion about our own very personal health care decisions. In fact, a recent analysis of the leading cable news channels showed that almost twice as many men as women were invited to join the conversation. I think it is critical to understand that the underlying issue here is about affordable access to contraception--something that is basic to women's health. Birth control is something that most women use at some point in their lifetime and something that the medical community believes is essential to the health of women and their families. Research shows that access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, that it can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and that it is linked to overall good health outcomes. Some women, 14 percent of them, use birth control not as contraceptives but to treat serious medical conditions. That is about 1.5 million women. When the administration first announced its decision to require employers to offer health insurance coverage for contraception, there was a robust conversation about religious liberty. In response to that, the President modified his decision last week, preserving the religious liberty of those religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals or universities, but also protecting the women who work for them. His decision ensured that all women have access to contraceptive coverage, and if a woman's employer has a religious objection, women can get that critical coverage directly from their health plans. The Catholic Health Association has supported this policy, and yet, as we saw yesterday, some attempt to continue to politicize this issue. We cannot lose sight that this is at the most fundamental level of debate about women's preventive health. Women deserve a voice in this debate because, after all, in the end this is about our health and it is about a health care decision that is between women, their families, their doctors, and their own faith. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. One of the things the Senator talked about so eloquently, as we talked about the ability of our financial systems to impact what is happening in Russia--one of the things we heard about at the hearing on the Magnitsky bill was from the head of the American Chamber in Russia who talked about what the impact of this kind of case is on American companies trying to do business and the concern it raises about issues of corruption and the ability to operate freely in Russia. Does my colleague not agree that we can also urge those companies that are operating in Russia to speak out when cases such as this happen and they have concerns about what it does to their business in the country?

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Around the world, governments are also taking up this important call. The European Parliament, Canada, and The Netherlands are considering similar pieces of legislation. This summer, the U.S. State Department barred dozens of Russian officials from traveling to the United States over their involvement in the death of Magnitsky. I want to commend the administration, and particularly Secretary Clinton for her strong words condemning the recent fraudulent elections in Russia. But despite all these efforts, there is more we can do to support human rights in civil society, freedom of expression in Russia. Passing the Magnitsky bill this year is one of them. In the midst of an election year, at a time of difficult partisanship, I believe this is one effort--as we have seen so well from Senator Cardin and Senator Wicker today--this is one effort on which both sides of the aisle can agree. We stand today unambiguously in support of the rule of law, democracy, and respect for human rights in Russia. I hope our colleagues in the Congress and at the State Department will work constructively in the months ahead to pass this critical legislation. Before I yield the floor, I also think it is important to call attention to the particularly egregious act that Russia committed in recent days before the United Nations, when they vetoed the Security Council resolution aimed at halting the ongoing violence in Syria. Today, more than 25,000 people have fled Syria; more than 7,000 innocent Syrians have died at the hands of President Assad. Despite Syria's growing isolation, Russia continues to harbor and arm the Syrian regime. This is unacceptable. I think our passage of the Magnitsky bill will send a very strong sign to Russia that not only in the Magnitsky case and other human abuses in-country are they going to be held accountable, but their actions internationally will also make them accountable to the international community. Again, I say thank you to Senators Cardin and Wicker for their leadership on this issue. I am pleased and honored to be able to join them in making this fight.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Wicker for their efforts today coming down to the floor to raise this important human rights issue. As you say, if we didn't see the facts, we would believe this was fiction, what is going on in Russia today. But I think these efforts are particularly important given what is happening today in Russia. We have seen historic demonstrations on the streets of Moscow over the last several months. Ordinary Russian citizens, fed up with nearly a decade of corruption, have courageously taken to the streets to demand their voices be heard. The fraudulent Duma elections and the cynical and manipulative decision by Prime Minister Putin to return to the Presidency have reawakened civil society throughout Russia. As a leading Russian social activist Alexei Navalny wrote from his jail cell following the peaceful December demonstrations: We all have the only weapon we need and the most powerful. That is the sense of self-respect. Today, as we call for justice for human rights abuses in Russia, we also stand with those brave Russian citizens who have risked so much in calling for their rights to be respected, just as Sergei Magnitsky did. As we have seen throughout this last year of upheaval around the globe, the rising voice of a public driven to peaceful protest can be deafening. Prime Minister Putin and his regime would be wise to listen to the people of Russia. I also want to echo what Senators Wicker and Cardin have said about the importance of passing the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. There are now 28 Senate cosponsors. I am one of those cosponsors and am proud to be, and I want to associate myself with what Senators have said on the floor of the Senate today. The case of Mr. Magnitsky is a tragic one. He was falsely imprisoned, beaten, denied medical care, and ultimately killed, as you all have so eloquently explained. And to this day, no one has been held accountable for his tragic and unnecessary killing. We stand here today to press for accountability in Mr. Magnitsky's death. However, I think it is important for us to reiterate that this is more than simply a question of one man's tragic case. The State Department's human rights report for this year described numerous violations, as Senator Cardin said so well: attacks on journalists, physical abuse of citizens, harsh prison conditions, politically motivated imprisonments, and other government harassments and violence. The European Court of Human Rights has issued more than 210 judgments, holding Russia responsible for grave human rights violations, including abductions, killings, and torture in Chechnya and throughout the northern Caucasus. There are many more cases like Magnitsky, which is why the bill is so important. It seeks to ensure that no human rights abusers, in Russia or elsewhere in the world, are granted the privilege of traveling to this country or utilizing our American financial system. As chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, I was pleased to preside over a hearing on the Magnitsky bill and on the state of human rights in