Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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 July 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-G50 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 July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today with deep sadness to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of Army SPC Nicholas P. Bernier, who died on June 25, 2011, from injuries sustained during combat in Kherwar, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Specialist Bernier was a combat medic with Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division based out of Fort Polk, LA. A native of East Kingston, NH, and 2007 graduate of Exeter High School, Nicholas or Nick, as he was called by those who knew him, enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after graduation. Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in October 2010, Nick provided medical care in Texas to wounded soldiers who had returned from overseas. From a very young age, Nick stood out in his tight-knit community for his desire to help others. It was, therefore, no surprise to his friends and family when he answered the call to serve his country, to protect his fellow Americans, and to care for his brothers in arms as a medic on the frontlines in Afghanistan. This last assignment was, in fact, a natural fit for him. Our Nation can never adequately thank Nick for his willingness to serve and to make the ultimate sacrifice defending the freedoms we hold dear. While words provide little comfort at such a time as this, I hope Nick's family will find some solace in the deep appreciation all Americans share for Nick, for the life he lived and for the ultimate sacrifice he made in the service of others. He was a true American hero. Nick is survived by his parents, Paul Bernier of East Kingston, NH, and Tina Clements of Haverhill, MA; two brothers, Bradley and Christopher, and half-sister, Brittany. He also leaves behind a caring extended family and a community that loved him. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of SPC Nicholas P. Bernier.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the media has been focused on our differences. But I think there is one thing that every single member of this body agrees on, we have to address the long-term debt and deficits. Like many Members of this Chamber, I have repeatedly called for a bipartisan package that includes reforms to everything deficit related. That means cuts to spending, domestic, defense, and mandatory, as well as increased revenues. I have supported attaching deficit reduction measures to the vote on the debt limit. And I believe reducing the deficit is critical to strengthening the long-term health of the economy. But I also believe that everyone--everyone--has to come to the table to find a compromise solution that will get this done. Democrats know this, that is why time and again we have offered compromise plans, including more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts. It is disappointing that politics are keeping some from negotiating in good faith. That is a disservice to the American people. I have spoken before about what some people are trying to a protect, tax breaks for big oil, for hedge fund operators and for yacht owners. I would like to speak now about what some are willing to risk to protect those tax giveaways. What happens if we do not increase the debt limit and meet the United States' financial obligations. First of all, raising the debt limit does not mean spending more. Our spending is set by Congress's annual budget process. Raising the debt limit means paying our government's bills. Our government. It is not the Democrats' government, it is not President Obama's government. It belongs to all of us. We are talking about servicing savings bonds issued under President Reagan. Supporting an Army first sent to Afghanistan under President Bush. Paying Social Security checks, food inspectors, and air traffic controllers. This is about the full faith and credit of our government. Failure to raise the debt limit means default. It means the United States would not meet its obligations. What would happen? Warren Buffett said it would be Congress's ``most asinine act ever.'' Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would lead to ``a huge financial calamity.'' Economist and former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow said default would be ``catastrophe.'' The biggest concern these experts name is the potential for a global financial crisis. Companies, pension funds, and governments across the world hold U.S. savings bonds. A default could trigger a crisis worse than the one in 2008, which itself triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression. We are just now climbing out of the hole caused by the last financial crisis. We cannot risk another one. Let me read from a letter sent to Congress earlier this week by hundreds of America's top businesses and business organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, and great New Hampshire companies like Cirtronics and Control Air: We believe it is vitally important for the U.S. government to make good on its financial obligations. . . . It is critical that the U.S. government not default in any way on its fiscal obligations. A great nation--like a great company--has to be relied upon to pay its debts when they become due. This is a Main Street not Wall Street issue. Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just for companies but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student debt. A default would risk both disarray in those markets and a host of unintended consequences. The debt ceiling trigger does offer a needed catalyst for serious negotiations on budget discipline but avoiding even a technical default is essential. This is a risk our country must not take. Again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of business leaders. We should listen to them. In a recent op-ed in USA Today, the Chamber and the Financial Services Forum spelled out why they believe a default would result in ``hundreds of thousands of lost jobs every year.'' First, they point out that a default would halt critical government operations, far more abruptly than we have seen in past standoffs over the budget. They say: The U.S. Treasury is expected to take in about $170 billion in tax revenue in August, but needs to pay $300 billion in expenses. The resulting $130 billion deficit would require the government to pick which programs--Medicare, Medicaid stamps, unemployment insurance--to pay for and which not to fund. And there would be little money left to pay our troops or to run the courts, the prison system, the FBI, or other essential operations. They go on to note that default would make our government debt and deficit problem worse. Yesterday, Moody's, the credit rating agency, put the United States governments' credit rating under review. If Moody's were to downgrade our credit rating, investor confidence in U.S. bonds would be shaken, and it would be more expensive for our government to borrow money. This is something that I understand viscerally because, as Governor of New Hampshire, we worked closely to try to avoid the rating agencies downgrading the State's borrowing so that we would not have to pay more money. JP Morgan estimates that the higher interest rates caused by default could increase our annual deficits by a staggering $75 billion every year. Just from higher interest rates. If we are serious about reducing the deficit, this is the wrong way to go. That is why we need to find a compromise solution. We have in the past. The debt limit has gone up under every President in modern times. President Nixon raised it nine times. President Clinton raised it four times. Since President Kennedy, the most frequent and largest increases came under President Reagan. He raised the debt limit 18 times, by a total of 199 percent. I don't think anyone here thinks President Reagan was a champion of big government. I believe that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of getting this done. I believe many of them believe in the value of compromise. We all have to be at the table. We all have to be ready to compromise to reach a solution. I ask my colleagues to do what is right and put politics aside, for the good of the economy and of the country.