Russia. I thank Chairman Kerry for helping to make that hearing possible. During the hearing we had a very constructive conversation with State Department officials, and we heard unanimous support for the legislation from an impressive panel of human rights activists and Russian experts. We have also received letters that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from leading human rights and civil society leaders in Russia calling on the Senate to pass the Magnitsky bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, we voted 85 to 11 to start work on the highway bill, which is an essential piece of legislation to reauthorize our highway and transit programs. Eight hundred sixty-eight days have passed since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. If you cannot do the math very fast, just to put a little more emphasis on that, that is 2 years, 4 months, and 18 days since the last Federal Transportation bill expired. We need new legislation to help streamline Federal programs, spur job creation, and move our transportation system into the 21st century. This Transportation bill before us is about infrastructure. We call it infrastructure because ``infra'' means ``below.'' So it is the foundation beneath everything else on which our civilized country is built. As we think about the buildings and operating our municipalities and our States and our Federal Government, our country, it is about making sure we have a sound infrastructure. Our businesses, our workers, our innovators, all of them rely on a system of quality infrastructure to succeed. More funding for transportation in this bill means we can do critical roads and bridges, and we can do repairs to the existing roads and bridges. It means we have more transit for buses and railroads, and it means we can put people back to work. More jobs for construction and manufacturing workers, more jobs for workers means more consumer spending and a stronger overall economy. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 we spend on highways, that spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. Economists at Moody's estimate that for every $1 we invest in infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. That is because of the ripple effect those investments have on our economy. The bill before us would help create about 1 million American jobs, many of them in the construction industry, which has been one of the hardest hit by the recession. In New Hampshire, the number of people who were working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest it had been in a decade--25 percent lower than it was in 2006, 5 years ago. We need to pass this bill to help put those people back to work. One of the most important efforts we have in New Hampshire right now is the long overdue and badly needed widening of Interstate 93, which is in the southern part of New Hampshire. I 93 is our State's most important highway. It connects New Hampshire citizens to their jobs, businesses to global markets, and communities to each other. Right now this vital artery is badly clogged. Every day 100,000 cars travel on a road designed for 60,000. This congestion wastes time and wastes money. Crowding so many vehicles on Interstate 93 is not only an inconvenience to the thousands who use it every day, but it also compromises the safety of drivers traveling at regular highway speed in heavy traffic. The Interstate 93 project was budgeted and planned based on the idea that the Federal Government would provide a consistent level of funding. But the uncertainty created by the lack of a long-term highway bill has made the project difficult to finance. Right now New Hampshire transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding for this project that is sitting on the sidelines until the Federal Government makes good on its commitment. We need to move these Federal funds off the sidelines and get this project going. Laura Scott, who is the economic development director for the town of Windham, near the Massachusetts border, summed it up best: The I 93 project is critical to the future economic vitality of Windham and all of southern New Hampshire. Our businesses want it, our citizens want it, and we need to get it done. The bill before us today can help complete this vital project and others like it. We need to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion just as it has come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. There was strong bipartisan support coming out of that committee. We need to set aside the partisanship now, the election year comments, and come together to do what is right for our economy and our country. I hope in the end all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I know this comes as no surprise to you, but today is Valentine's Day. Today millions of Americans are buying flowers and candy for their loved ones to celebrate Valentine's Day. This is an important day for American businesses, especially candy manufacturers. Consumers will purchase over 36 million heart-shaped boxes of chocolates for Valentine's Day. Unfortunately, the price American candy manufacturers must pay for this sugar leaves a very bitter taste in their mouths. Why, you ask. Well, because these companies face artificially high prices for sugar, about twice the world average. That is because there is an outdated and unnecessary government program that keeps sugar prices significantly higher than they should be. It is programs such as these sugar subsidies that reflect people's frustration with what is going on here in Washington because the sugar program, like too many other subsidies, protects special interests at the expense of regular businesses and consumers. That is why I joined with Senator Mark Kirk on Valentine's Day last year to encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting our bipartisan SUGAR Act. The SUGAR Act would phase out the U.S. sugar program, which costs businesses and consumers about $4 billion a year. This is a big concern for us in New Hampshire as we are the American home of Lindt chocolate as well as a number of other smaller candy companies that use a lot of sugar. I know it is a concern for the President, who has Hershey's chocolate in his home State of Pennsylvania, and it is a big concern for Illinois, where Senator Kirk is from, because they have so many candy companies. This legislation isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This legislation is about ending a bad deal for businesses and consumers. Senator Kirk and I sponsored this legislation because we need to end the sweetheart deal for the sugar industry. There is simply no reason to continue a program that makes candy makers, bakers, and other food manufacturers in our States pay double the world average price for sugar. One of the other fallouts from these high sugar prices is that it costs jobs. For every one job we save in the sugar industry because of these subsidies, we are losing three manufacturing jobs. Today, as we celebrate Valentine's Day, my thoughts are with Senator Kirk, who continues to recover from a serious illness. While Senator Kirk couldn't be with us this Valentine's Day, I do wish him well, and I look forward to his speedy return to the Senate. I know he is focused on getting better so that he will be able to get back here to work for his constituents from Illinois. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Kirk on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to our continued work in the future on the SUGAR Act and on other matters that help our constituents in New Hampshire and Illinois. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join my colleague from Maryland to try and point out how this issue is being manipulated. Almost 2 years ago, Congress--this institution--voted to end discrimination against women by health insurance plans. We voted to make it easier for women to seek referrals to see the health specialists they need, and we voted to give women greater access to affordable preventive health care services, including contraception. These are important historic advances for women's health, and they should not fall victim to ideological policies. Over the last several weeks, we have seen women all across this country stand in huge numbers to support women's health. That grassroots support will be needed again and again to stave off ideological attacks on women's health care. Over the past year, House Republicans have repeatedly attempted to both eliminate funding for title X family planning and Planned Parenthood. Thankfully, we have been able to block these attempts in the Senate. Ninety-seven percent of the reproductive health services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire and across the country is preventive care. As we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and saves lives. We were reminded of the important role Planned Parenthood plays in preventive health when the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to end its contracts with the provider. It is unfair to politicize women's health in the way we saw played out in the media last week. Women from across the country let their voices be heard. The 750,000 women who received breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics with support from the Komen Foundation deserve better. They did not ask to be thrown into the political fire. They merely sought detection and treatment against a life-threatening disease. I am pleased Komen reversed that decision. I also commend the President for standing for women's health and reaffirming the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to protect access to affordable birth control for all women. The decision requiring health care plans to cover contraception with no copays or deductibles will improve the lives of millions of women and their families. Birth control pills can cost up to $600 a year. It can be a serious economic issue for some women. Studies have shown it costs employers as much as 17 percent more to exclude contraceptive coverage in employee health care plans than to provide such coverage. Birth control is also a fundamental health care issue. Doctors and public health experts agree that increased access to birth control prevents unintended pregnancies. It is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality and a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to overall good health outcomes. Permanent and temporary contraception is critical for family planning purposes, but many women--a full 14 percent--use birth control for medical and health reasons, including helping to reduce the risk of some cancers, treatment for endometriosis, serious infections, and cysts. Let's be clear. In talking about the health benefits of birth control, I am not telling women they must use it. The decision on whether to pursue contraception is an individual choice that each woman must make for herself with her family. No part of the affordable care act or the President's ruling regarding insurance coverage forces any woman to use contraception. However, birth control will now be affordable and accessible for any woman who, in consultation with her doctor, decides she needs or wants to use it. The policy represents one of the greatest advances for women's health in decades. Sadly, there is an aggressive and misleading campaign to deny this benefit to women. A conscience clause exists that exempts religious institutions such as churches from having to carry insurance that covers contraception. Mr. President, 335,000 churches and their employees in this country are exempt. Many have argued that conscience clause should be expanded to include religiously affiliated hospitals and universities in the name of religious liberty. The millions of women who work in a Catholic hospital or university-- from the overnight nurse to the classroom aide or cafeteria worker--who choose to use birth control should have the same access as their counterparts at other institutions. That is their decision. It is not their employer's. There are religions that believe divorce is a sin. Should these institutions be exempt from our labor laws and be allowed to discriminate based on marital status? Of course not, and this is no different. A recent survey showed that 71 percent of American voters, including 77 percent of Catholic women voters, support the requirement to make birth control available to all. They understand that religious freedom means that all women--Catholic or non-Catholic--should have the opportunity to make their own decisions when it comes to birth control. I applaud the President for his decision and for putting women's health above politics. We know ideological attacks on women's health care will continue. But I thank my colleagues who are here today for speaking out against those who want to turn the clock back on women, who want to limit access and availability of women's health services. We are watching, and we are going to continue to be watching. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, to all of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to talk about the critical nature of spending in our campaigns, I say I am pleased to join them to talk about the importance of preserving our representative democracy by restoring some commonsense restrictions to our Nation's campaign finance system. As we have heard, Saturday was the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. The Federal Election Committee. Already we have seen how that decision has altered the landscape of politics in this country. When the Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate financing of elections, it ushered in the age of the super PAC. These so-called super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money during political campaigns with very limited disclosure requirements. This election cycle the floodgates have opened. Super PACs have already spent over $30 million in the 2012 cycle, and the election is still 10 months away. That amount of money is staggering. When I was home over the holidays in New Hampshire, before our Presidential primary, I witnessed firsthand that influx of corporate cash and what it does to the Presidential election. Negative ads paid for by the super PACs contributed to disaffecting our voters and drowning out the voices of the people, those ordinary, everyday citizens of New Hampshire who aren't able to put in tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases millions, to affect the outcome of an election. This has to stop. This is not a partisan issue. The commonsense restrictions that were struck down in the Citizens United decision were part of legislation like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. That thoughtful legislation which had broad, bipartisan support limited soft money and corporate funding of political ads and campaign spending in a way that made sense. Our campaign finance system has gotten way off course. It is time for us in the Congress to help put it back on track. The unchecked influence of money in our elections compromises the very future of our representative democracy. The monied special interests and corporations have been given free rein to spend unlimited amounts of money during campaigns, and they do not need our help being heard. It is homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages, parents who want to send their children to college but aren't sure how they can afford it, and unemployed workers who are looking for jobs and hoping tomorrow will be better than today--those are the voices that are being drowned out in a sea of corporate and special interest cash, and those are the voices of the American people who need to be heard in Washington. So on the second anniversary of this decision, as we think about what we need to do to address this and to change the negative direction it is taking this country, I urge all of my colleagues to turn their attention to this important work and to reach across the aisle to build consensus on this issue. Let's all tell the American people that we hear their voices calling for change. I look forward to speaking with all of my colleagues in the coming weeks and months about the specific approaches we can take to repair our broken campaign finance system, and I hope we will have the courage and the commitment to do something about this. 