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to lend my voice to the others who have been here--my colleagues--to talk about the need to come to the table and come up with an agreement around how we are going to deal with raising the debt limit by the August 2 deadline and include some sort of package to address our debt and our deficits. I listened carefully to my colleague and friend from Indiana, and I think we agree on a lot of what he said. I certainly agree that both sides of the aisle have been working hard to look at ways we can address this issue. I agree we need Presidential leadership to address this challenge we are facing. That is why I was so pleased to see the President come out yesterday and say, very strongly, that in order to address this, we are going to have to put revenues on the table, make sure they are in the mix, because we cannot get there without looking at revenues, with just looking at cuts to the budget. So I think there is a lot of agreement. But every negotiation I have been part of means that every side has to give a little. So drawing a line in the sand and saying: We are not going to look at revenues at the same time we are looking at spending cuts is not the way for us to solve this challenge. Now, we all know that negotiations are ongoing between the President and leadership in both the House and the Senate. They are looking at all kinds of measures to reduce the deficit and raise the legal debt limit. There is no doubt we have to address the long-term debt and deficits. I repeatedly called for a bipartisan package that includes reforms to everything that is deficit related. So that means domestic, defense, and mandatory spending, as well as looking at revenues. I support including deficit-reduction measures in the vote to raise the debt limit. I believe that reducing the deficit is important to strengthening the long-term health of our economy. But that being said, failure to increase the debt limit would do exactly the opposite. It would devastate the economy. To be clear, raising the debt limit does not mean spending more. It means meeting our existing obligations--obligations made by both parties over many years. Failure to raise the debt limit means default. It means, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, we would not pay our creditors, and that disruption would cause the worldwide economy to have devastating consequences--consequences that would be incredibly expensive to American taxpayers. I think Warren Buffett said it very well when he said: If Congress did that, it would be the ``most asinine act ever.'' Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would cause severe disruptions in the financial markets, it would slow our economic recovery, and make the deficit problem worse. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it absolutely must be done, the debt limit must be raised. Economist and former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow said default would be ``catastrophic.'' All these experts have pointed out that the disruption to world financial markets would plunge us into another financial crisis, and America would lose the trust of world investors, which would result in higher borrowing costs for the government, and that would ultimately be borne by taxpayers. It would also mean higher interest rates for consumers, making it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college, or even pay your credit card bill. In a recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimated that if we do not raise the debt limit, the Federal Government would have to eliminate all spending on discretionary programs, cut nearly 70 percent of spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, or increase taxes by more than 60 percent. That is not just speculation. That is what will happen if we fail to raise the debt limit. We should not be playing politics with this issue. We all have a stake in making sure this gets done. That is why it makes no sense to me that the leadership on the other side of the aisle is refusing to entertain any discussion about eliminating any tax loopholes. I think it is important to highlight some of those tax loopholes, and there are two I want to talk about that have been mentioned on the floor in the last couple of days. I would think we could all agree that these are the kinds of tax loopholes we ought to be closing. First, we have a special deduction for yacht owners. If the yacht is big enough, like the yacht shown in this picture I have in the Chamber--so if it has beds and a bathroom and a kitchen--then yacht owners can claim it as a second home, and they can get the same mortgage interest deduction on their taxes that we give to middle-class homeowners. I think this is a clear abuse of the Tax Code. The mortgage deduction provision is meant to increase home ownership, not yacht ownership. There are as many as a half million yachts in the United States that qualify for this exemption, and the yacht industry actually includes this tax loophole in their marketing. Now, the second loophole that, again, has been mentioned before on the Senate floor is a tax break for racehorse owners. The current Tax Code allows racehorse owners to depreciate the cost of their horses at an accelerated rate. Yachts and racehorses, these are tax breaks that just do not make sense. We all know we are grappling with a truly historic long-term deficit. To continue to ignore the revenue side of that deficit is irresponsible. Our Tax Code is riddled with hundreds of arbitrary tax breaks just like the one for racehorses and the one for yachts. In fact, we give away more in tax breaks in a year than we take in through individual and corporate income taxes. These tax breaks are, too often, granted based on who has the most clout in Congress rather than based on what is best for the economy or what is fair for people in this country. So the result is that some businesses are paying nearly the full corporate tax rate while others are paying almost nothing. We need a fairer system. We need a tax system that drives innovation and keeps our economy competitive on the global stage. Do we really want to continue supporting tax breaks for yachts and racehorses? If we want to eliminate waste in government, isn't this exactly the kind of spending we should be targeting? Lastly, we must consider the price of refusing to deal with these tax breaks, of refusing to say we are going to look at these kinds of tax breaks because we know that meaningful deficit reform will mean trillions of dollars in changes. In avoiding revenues, Republicans have, instead, proposed steep cuts that are dangerous both to the health of the American people and to the strength of our economy. Eliminating funding for basic women's health care, ending Medicare as we know it, dangerous cuts to nursing home care, slashing Pell grants that will help train the next generation of engineers, stopping the development of new energy technologies, and halting efforts to retool the economy to compete in the 21st century--these are the alternatives that Republicans are proposing to save tax breaks for yachts and racehorses. We know we need to continue these kinds of basic services and investments in the economy. The President's bipartisan commission has said it, the business community has said it, and Americans know it. We also know that finding a compromise on the debt limit is critical if we want to avoid plunging our economy back into chaos. We know that many of these tax breaks just do not make sense. So I urge my colleagues, let's look at the facts. Let's work together for what we all know needs to happen--reduce the deficit, raise the debt limit, and keep America working. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island be the next speaker on our side.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of SPC Michael B. Cook, who died on June 6, 2011, from injuries sustained from indirect rocket fire in Baghdad, Iraq, while supporting Operation New Dawn. He gave his life in service to his country on his 27th birthday. Michael was assigned to the B Battery, 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, KS. Growing up in the towns of Pelham and Salem, NH, Michael graduated from Salem High School in 2003. He enlisted as a way to pay for his education and serve his country. Like so many brave sons and daughters of New Hampshire, Michael sought to serve his country and did so with honor. Tragically, Michael is the fifth Salem High School graduate killed in action in the war on terror, and the third from his class. Michael is remembered by his family as a devoted father and son. Friends described him as hardworking and dedicated to the service of others. It was therefore no surprise when he answered the call to serve his country and protect his fellow Americans. While no words can diminish the loss of this brave New Hampshire son, I hope his family can find comfort in knowing that all Americans appreciate and respect his heroic service and sacrifice. Michael is survived by his wife Samantha and their two children, Hailee and Michael at Fort Riley, KS, and his parents Patti and Michael B. Cook Sr., and his siblings Lucas and Kimberly of Salem, NH. He also leaves behind a caring extended family and many dear friends. He will be missed by all. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of SPC Michael B. Cook.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to an exceptional teacher from New Hampshire. Stephanie Wheeler has been chosen to receive the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. This award honors teachers who have made exceptional contributions to their students and to their profession. I congratulate Ms. Wheeler for her outstanding accomplishments and commitment to New Hampshire's students. Our country's competitiveness in the global economy requires us to foster the development of our students in math and science. Educators like Stephanie are essential to this effort because they are able to engage students and help them develop a love for these important subjects. I am pleased to see Stephanie honored for her work. Stephanie has been the title I mathematics supervisor and coach at Wilson Elementary School in Manchester for the last 4 years. In this position, Stephanie oversees all title I mathematics certified instructors and monitors the implementation of the mathematics curriculum for teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade. She also teaches mathematics daily to second, third, and fifth graders. Prior to her time at Wilson Elementary School, Stephanie spent 5 years as the district title I math coach for the Manchester School District. She also served as a middle school math teacher for both the Bedford and Laconia school districts for 9 years. In addition to her responsibilities as an educator and title I supervisor, Stephanie has presented workshops at local, state, and national mathematics conferences. She also serves as the elementary representative on the New Hampshire Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors. Her dedication to improving mathematics education in New Hampshire and throughout the country by sharing her knowledge with other educators is truly commendable. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is the most prestigious honor awarded to mathematics and science teachers in the country. As a former teacher myself, I am especially proud of the role that Stephanie plays in educating the next generation of Americans. I am honored to recognize Stephanie Wheeler's exceptional dedication to her students and her subject and to congratulate her for her commitment to excellence in teaching.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for the great work she has done over a long period of time for women and families in her State of Michigan and throughout the country. I remember her telling me she got involved in politics in order to address a nursing home issue, which disproportionately affects women--just as this budget that passed the House disproportionately affects women and children. I am pleased to be able to join her on the floor, along with my other colleagues. I also appreciate Senator Mikulski's leadership in bringing us together today. There is no doubt that everybody in the Senate--and those who spoke today--understands we need to deal with this country's debt and deficit. There is no question about that. But the question is, Are we going to do that in a way that is fair to everyone? Unfortunately, the House Republican plan would disproportionately impact women and, in particular, older women. Make no mistake about it, the Republican budget that passed the House will end Medicare as we know it today. Since women are a majority of all Medicare beneficiaries, any radical change to the Medicare system will disproportionately affect women, and it will, in the long term, hurt so many women in this country. For example, if we take a typical senior on Medicare in my home State of New Hampshire, under the House Republican plan that senior's out-of-pocket health care costs are going to double to $12,000 a year. As time goes on, those out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to increase. This health care impact on senior women is especially hard because, during most women's working years, they earn less than men. That is still true today--women earn less than men. Women often work part time or leave the workforce while raising families. As a result, they have less retirement savings, on average, and lower Social Security benefits. So for women who already have earned less, Medicare is a critical source of financial security. It keeps many women out of poverty. The House-passed Republican budget will end that security for seniors who rely on prescription drugs--a real improvement we made when we passed the affordable health care plan because we made great progress toward closing that doughnut hole and helping seniors with the cost of prescription drugs. But what the House Republican plan will do is dramatically increase those costs. Again, in New Hampshire, we have 15,200 seniors who will pay $8.5 million more in just 1 year for their medication. Of course, we all know women tend to live longer than men. As a result, women represent three-quarters of our most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries--those who are living in nursing homes and assisted living or other long-term care facilities. When their savings run out--which happens often, given the costs of long-term care--seniors must turn to Medicaid to pay their bills. However, the House Republican budget would also make radical changes to the Medicaid system. So their proposal not only threatens Medicare but it threatens long-term care for millions of women who rely on Medicaid. The House Republican proposal eliminates the current Medicare system and puts private insurance companies in charge of the health benefits seniors receive. The Republican plan does nothing to reduce the cost of health care. It just shifts that cost of health care onto seniors. What is going to happen when we shift the cost to seniors who can no longer afford to pay for their health care is that they are going to go to emergency rooms, and emergency rooms are not only the most expensive care because we would have eliminated the preventive care that is part of the new Medicare proposal we passed for health care, but everybody who has health insurance winds up paying for those emergency room costs that seniors would not be able to afford to pay. So it is a double cost shifting--a shifting to seniors for the cost of their health care and a shifting of those health care costs to everybody who has insurance. The House Republican budget will hurt all seniors, but it will especially hurt women because they are the most vulnerable. I hope all our colleagues will join us in voting against the House Republican budget that is on our desk that we expect to take up this week. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased I could be here to hear our colleague from Florida talking so eloquently about the importance of ending the subsidies we are currently paying to the Nation's largest oil companies and about the importance of continuing to preserve the gulf and to make sure the regulations we put in place last year continue. I appreciate his leadership on both of those issues, and particularly on protecting the gulf, which is a national treasure. So I thank very much our colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. I came down to the floor today to talk about the important legislation that is before us to reduce our deficit by ending the needless subsidies for the Nation's largest oil companies. At a time when Americans are paying these companies $4 a gallon for gasoline--and in some places it is more than that--it might be surprising to some people out there that these same companies are receiving $4 billion a year in subsidies from the American taxpayer. The legislation that is before us in the Senate right now would end six of these separate tax handouts. One of them repeals a provision that essentially amounts to a subsidy for foreign oil production. A second closes a loophole that lets oil companies drill for free on public lands in the Outer Continental Shelf. Another ends a practice that lets oil companies manipulate the numbers when deducting the cost of new wells from their taxes. Under current law, in fact, oil companies sometimes can deduct more than they actually paid to put in place the well. While so many families and small businesses nationwide have struggled to pay the high