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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to urge that my colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration provide the funding for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. As you know, in Connecticut, LIHEAP provides immediate critical heating assistance for families and seniors in need during these freezing cold winter months. Last year, more than 45,000 New Hampshire households received LIHEAP funds. That is more than 106,000 individuals. But unfortunately this year, many of those families have been on waiting lists. Funding for the program has been in limbo at a time when temperatures are dropping. The Department of Health and Human Services here in Washington has released $1.7 billion, but so much more is needed. Making matters worse, the Energy Information Administration projects a 10-percent increase in the price of heating oil this winter. That is the highest average winter price ever predicted. In New Hampshire, more than half our homes rely on home heating oil. It is one of the highest percentages in the country, and the number of families who need assistance is growing every day. State offices are being forced to change eligibility levels for funding as they grapple with uncertainty over future funds. There are two things that can be done in order to immediately address this situation before it escalates into an even more serious crisis. First, Congress needs to pass an Omnibus appropriations bill as soon as possible. I am very pleased to see the positive progress on this issue; that there has been an agreement announced on an Omnibus appropriations measure. Hopefully, we are on track to pass that bill either today or tomorrow. The omnibus includes nearly $3.5 billion in funding for LIHEAP. But we need to get that money out the door. Once Congress has spoken, is that the administration needs to release additional LIHEAP funds as quickly as possible. The $1.7 billion that has already been released is not enough. But the knowledge that additional LIHEAP funds are pending in the omnibus bill we are about to pass should give President Obama the assurance he needs to release more money. I hope once the budget is passed the administration will release these additional funds as soon as possible, because at this holiday season, what better gift could we provide to those families in need than to make sure they have the funds to keep their houses warm this season. I know it is difficult to argue for more funding these days because of our deficit. Its challenges are clear. In fact, in the Senate, we have already voted, and I was one of those votes, for more than $1 trillion in cuts to Federal spending this year. I have continued to call for a comprehensive, balanced, bipartisan plan that looks at both revenue flows and spending. I have been part of the working group, a bipartisan working group, that now has over 40 Senators calling for a $4 trillion deficit reduction proposal over the next 10 years. But when we cut our budget, we need to look at wasteful spending, at duplicative programs, and at subsidies to industries that no longer need our help. LIHEAP energy assistance for low-income families does not fall under any of those categories. It is not a frivolous program. It is a program that ensures that vulnerable citizens in New Hampshire and across this country are not forgotten and left in the cold this winter. I have been hearing from people across New Hampshire about the difficulties they are going to face if this funding is not available and available soon. I wish to just share one of those stories. It is the story of Kim Brandolini of Nashua. In 2010, Kim suffered a series of strokes that left her disabled and unable to work. LIHEAP funds covered nearly all her monthly fuel costs last year. But this year, because of the cuts, she is on the waiting list. She does not know how she is going to pay to heat her home. She already owes the oil company $600, and last year she had to pay $6,000 to replace a broken boiler. Kim is only 44 years old. She is raising a son all by herself. Previously, she served for 14 years in the Army Reserve. Kim does not deserve to be in this situation. In Nashua, which is one of the warmest parts of New Hampshire, the average nightly low is below freezing for nearly half the year. If we don't find a way to fund LIHEAP now, Kim and thousands like her will have no way to keep their families safe and warm. We need to act, and we need to act quickly. Already, the delay in funding LIHEAP has prevented States such as New Hampshire from taking advantage of more affordable bulk purchases of home heating oil. The bottom line is, now that we have a budget agreement, we need to release additional funds so that thousands of New Hampshire families stay warm and don't have to make impossible choices between their basic needs this winter. We can't leave families such as Kim Brandolini's out in the cold this winter. I hope we can get this budget passed as soon as possible and that the Obama administration will release additional LIHEAP funds before Christmas and the end of the year. I yield the floor and 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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to echo the comments and concerns we have heard in the last few minutes from my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee regarding this House-inserted language on our Nation's military depots, arsenals, and shipyards. I wish to begin by saying to Chairman Levin how much I appreciate his assurances, as well as those of Ranking Member McCain, and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith in the House, that there are no intended changes to the current law under this language. I think that is very important for us to say to our constituents so they are reassured. I also appreciate Chairman Levin's commitment to examine this issue closely in the coming year to prevent any unintended consequences that this language might have on our Nation's industrial repair facilities, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which my home State of New Hampshire shares with Maine and which is very important to us in the Northeast and I think to our military capabilities. With that said, I have to say I share the concern that has been expressed about the manner in which this language was inserted. While I understand that the House has been working on this issue for some time, including holding roundtable discussions at the National Defense University, I believe there is much more that should have been done. On Friday, December 9, my staff was made aware that this language from the House could be included in the final NDAA report--a measure we have all been working on for the past 11 months. So along with six other members of the committee, I signed a letter that very day--so 1 week ago tomorrow--indicating our concerns and frustration over including such language without adequate Senate review or input. Despite the concerns expressed in our letter, the language was included. On such an important issue as this, usually we have had a very collaborative, transparent process in our committee, on the Senate side anyway, and I appreciate that. I think that has been one of the reasons for the great success of Senator Levin and Ranking Member McCain in being able to get a bill out year after year on which there has been