cost of gasoline, the five largest oil companies in the United States collectively made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last decade. Yet because of unnecessary and outdated tax subsidies, ExxonMobil-- the biggest oil company--paid no U.S. income tax in 2009. That is hard to explain to the small businesses in New Hampshire and Florida and Delaware that are struggling in this recession to pay their taxes, that the biggest oil company in the country that made the highest profits did not pay any taxes in 2009. With record deficits, ending those giveaways is a commonsense step toward fixing the Federal budget. I have heard some people who are in favor of these giveaways say we need them so the oil companies can keep prices low. But as Senator Nelson so clearly put it, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week in a report that rolling back these tax handouts will not raise gas prices. With prices so high, they said, oil companies will do all they can to maximize production from all existing wells and the oil supply will remain unchanged. A barrel of oil is currently selling for far more than it costs an oil company to produce. These subsidies are doing nothing to make gasoline cheaper. In fact, the former CEO of Shell Oil Company spoke about drilling subsidies last February, and he said: ``with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.'' But I think it is important to be clear. This legislation is not about punishing the oil companies for doing well. We want all companies in America to do well. It is about reducing the deficit and our debt and making smart policy choices with our limited resources. Tax breaks for big corporations are just spending under another name, and all government spending of taxpayer dollars has to come under scrutiny as we tackle our debt and deficits. We are never going to get our massive deficits and debt under control unless we are prepared to eliminate outdated and unnecessary government programs--and that means government programs that we support on the Democratic side of the aisle, and it also means outdated and unnecessary programs that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support. Providing tax handouts to one of the most profitable industries in human history--an industry that clearly needs no help from taxpayers-- is a logical place to start. As we emerge from this historic recession and grapple with our long- term deficits, we have to ask ourselves: What are our priorities-- investing in the next-generation economy, reducing the national debt to leave to our children or is it providing outdated tax breaks to one of the most profitable industries in the history of our country? I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation to eliminate these giveaways, reduce the deficit, and strengthen our economy. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I congratulate and honor Larry Kelly, who is retiring from his position as executive director for Tri- County Community Action Program, CAP, which serves New Hampshire's North Country. Larry's career has been one of admirable service to New Hampshire and his community. Through various roles, including positions at the Community Services Administration in Boston, Federal Regional Council of New England, and other CAP agencies, Larry's career has been dedicated to helping others and serving the less fortunate. In 1984, Larry joined Tri-County CAP. Larry's dedication to the greater Berlin community and the entire State of New Hampshire, coupled with his decades of volunteer service, is a testimony to his character. His kind and gentle disposition is complemented by a passion and drive to make his community a better place in which to live and work. Always putting the community's interests above his own, Larry has been a champion for the neediest among us, advocating on behalf of those without a voice and without hope. He has been rightly recognized as a leader among his peers throughout his professional life, receiving national awards such as the Community Action Foundation's Executive Director of the Year Award. On a personal note, I am very grateful to Larry for his support and counsel during my years in public office. Whether it was a CAP-related matter or not, Larry was always ready and willing to assist in whatever capacity he could. I consider Larry a friend, and I know his contribution to the North Country will be missed. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Larry Kelly of Berlin, NH, on his retirement.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2011. This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that every State has either a full-service veterans hospital or, in the alternative, that veterans in every State have access to comparable in-state hospital care and medical services. I am pleased that my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this measure. New Hampshire is currently the only State that does not have either a full-service veterans medical center or a military hospital providing comparable services to veterans. While the staff of the Manchester VA Medical Center does an excellent job of caring for our State's veterans, this facility does not provide inpatient surgical care, emergency services or care in a number of critical specialties. This imposes a great burden on many New Hampshire veterans who are forced to travel out of state for a range of medical services. New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this number continues to grow as our troops return from major deployments in the Middle East. It is unconscionable that our veterans must board shuttles to larger VA facilities in Massachusetts or Vermont to get the medical care they have been promised in exchange for their service. Often, especially during the winter months, travel is difficult in New England, and our veterans should not be forced to drive long distances in order to receive the medical care they have earned and deserve. Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans get the care they need as close to home as possible. This legislation provides the Department of Veterans Affairs with the flexibility to achieve this end in the most cost-effective manner. If it is not feasible for the VA to construct a new full-service hospital in New Hampshire or to provide the full panoply of hospital services at its existing medical center in Manchester, the legislation simply requires the VA to contract with other health providers to offer comparable in-state care. I introduced similar legislation in the 111th Congress with our former colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. Since that time, the VA has established an effective contractual relationship with one hospital in New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, to expand in-state care for our veterans. I believe this type of partnership could be readily expanded. I have begun working with officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs to find innovative ways to enhance public-private health care partnerships in New Hampshire and look forward to furthering that dialogue. Our veterans deserve access to first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize this inequity and support this effort to provide New Hampshire veterans with the same access to quality local health care that veterans in every other State enjoy. I look forward to working with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation, with my Senate colleagues and with the Obama administration to end this injustice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2011. This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that every State has either a full-service veterans hospital or, in the alternative, that veterans in every State have access to comparable in-state hospital care and medical services. I am pleased that my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this measure. New Hampshire is currently the only State that does not have either a full-service veterans medical center or a military hospital providing comparable services to veterans. While the staff of the Manchester VA Medical Center does an excellent job of caring for our State's veterans, this facility does not provide inpatient surgical care, emergency services or care in a number of critical specialties. This imposes a great burden on many New Hampshire veterans who are forced to travel out of state for a range of medical services. New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this number continues to grow as our troops return from major deployments in the Middle East. It is unconscionable that our veterans must board shuttles to larger VA facilities in Massachusetts or Vermont to get the medical care they have been promised in exchange for their service. Often, especially during the winter months, travel is difficult in New England, and our veterans should not be forced to drive long distances in order to receive the medical care they have earned and deserve. Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans get the care they need as close to home as possible. This legislation provides the Department of Veterans Affairs with the flexibility to achieve this end in the most cost-effective manner. If it is not feasible for the VA to construct a new full-service hospital in New Hampshire or to provide the full panoply of hospital services at its existing medical center in Manchester, the legislation simply requires the VA to contract with other health providers to offer comparable in-state care. I introduced similar legislation in the 111th Congress with our former colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. Since that time, the VA has established an effective contractual relationship with one hospital in New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, to expand in-state care for our veterans. I believe this type of partnership could be readily expanded. I have begun working with officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs to find innovative ways to enhance public-private health care partnerships in New Hampshire and look forward to furthering that dialogue. Our veterans deserve access to first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize this inequity and support this effort to provide New Hampshire veterans with the same access to quality local health care that veterans in every other State enjoy. I look forward to working with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation, with my Senate colleagues and with the Obama administration to end this injustice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I took the opportunity yesterday in an Armed Services Committee subcommittee to ask Department of Defense officials who have been responsible for maintaining our military technological edge what the impact would be on DOD's research if Congress does not reauthorize the SBIR Program. Assistant Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is ``something we absolutely need.'' He spoke of what it is like talking to small innovative companies he works with through SBIR, and he told me: There are small companies willing to take some risk in areas where larger companies just, for whatever reason, just don't. You spend a day with a small business like that, and your mind explodes with new ideas. That is the kind of innovative spirit we need to stay competitive. We need this for America's national security, and as the Senator from Louisiana points out, this is a program that creates jobs. We need to get this reauthorization done. We need to talk about regulatory reform, but we need to do this first. In a few minutes we will be voting on whether to move forward with a bill reauthorizing a program that is critically important to my home State of New Hampshire and the entire country--the Small Business Innovation Research program, or SBIR. As Chair Landrieu has pointed out, the Senate has been debating this bill for 5 weeks now. My colleagues and I from the Small Business Committee have come to the floor several times to talk about the importance of this program for the future of our economy. The bottom line is that SBIR promotes innovation among the entrepreneurs that will keep the American economy competitive in the 21st century. But as we decide whether to move forward with this bill--which has broad bipartisan support--I wanted to talk about the importance of SBIR--not just for our small businesses, but also for our national defense. Many agencies have come to rely on small, innovative companies to help them think outside the box and solve important problems. This is especially true for agencies that are charged with protecting our national security. Agencies like the Department of Defense rely on small companies to perform R&D that often leads to technologies that help our troops in the battlefield and help secure our country. I took the opportunity yesterday at an Armed Services Committee hearing to ask the Department of Defense officials responsible for maintaining our military's technological edge what the impact would be on DOD's research if Congress did not reauthorize SBIR. Assistant Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is ``something we absolutely need.'' He discussed what it is like talking to the small, innovative entrepreneurs that he works with through the SBIR program. He told me, ``there are small companies willing to take some risk in areas where larger companies just, for whatever reason, just don't. You spend a day with a small business like that, and your mind explodes with new ideas.'' That is the kind of innovative spirit that we need to stay competitive. And it is the same spirit that agencies like the Department of Defense need to keep America secure. In 2010, the Department of Defense issued nearly 3,000 awards through the SBIR program. Let me give just one example of a company in my State that has benefitted from the SBIR program and has helped the Department of Defense develop a product that is currently helping our troops carry out their missions. Earlier this year, I visited a firm called Active Shock in Manchester, NH. Active Shock showed me the suspension technologies that it developed with funding from a competitive SBIR award. These technologies are now used by the Department of Defense to help our troops in the field. They help stabilize our war vehicles in rough terrain. This is exactly the kind of high-tech product that is developed as a result of SBIR. And SBIR awards are absolutely critical for these small companies. Bill Larkins, the CEO of Active Shock, told me that Active Shock would simply not be here today were it not for the SBIR program. The products that Active Shock developed also have commercial applications, so the SBIR awards have helped them grow and create jobs. Active Shock started with only a few employees; now, it has grown to over 30 employees. Active Shock is just one of many small firms in New Hampshire that have successfully competed for funding through SBIR in the 28 years it has been in existence. All across New Hampshire, small businesses that otherwise would not be able to compete for federal R&D funding have won competitive SBIR grants that advance technology and science and create good jobs. In just the last 2 years, New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR awards. And many of these companies are helping the Department of Defense meet its R&D needs--in fact, despite its small size, New Hampshire is ranked 22nd in the Nation for total grants awarded from the Department of Defense since SBIR began. We need to focus on smart ways to create jobs and stay competitive. This program is critical for meeting that goal. But we also need to remember that SBIR also enhances our national security. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important program.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Murray and Mikulski for gathering with us today and all of my colleagues who are here. I am proud to join them. Tomorrow we expect to vote on House proposals to defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. These resolutions have been offered not because anyone argues they create jobs or improve health care but because House Republicans were willing to shut down the Federal Government if they did not receive a vote on Planned Parenthood and health care. That is right. Even though shutting down the government would have meant furloughing 800,000 people, including members of the military, they were willing to shut down the government. This kind of a threat, especially in a recession, is irresponsible. Planned Parenthood is a critical provider of women's health care, especially to low-income individuals. Mr. President, 1.4 million Medicaid patients around the country--mostly women but not all--depend on Planned Parenthood as their main source of primary and preventive health care. They depend on Planned Parenthood for contraceptives, screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, and for screenings for breast and cervical cancer. In some parts of New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of preventative services for low-income women. It serves almost 16,000 patients annually. In a time of economic hardship, we should not be taking steps to reduce access to health care. Let's be clear. This vote has nothing to