consensus agreement. Unfortunately, that did not happen with respect to this language. As such, we now face a situation where the committee will need to spend a significant amount of time examining the language and its implementation over the next year to ensure no changes result. The reason we as a nation maintain the 50-50 rule--where all maintenance work is split between the public and private sectors--is to ensure that in times of conflict, the Federal Government will have the critical capabilities necessary to repair our Nation's combat equipment. Advanced technical repair work, such as the work done on nuclear submarines at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, requires highly skilled and specialized technicians. Any changes to the way we structure workload for these facilities has to be closely examined and should include input from the individual stakeholders who understand this issue best. Generations of Americans have invested significant resources in our Nation's military to ensure our men and women in uniform have the most advanced equipment in the world to keep us safe. I say to the chairman of the committee, I very much appreciate your assurance that we will continue to take a close look at this issue, including holding a hearing next year, if necessary. So I thank the Senator very much for his cooperation to work with us. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his very thoughtful comments. Senator Isakson has been working on a biennial budget for a very long time. I was pleased to join him in this session of Congress. And I agree with him. I believe this is one of the ways we can encourage more oversight of our spending and hopefully address some of the budget issues we face. So I appreciate and share his beliefs that this is an important change we should make. I am actually on the floor not to speak on the balanced budget amendment, however, but to talk about what I believe is very important for us to do before the end of this year; that is, address the extension of the payroll tax cut. In November, the private sector added 140,000 new jobs to our workforce. In fact, businesses have now created 100,000 jobs in each of the last 5 months. This is a positive trend we haven't seen in the past 5 years. While this is encouraging, we still have a long way to go because more than 13 million Americans remain unemployed and millions more are underemployed. These individuals and their families are struggling to make ends meet during this holiday season. At this time last year, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to put more money into the pockets of working Americans. We cut payroll taxes for workers--an effort that increased take-home pay for the average household by almost $1,000 in 2011. This tax cut isn't just good for families on a tight budget, it is good for our fragile economy. In New Hampshire, the payroll tax cut has meant an extra $600 million in our communities. There are some who want to allow this tax cut to expire at the end of the year. But let's be clear. If the tax cut expires, this would mean the average family would see their taxes increase by $1,000 next year. This would mean taking $120 billion out of our Nation's economy, money that would no longer be spent at our supermarkets, at our retailers, and at our gas stations. That doesn't make sense. Independent economists have predicted that allowing this tax cut to expire could cost our economy 400,000 jobs next year. Some have even predicted that the United States could face another recession if we don't take action. Members of this body have also suggested that this tax cut would starve Social Security of needed revenue and endanger this bedrock program's solvency. With Americans relying so heavily on Social Security to meet basic needs, this is a serious charge and one we should take seriously. However, the program's Chief Actuary has written that this tax cut does not hurt Social Security's finances. Instead, this proposal contains provisions to require that the Social Security trust fund be made whole. I recently supported Senator Casey's proposal to not only extend payroll tax cuts for employees but also to expand them to increase the average family's take-home pay by an additional $500 next year. This proposal would have cut employer payroll taxes, making it easier for small businesses to keep current workers and hire new ones. That proposal was fully paid for with a 3-percent tax on people earning more than $1 million in a year. Because of the way it was paid for, the legislation was blocked. My friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, also introduced a compromise plan that I supported. But again, unfortunately, it did not pass. I think that particularly now, at this time of the year, at this critical stage for our economy, everyone should agree on preventing tax increases for working families. There are some competing ideas about the best way to accomplish this, and I welcome that debate, but Congress simply cannot afford to saddle middle-class families with a $1,000 tax increase in the midst of an uneven recovery. It isn't right for our small businesses, it isn't right for our communities, and it isn't right for the economy. Time is running out to extend the payroll tax cut. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Senate was not able to reach agreement to consider an important amendment on the Defense authorization bill that would allow women in the military access to the same health care coverage as civilian women. There are almost 214,000 women currently serving in our Armed Forces. Many of these brave women are risking their lives for our national security. Despite the sacrifices these women make to protect our freedom, they are not given the same rights as civilian women when it comes to their reproductive health care. If a service woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, her insurance will not cover an abortion if she decides to seek one; the law as currently written expressly prohibits it. This is unconscionable. To correct this injustice, I offered an amendment to the bill that we are currently debating that would allow a service woman the ability to receive insurance coverage for an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Unfortunately, because there are some in this body who do not want this unfair law changed, we were not able to bring this amendment to the floor for a vote. Women currently serving in the armed services are victims of discrimination. They do not have access to the same critical--and legal--reproductive health care as the civilians they protect. Bans on abortion coverage exist for millions of women who receive their health care through government programs, but in most cases these bans allow for coverage of such care if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Women receiving their health care through Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Indian Health Services all have access to the care they need if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Even women serving time in our Federal prisons can get abortions covered in the case of rape. Sadly, this is not the case for our Nation's women in uniform. I believe that every woman should have the reproductive health care coverage she needs wherever she is and whenever she needs it. I do not think that any ban on abortion is appropriate. However if Federal bans do exist, they should at least be consistent. My amendment is simple. It would permit a service woman to have an abortion covered by her military health insurance if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Repealing the current ban on such coverage will simply bring the Department of Defense in line with most other federal policies. I recently met a woman who was a victim of rape during her military service. She was stationed in Korea and was unable to receive the health care she needed and deserved. Her story was heartbreaking. Because of her unwanted pregnancy, she had to leave the service and return home. The reality is that women in the military, especially those posted overseas, have few safe or legal reproductive health care options when they cannot rely on the military. Without access to these services, some women will be forced to resort to unsafe care or delay the health services they need. Women who give their lives for our country deserve better. While the bill we are considering today will move forward without this important change, I pledge to all the women in our military who are victims of this law that I will continue my fight to bring the Department of Defense in line with other Federal agencies to allow coverage for critical reproductive health care.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the critical piece of legislation we are now working on that will strengthen our national security, provide for our troops and their families, and improve oversight of American taxpayer dollars. Over the last half century, the Senate has successfully passed a defense authorization bill without fail every year. This strong tradition of bipartisanship continues today under the joint leadership of Senators Levin and McCain. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I thank the chairman and ranking member, as well as the majority and minority staff, for their dedicated and tireless effort as we work to bring this important legislation to the floor. Throughout this yearlong process, our committee takes on extremely difficult and contentious security issues, and at times we have our differences. However, we take on these disagreements in a respectful and openminded fashion, driven by a strong commitment to cooperation and compromise. Bipartisanship has never been easy, but it works, as the Armed Services Committee has proven year in and year out. I hope all of our committees in the Senate can work in this kind of cooperative fashion, especially these days when budget constraints are so difficult. No department of the Federal Government is immune from the severe fiscal challenges facing our Nation. That includes our Department of Defense. We are cutting $27 billion from the President's budget request in this bill, nearly $43 billion from the last year's authorization. We need to find ways to maximize our investments in defense by aggressively eliminating unneeded and underperforming programs and we need to streamline our business practices and invest strategically in future technology. The bill before us helps ensure that our troops, especially the 96,000 serving in Afghanistan as well as their families, continue to receive the care and support they deserve. It provides hard-earned pay raises for all uniformed military personnel, funding for critical equipment, and training required for our men and women to succeed on the battlefield. The Defense authorization bill before us makes important investments in defense, science, and technology. As I know the Chair agrees, we need to do more to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers who will be so important to maintaining our Nation's superior technological edge. The current bill makes a small downpayment on this important effort, and I intend to continue to fight for more investment as we move forward. The bill also includes a number of provisions that will enable the Defense Department to lead in the creation of a more secure energy future for our military and for our country. As the single largest consumer of energy in the world today, the U.S. military has taken some initial steps on energy efficiency, energy mitigation, and the use of renewable and clean energy alternatives. But we still have a very long way to go. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Defense to take advantage of more energy savings opportunities in the future. This year's Defense authorization bill also includes significant resources to fight nontraditional threats, including the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the growing challenge posed by cyber warfare. In addition, I am pleased a number of provisions I have been working on are currently included in the bill. First, we are extending the Small Business Innovation Research Program for the next 8 years. This is critical to keep our defense manufacturing base and our small business innovators strong and competitive. This is a provision I have worked on. I commend Senators Landrieu and Snowe for their leadership in the Small Business Committee for working on this effort and for working so hard to get this extension, a long-term extension, into the Defense authorization bill. The bill also includes a version of the National Guard Citizen Soldiers Support Act, which will go far in providing our National Guard members with the unique services and support they need when they return home from the fight. We also have a Navy shipyard modernization provision that has been introduced by Senators Snowe and Collins and Senator Ayotte and I, from New Hampshire. It also includes a $400 million cut to an unnecessary and underperforming weapons program that I have worked closely with Senators McCain and Begich to include. In addition, I was pleased to cosponsor Senator Leahy's National Guard Empowerment Act, which gives a stronger voice to our 450,000 citizen soldiers in our National Guard. Although we have a good bill before us, I believe it could be better, and I have introduced several additional amendments, two of which are designed to provide the nearly 214,000 women serving in our Armed Services with the reproductive health care they are currently denied under the law. Unfortunately, we were not able to get a vote on those amendments. But I hope to continue to work closely with the chairman and ranking member to address these important concerns. In addition, I have worked closely with Senators Collins and Casey on an amendment to address unsecured and looted stockpiles of tens of thousands of shoulder-fired missiles in Libya. If these weapons fall into the wrong hands, they pose a serious threat to civil aviation worldwide and to our deployed forces abroad. I wish to thank the committee for including this provision in the legislation. I also wish to address, briefly, some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to the detainee provisions in the bill. The underlying legislation which I supported is an attempt to provide a statutory basis for dealing with detained members of al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates. In committee, we made some difficult choices on this extremely complex issue. But we did that in order to strike a bipartisan agreement to both protect our values and our security. I understand, similar to all the Members of this body, the concerns that have been raised on both sides of these issues. Again, as a general principle, I believe our national security officials should have the flexibility needed to deal with the constantly evolving threat. But I also believe that clear, transparent rules of procedure are a bedrock legal principle of our constitutional system. I believe the military detention language in this bill includes a significant amount of flexibility for the executive branch, including a national security waiver and broad authorities on implementation. Although I support the goals of the chairman and ranking member's underlying legislation, I also believe we can improve those provisions. I supported Senator Feinstein's amendment that we just voted on which would restrict required military custody to only those terrorist suspects captured abroad. I hope that despite the disagreements, we will continue to chart a bipartisan path forward with respect to these detainee provisions in the years ahead. We need to give our national security officials at home and abroad a clearly defined but yet flexible system which protects our constitutional rights and our national security. In conclusion, I believe the 2012 Defense authorization bill before us will strengthen our national security, maintain our military power, keep our defense businesses competitive, help cancel and roll back wasteful spending, and support the men and women who defend our Nation every day. I hope the full Senate will quickly come to an agreement on the pending amendments and pass this important piece of legislation so it can go to the President's desk as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 1120.