do with abortion. By law, Planned Parenthood cannot use Federal funds for abortions. Moreover, Planned Parenthood provides family planning services that greatly reduce the occurrence of unplanned pregnancies. It is ironic that many of the most ardent opponents of abortion are the very people who want to shut down the family planning services that prevent unplanned pregnancies. This vote is also not about deficit reduction. Despite what some Members of the Senate have claimed, 97 percent of the reproductive health services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire--and throughout most of the country--are preventive care. Over 90 percent are for preventive care. As we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and saves lives. Detecting cancer early through regular screenings greatly increases a patient's quality of life and chances of survival. In the long run it is vastly cheaper for patients in the health care system, and the Federal Government, for diseases to be prevented or treated early. One of my constituents from Rochester, a mother of two, told me about her oldest daughter who works for a small restaurant. Her daughter can't afford health insurance, and it is not provided where she works. For her regular checkups and preventive care, she relies on Planned Parenthood. Because of the history of cervical cancer in her family, her daughter was regularly screened, and it was Planned Parenthood that first diagnosed her daughter with cervical cancer. Because of that early diagnosis, her daughter was able to obtain successful lifesaving treatment. There are countless stories such as this. We heard some of them this afternoon. I also wish to address the other House proposal we have been discussing this afternoon. It is a proposal that would also hurt women's health care. That is the pending resolution to deny funding for health care reform. Already the Affordable Care Act is working for women across the country. As of last year, it is illegal for insurance companies to require women to obtain preauthorizations or referrals to access OB/GYN care. But there is a lot of work that still has to be done. Currently, women in the individual health care market pay up to 48 percent more in premiums than men. Beginning in 2014, this kind of discrimination, because of the new health care law, will be outlawed. Issuers will be banned from issuing discriminatory gender ratings to charge women and small businesses with predominantly female workforces more for the same coverage. In the same year, 2014, health care reform also makes it illegal for insurers to deny health care coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, designations which have often been used to discriminate against women. Many women across the country today are denied coverage for preexisting conditions such as breast or cervical cancer, having had a C-section, or even just being pregnant. Some women have even been denied coverage for having sought out medical care for domestic or sexual violence. It is critical that we ensure low-income women have access to health care in these difficult times and that we ensure that all women have access to health care. I urge my colleagues to vote against these two provisions tomorrow, these ideological attacks on women's health care. Let's get back to the business of creating jobs and dealing with this country's debt and deficit. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Captain David Lang for his outstanding service to the people of Hampton, NH. For the past 30 years, Dave has worked to protect his community through his faithful service with the Hampton Fire Department. As he retires from the department, I applaud him for his longstanding service and dedication to the people of Hampton. Captain Lang first joined the Hampton Fire Department in December 1979 as an on-call firefighter. Due to his eagerness, hard work, and reliability, Dave rose through the ranks from permanent firefighter, to EMT, to lieutenant, and for the last 4 years has served as captain. During his tenure, Captain Lang consistently prioritized the needs of the community over his own, in particular during the Old Salt fire in 1999 and the A Street block fire in 2009. He has been credited with the successful resuscitation of a patient in cardiac arrest and the rescue of several trapped civilians. For this outstanding service, Captain Lang has been recognized by the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police as Law Officer of the Year for Fire Service and has received the New Hampshire Fire Academy's prestigious Academy Award. Dave's commitment to fire safety in Hampton did not stop with his service in the field but carried over into professional leadership roles. Throughout his career, he participated in the Professional Fire Fighters Association of New Hampshire and for the past 16 years has served as its president. I am pleased that even as Dave retires from the Hampton Fire Department, he continues to serve as President of the Professional Fire Fighters. Dave is a native of New Hampshire and has lived in Hampton for over 30 years. I have known him personally and professionally for over 20 years and can attest to his commitment to public service, to his community, and to his family. Dave has been married to his wife Karen for 35 years and they have two beautiful daughters, Emily and Molly. His strong character and generous spirit touch upon all aspects of his work and family life, and his dedication and leadership in the community distinguishes him as an extraordinary public servant. New Hampshire is truly lucky to have him as a native son. On a personal note, I am grateful to Dave for his support and counsel during my years in public office. I could always count on Dave's advice about issues ranging from firefighting and emergency response to collective bargaining. Whenever I needed Dave's assistance in any capacity, he was always there, willing to help. As Captain Lang prepares for a well-deserved retirement, I wish to thank and honor him for his service to the people of Hampton.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma. I don't think there is a single Senator in this Chamber who doesn't recognize that we have to deal with the debt and the deficit this country is facing. But the reality is that we are not going to deal with that on the 12 percent of the budget that is nondefense discretionary spending. We have to look at mandatory spending and tax reform, and we need to do it in a thoughtful way that recognizes that we need to invest in our future and make the cuts where we can do it, without harming the future of this country. Mr. President, I am really sad that we are here at the eleventh hour on the floor of the Senate looking at a probable government shutdown at midnight tonight. It didn't have to be this way. I was disappointed to read accounts of some of our colleagues in the other Chamber, on the other side of the Capitol, who were literally applauding when they were told that a government shutdown was coming. The people of my State of New Hampshire are not applauding. They don't want a shutdown because they know that a shutdown of the Federal Government is bad for the country, bad for the economy, and it is bad for the people of New Hampshire. Let me begin by going over some of what is going to happen in New Hampshire if the government shuts down. I have spoken before about companies in my home State of New Hampshire who are affected by our inability to get a budget done--companies such as Velcro USA. I think we all know what Velcro is. I am proud to say it is produced in New Hampshire, and it was invented there. The United States military is a major customer for Velcro. It is a major customer of the company, Velcro USA, because Velcro is used in soldiers' uniforms and equipment. Normally, the government is a steady customer of Velcro USA, but now they have been waiting for months for us in Congress to pass a full- year funding bill for the government. A shutdown will mean increased uncertainty for the company and for the hundreds of employees who work there. We heard from another company in my home State, a small, innovative, high-tech company which has said even the smallest shutdown is going to have dire effects. They said they would lose 95 percent of their revenue if we have a shutdown. This is a small business that has about 45 employees, but it is a business that has a lot of growth potential. It is exactly the kind of innovative company that will keep America's economy competitive. They were planning to hire 16 people this year--increasing their workforce by about one-third. But that will be put on hold if we have a government shutdown. Then there is the housing market. In New Hampshire and across the country, it is still very fragile, probably the slowest to recover sector of our economy. In New Hampshire foreclosure rates are down 12 percent from a year ago, but they are still at historic highs. FHA home loan guarantees have been critical to the recovery in the housing market. Again, all of that is going to stop in a shutdown. No new FHA loans could be approved. If there is a closing scheduled or someone is trying to buy a foreclosed home or any home, with FHA help, the deal is off-- or at least it will be on hold. With all of the problems that have been caused by the housing crisis, we should not be hamstringing one of the most effective programs we have for assisting homeowners; and that is what we are going to do if there is a government shutdown. A shutdown would also close the Small Business Administration's lending programs. We all know how important working capital is for small businesses, which is still a problem. Then, of course, there are the 7,400 Federal workers in New Hampshire. That makes the Federal Government one of our State's largest employers. They don't know when paychecks are going to start again or if they are going to get backpay. Their salary just isn't important for them and their families, but these 7,400 hard-working New Hampshire citizens are critical to their local economy. When their pay stops, they stop making their mortgage payments, they stop paying their utility bills, they stop shopping at local stores. These are just some of the effects of a shutdown on the economy in my State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a small State, but if we multiply these economic impacts across our entire country, this shutdown carries the real risk of undermining our fragile economic recovery. Why is this happening? We have an agreement, pretty much, on how much we are going to cut in spending. In fact, the Senate has gone more than 50 percent toward meeting the House in the cuts they want to make in the budget. This is not about how much money we are going to cut from the budget; this is happening because we have a small minority in Congress who wants to use the Federal budget to prevent women from having access to family planning and other reproductive health care services. My colleague, Senator Coons, talked very eloquently about what title X does. Title X funding provides reproductive health services to women who otherwise could not access those services. That includes contraceptives, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for breast and cervical cancer. It provides preventive care for women who, in so many cases, in New Hampshire and across the country would not be able to get access to that health care. In New Hampshire we have 28 clinics that receive title X funds, including community health centers, health department clinics and hospitals, outpatient clinics, as well as Planned Parenthood. This fight is not about reducing our debt. It is time now to put ideology aside, to work together in a bipartisan way, to get this budget back on track and passed so the people of this country can be confident that we are going to continue the economic recovery that has started and make sure we can put people back to work and support the small businesses and the people of this country who depend on the work we do in Washington. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the Senator's kind remarks. Doesn't the Senator think if we had that biennial budget process in place now, we would not be on the floor debating whether we are going to have a shutdown, and that we would have a budget process that was going forward? As he points out, we have next year to provide oversight and accountability on that budget, and we would have the dependability and certainty that businesses and the people of this country are looking for; isn't that right?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, as Congress and the Obama administration grapples with how to responsibly address our long-term deficit, we need to remember why it is so important to get on a path to balanced budgets. We need to a dress the long-term deficit because it is a threat to America's future prosperity. It is about economic growth and jobs. That is why the deficit matters. The deficit is not just some math problem where it is solved if the numbers add up right. The choices we make, which spending programs we cut which tax expenditures we eliminate, where we continue to boost investment, matter. The overarching challenge facing our country is how we keep our economy competitive. We cannot compete with India and China for low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not our future. America's future is in continuing to be the global leader in science and technology. America makes the best, most innovative products and services, and that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation. But we are in danger of losing that edge. Science, technology, engineering and math, what we call the STEM fields, are the skills that drive innovation. And jobs in the STEM fields are expected to be the fastest-growing occupations of the next decade. However, not enough students in our country are pursuing an education in STEM subjects to keep up with the increased demand. For those students that do pursue education in STEM fields, they are being outperformed by international competitors. Studies show that by the end of eighth grade, students in the U.S. are 2 years behind their international peers in math. American students rank 21st in science and 25th in math among industrialized countries. In addition, the U.S. has produced a declining number of Ph.Ds in science and engineering compared to the European Union and China over the past 3 decades. It is clear that to remain competitive internationally, we must encourage and strengthen the supply of STEM-trained graduates. That is why this week Leader Reid and Senators Klobuchar, Kerry, Begich, Coons and I introduced legislation, the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program, which will bolster our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy. My legislation will provide new incentives for our schools to think outside the box and embrace extracurricular and nontraditional STEM education programs. It establishes a competitive grant program that will encourage schools to partner with the private sector, both for financial support and to provide mentors who can serve as guides and role models to students. I am proud that New Hampshire is the home to the FIRST Robotics program. For over a decade, teams of students have been designing robots to compete against one another in regional, then national, competitions. On Monday we hosted FIRST teams from Maryland and Virginia who demonstrated in the Dirksen building how the robots they designed and built actually work. It is these kinds of nontraditional STEM programs that make a difference in the students' lives and inspire them to continue in STEM careers or postsecondary education. In fact, research shows that 99 percent of students who participate in FIRST Robotics graduate high school and almost 90 percent go on the college. And once in college, these students are nearly seven times more likely to major in engineering and twice as likely to major in computer science. They are also significantly more likely to attain a postgraduate degree. The data speaks for itself: investments in these sorts of programs matter and make a difference. I urge colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will inspire our students to become scientists, engineers, computer programmers and mathematicians. Our country's economic future depends on it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here to join my colleagues who have been on the floor of the Senate today, with the leadership of Senator Boxer, to oppose amendments that would undermine the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act has been one of the greatest public health success stories we have ever had in this country. In 1970, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass this landmark legislation to address air pollution that was leading to countless deaths and lifetimes spent battling chronic illness, illnesses such as asthma and emphysema. That legislation, back in 1970, was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. It is very clear that the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to public health is real. Two years ago the EPA found that manmade greenhouse gas emissions threaten the health and welfare of the American people. Their decision was not made in a vacuum and, despite what some of the supporters of these harmful amendments may claim, EPA's decision was based on the best peer-reviewed science. They were guided by the best science protecting the public health, not politics. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Trust for America's Health and the American Thoracic Society--some of our Nation's leading public health experts--all opposed these misguided efforts to stop EPA from protecting our clean air. We have heard the same story from polluters over and over. Today they tell us that reducing carbon pollution through the EPA will wreck our economy. Back in 1970, and then again in 1990, they said the Clean Air Act would wreck our economy. Time and again we have heard the same arguments, and they have not been true. It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf. Since we passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, we have dramatically reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants. We have improved air quality, and we have improved the public health. The EPA estimates that last year alone the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits. This is particularly important to us in New Hampshire and in New England because we are effectively the tailpipe of this country. In New Hampshire we have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country because we are still phasing out some of the coal-fired plants in the Midwest that are causing these air emissions. During the same period--since the Clean Air Act saved all of those illnesses and deaths last year--we have been able to grow our economy. Our gross domestic product has more than tripled, and the average household income has grown more than 45 percent. So we know we can protect public health, we can save our environment, and we can grow our economy. I recognize that as Governor of New Hampshire when, back in 2001, we passed the first legislation in the country to deal with four pollutants because we understood that we needed to clean up our air and that we could do that and protect public health and keep a strong economy all at the same time. I wish that same can-do spirit and bipartisanship that led to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 and then later the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990--I wish that same can- do spirit existed today to address carbon pollution. Instead of debating amendments to undercut the Clean Air Act, we should be working together to enact commonsense legislation to reduce carbon pollution and to continue to grow our economy. I have no doubt that the American people have the ingenuity and the competitive spirit to solve our energy challenges. What they need from us in Washington is leadership. I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments and then to work together to craft energy policies that can help move us away from a carbon economy and transition to a clean energy economy. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, if I could begin in the spirit of morning business, I am here to talk about the importance of passing the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. I think it is important because our future economic prosperity depends on whether this country can continue to be a leader in science and innovation. We can't compete with India and China for those low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not the future of America. Our future is to be the global leader in science and technology. America makes the best, most innovative products and services, and that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation. As a former small business owner, I know it is business and not government that creates jobs, but I also know government has a critical role to play in fostering a positive business climate. I believe there are a few things we need to do to unleash the innovative spirit that is so alive and well throughout this country, and particularly in my home State of New Hampshire. To maintain the creative dominance that has allowed us to lead the world in innovation, we do need to enact a long-term reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, or the SBIR Program. SBIR is not just a typical grant program. Under the SBIR Program a small business is able to compete for research that Federal agencies need to accomplish their missions--agencies such as the Department of Defense. Small businesses employ about one-third of America's scientists and engineers and produce more patents than large businesses and universities. Yet small business receives only about 4 percent of Federal research and development dollars. SBIR ensures that small business gets a tiny fraction of existing Federal research dollars. In the last few months, as we have been talking about the SBIR Program in the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on which I serve, I have had the chance to visit a number of New Hampshire companies that are doing cutting-edge research and are growing their businesses because of the SBIR Program. This research has allowed them to develop new products and customers and to hire new workers. I wish to talk specifically about one of those companies because they have such a great story. It is a company called Airex, and it is in Somersworth, NH. Their story shows just how the SBIR Program encourages innovation and creates jobs. When I visited Airex, I had a chance to see some of the impressive technologies the company has developed. Airex specializes in electromagnetic motors and components. As they explained to me, their motors don't go round and round, they go back and forth. Its employees design and produce everything from motors used to make Apple's iPad, to gyroscopic coils that are used to stabilize the artillery system on Abrams tanks. So they produce a wide divergence of products. In the past decade Airex has more than doubled its revenues and its workforce largely because of the products it developed with the support of the SBIR Program. Jim Sedgewick, who is the President of Airex, told me SBIR was critically important for the development of the products that enabled the company to add several good-paying jobs in New Hampshire. For example, Airex was able to compete for and win a grant to do research for the Air Force on materials needed for strategic missile defense. In order to conduct the research Airex had to develop a new electromagnetic motor. Since the motor that Airex developed had tremendous commercial potential, Airex secured a patent. Now that motor is used in the production process for the Apple iPad and, as my colleagues can imagine, sales for that motor have increased dramatically in recent years as the iPad has become so popular. The same is true for several other products Airex developed with the help of SBIR. Airex products continue to be in high demand not just in America but across the world. Exports now account for 30 percent of Airex's revenues, so they are a great story on the export front too. Airex told me its biggest export products are the ones that were developed with the support of the SBIR Program. If we are going to out-compete and out-innovate the rest of the world, we need to encourage the kind of innovation that has made Airex so successful. SBIR was integral to making Airex's success a reality. That is why SBIR must continue to be an important part of our strategy for staying competitive in the 21st century. Airex is just one of many New Hampshire small businesses that have successfully competed for SBIR funding in the 28 years the program has been in existence. All across New Hampshire small businesses that otherwise wouldn't be able to compete for Federal R&D funding have won competitive grants to advance technology and science and create good jobs. In just the last 2 years New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR awards. In fact, despite its small size, although it is a little bigger than Delaware, as the Presiding Officer knows, New Hampshire is ranked 22nd in the Nation for total grants awarded through the Department of Defense since SBIR began. So I know the Presiding Officer knows we need to focus on smart ways to create jobs and stay competitive. We all know small firms are where the jobs are created in the United States, and we know the future of the American economy rests with innovation. The SBIR Program must be one important part of our overall strategy to encourage the innovation that will keep the American economy strong through the 21st century. So I am pleased to be here to support SBIR, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this important program. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.