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to join my colleague from Rhode Island and those who have come to the floor throughout the day today, to join them in strong opposition to the efforts by Senator Paul to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's cross-State air pollution rule. As we have heard on the floor, his resolution would strip the EPA of its authority to protect our air from certain kinds of air pollution emitted by powerplants. That rule was put in place specifically to protect downwind States, such as New Hampshire and those of us in the Northeast and on the east coast, from air pollution that originates from outside our borders. I am particularly concerned by the attempts to stop these protections because in New Hampshire we have been fighting for them for over a decade, and they are long overdue. Clean air is a bipartisan matter for us in New Hampshire. As my friend and colleague Senator Ayotte noted on the floor last night: In New Hampshire, we have a long, bipartisan tradition of working to advance commonsense, balanced environmental protections. I couldn't agree with her more. She and I know that even if we eliminated all local sources of air pollution from within New Hampshire's borders, we would still have counties in the State with unacceptably high levels of pollution. That is because of the overwhelming pollution that comes into New Hampshire and the Northeast on air currents from the Midwest. In the Northeast, we are considered the tailpipe for the rest of the country. That is why, in 1997, when I was Governor, New Hampshire joined with seven other Northeast States to demand that the EPA begin cracking down on this transported air pollution. When New Hampshire joined that effort in 1997, this is what I said about it: When you climb Mount Washington in New Hampshire and see smog that is blown in from the Midwest, it's clearly time for a national crackdown on air pollution . . . it's time to address the major sources of a pollution that is fouling our air and affecting the health of our people. We've done our part in New Hampshire to cut down on emissions, and it's time for the EPA to get tough on major polluters upwind. I have here a picture of the White Mountains, which is where Mount Washington is. That is the highest point in New Hampshire and, actually, in the whole Northeast. What this picture shows very clearly is the impact of this air pollution that is coming in from upwind. We can see these are the White Mountains. On a clear day, you can see a beautiful blue sky, green trees, beautiful landscape. On a hazy day, this is the impact of that smog. It looks as if somebody took a gray paintbrush and painted over the White Mountains in New Hampshire. It is really unbelievable to me that we are here, 14 years after this action was brought in 1997, still debating transported air pollution. The time for debate is over. The air quality improvements from this rule will benefit over 289,000 children who are at risk for asthma in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. In my State alone, air pollution is estimated to cost businesses more than 17,000 lost days of work annually due to health problems. Yet we are still hearing the same old arguments that forcing polluters to clean up will hurt the economy, will hurt our businesses. No. In fact, we have lots of research that shows that is not true. Talking points about job-killing regulations ignore the fact that a recent economic analysis by the Political Economy Research Institute found that the EPA's cross-State air pollution rule and the proposed mercury rule will create 290,000 jobs per year over the next 5 years in important sectors of our economy such as construction, craft labor, and industrial manufacturing. Companies such as ThermoFischer Scientific, which has a plant in Newington, NH, is a leading manufacturer of environmental monitoring equipment and a great example that good policy creates jobs right here in the United States. By reducing air pollution, these protections are estimated to provide about $640 million in benefits to the New Hampshire economy alone. Nationwide, the health and environmental benefits are estimated at $120 billion to $280 billion each year. That is because when air pollution comes across our State borders, it is our New Hampshire companies that are forced to make up the difference. Without these rules, we have an unfair system where the burden of keeping our air clean falls disproportionately on downwind States such as New Hampshire. Higher air pollution costs our businesses through the loss of worker productivity and greater medical expenses, and it also affects our critical tourism industry in New Hampshire which depends on the clean air of the White Mountains and the health of our beautiful lakes and forests and streams. In New Hampshire, this tourism industry and the outdoor recreation economy, much like in Colorado where the Presiding Officer is from, supports 53,000 jobs, generates $260 million per year in sales taxes, and accounts for 8 percent of our State's gross domestic product. Transported air pollution has a direct impact on this industry, as we can see so clearly in this photograph, and on the quality of life of New Hampshire's 1.3 million citizens. It is time for the EPA to move forward with their cross-State air pollution rules. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to reject this resolution by Senator Paul and to protect the health and welfare of all of the citizens in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak to the legislation that is pending before us, S. 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act. This legislation, in fact, would put literally millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our Nation's roads, our bridges, our airports, and our railways. The bill that is before us has two components. The first is a direct $50 billion Federal investment in our infrastructure, and it would be split between roads, rail, transit, and airport projects. More than half of that would go to our well-established, formula-driven highway and transit programs, and that would include about $132 million for New Hampshire. The second piece of this proposal would create an infrastructure bank. That is legislation I cosponsored, and it has had bipartisan cosponsorship in the Senate. The bank, as it is structured, would be able to leverage public dollars to attract private capital, and that would, if it is successful, lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure over the next 10 years. It is a bipartisan idea, as I said, and it has attracted support from both the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Clearly, it is a good idea if it has both of those organizations onboard. Together, this legislation that is pending before us would mean immediate jobs for our construction industry. It has been one of the hardest hit by this recession. In New Hampshire the number of people working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest it had been in a decade. It was 25 percent lower than it was just in 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Christian Zimmerman, who is the head of one of our biggest contractors in New Hampshire, Pike Industries in Belmont, told me he has had to lay off 150 workers in the last couple of years as Federal funding to build New Hampshire's roads has run out. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that every $1 billion in highway spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. Economists at Moody's estimate that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. That is because of the ripple effect this spending has in economic activity. There are a number of good reasons to support the legislation that is before us. In the short term, this proposal would help put those who are unemployed in the construction industry back to work. That is something that would be critical as we are thinking about how to help the millions in this country who are unemployed and who have been unemployed, many of them for more than a year. In the long term, the benefits of this investment in our infrastructure are equally important. A quality infrastructure is critical to our businesses. It is critical to our future economic growth, and it is critical to our future competitiveness in the world. According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. There is very good evidence to show that our lack of investment in recent years is making itself felt in the condition of our roads and our bridges. This past June, the New Hampshire Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on the condition of our State's roads and bridges, our dams, our wastewater facilities, our airports, and our waterways, those major projects we all consider part of our infrastructure. Sadly, the engineers' report card gave New Hampshire's infrastructure a grade of C. That is better than the grade the national organization has given the United States as a whole; that was a D. It is not as good as we want it to be, and it is not as good as we need for New Hampshire or this country if we are going to continue to be competitive. Mr. President, 15 percent of New Hampshire's bridges are rated structurally deficient by the Federal Highway Administration, and 148 of them are red-listed. When I was first elected to the State senate, we had a controversy in New Hampshire because we had a highway commissioner who said because of the number of red-listed bridges, when we all drove around New Hampshire and went over a bridge we should drive fast and not look back. Well, fortunately, we are not in that position right now, but we have a lot of bridges that need investment, and this bill before us would provide New Hampshire with additional Federal highway funding that would help us address these bridges that are red-listed and address our other transportation needs. The most important project that should be addressed by this legislation in New Hampshire is a project that has been under way for years in the southern part of our State that has been threatened by the uncertainty surrounding Federal funding. It is the widening of Interstate 93 between southern New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This project is long overdue. It is badly needed by commuters and businesses in the area. The I-93 project was budgeted and planned based on the idea that the Federal Government would provide a consistent level of funding, but, unfortunately, the Republican budget the House has called for would produce a 35-percent cut in our highway program. Unfortunately, Congress has not yet been able to reach an agreement on a long-term reauthorization of our highway program. The uncertainty around this and the prospect of such a drastic cut has made this project, I-93, very difficult to finance. Right now New Hampshire transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding authority for this project that is just sitting on the sidelines because the Federal Government has not made good on its funding commitments. The bill before us would help complete this critical project for New Hampshire and so many others like it across the country. If we want to see the benefits that investment and infrastructure can provide in New Hampshire, we only need to look at the new airport access road that goes to our largest airport and our largest city of Manchester. It is going to open to traffic a full 2 years ahead of schedule. The project was accelerated because of the funding it received from the Recovery Act. I remember the winter after we passed the Recovery Act and looking at the bridge that was being constructed and talking about how we were going to be able to speed up this project because of those Recovery Act dollars. In fact, it has happened. It is going to open 2 years early. Local planning boards along the Manchester Airport access road are already seeing increased interest from commercial developers for the land that is along that road, that has been opened because of this new highway. Of course, Manchester's airport is also going to benefit from the investment in our airport access road. Another piece that is in this legislation that is critical to our infrastructure investment in New Hampshire and across the country is the funding for a next-generation system of air traffic control which would transfer our system from a ground-based radar system to a GPS- based system--something most of us have in our cars these days. That would allow the entire airline industry to plan more efficient, point- to-point routes, and it would allow everybody to save on fuel costs. I had the opportunity to meet with Southwest Airlines a couple weeks ago. It is the largest air carrier at the Manchester Airport. They talked to me about the challenges they are facing and the entire airline industry is facing because we haven't invested in this next generation system of air traffic control. They said it will save us money because it will be more economical in terms of fuel usage because they can go point to point, and it will save time because we can provide for more efficient routes. This is a no-brainer. Right now, our system of air traffic control is behind even the country of Mongolia. It is time for us to make this investment, to make it easier for airlines to fly into a small hub airport such as Manchester. It would save us all money. It would be safer. It is an investment that is long overdue. A couple weeks ago, I also had a chance to speak at an infrastructure summit that the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce supports for the Greater Manchester region. There was a whole day of talking about why investment in our infrastructure is important, because without reliable power, without reliable bridges and public transportation and roads, businesses can't thrive. The Manchester Chamber believes investment in infrastructure is critical to growing our economy and creating jobs, and I share that belief. It is a belief that I came to as a State senator way back over 20 years ago, when I served in the New Hampshire State Senate. It is something I continued to support as Governor. In those days, we worked together on a bipartisan basis because we all understood, Republicans and Democrats, investing in infrastructure produces returns. New Hampshire and the rest of our country need this investment that this legislation pending before us would provide. Our unemployed need the work. Our businesses need to know we are going to make these investments so they can depend on this certainty for their long-term growth and competitiveness. So I hope, as we come to this vote today on the motion to proceed to this legislation, my colleagues, particularly those across the aisle, will give up their opposition to this legislation. I know they know how critical it is to invest in our infrastructure. So this is something we all ought to come together around. Just because this is a proposal that has been put forward by the President is not a reason not to support it. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Let's make these investments. Let's put people back to work. Let's make sure we are going to be competitive in the future. Thank you very much. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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