Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor today to reiterate my opposition to legislation that would impose new tax burdens on businesses in New Hampshire and I believe would have a serious impact on our economy.

Earlier this week Majority Leader Reid started a fast-track process to bring a bill to the floor that includes the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. This is legislation that would for the first time allow States to collect sales taxes from businesses in New Hampshire. As a result, this bill would impose significant new tax compliance burdens on entrepreneurs in New Hampshire--the same entrepreneurs who are trying to grow their businesses and create jobs on the Internet.

In New Hampshire we don't have a sales tax, so our businesses are not used to collecting one. That is why New Hampshire businesses are so concerned that if this bill passes, they will

be forced to collect sales taxes from not just 1 State but 46 other States and 9,600 taxing jurisdictions across the country. The redtape would be a nightmare for small companies with only a few employees.

I heard from one small business owner in Hudson, NH. His business is about to reach $1 million in revenue, but his company has only six employees. Under the legislation, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, his company might be considered a large business. The company has plans to grow, but it would be forced to reconsider as it approaches this arbitrary threshold and then is covered under the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act.

E-commerce has been a real boon to small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It has helped companies find new markets for their products and new revenues. But for companies looking to grow through online sales, this legislation represents an artificial ceiling for creating jobs and expanding jobs through e-commerce.

I will raise a few concerns about what this legislation would mean for small business. First, each State has different sales and use taxes, so businesses would need new software to figure out how to collect and remit those taxes. Small businesses would also need to collect personal information from each buyer to make sure they are complying with all State and local sales taxes. These small businesses might then have to deal with audit and enforcement actions from other States, and the same businesses might have to answer to taxing authorities in places where they have no representation whatsoever. As States and localities consider new taxes, these small businesses would have no voice in that process because they have no representation in those jurisdictions.

These are just a few examples of the many unintended consequences this legislation would create. These burdens on small businesses will stifle e-commerce. That is why it was so disappointing to learn that the sponsors of the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act have attached it to another measure that is meant to encourage e-commerce, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. That legislation bans taxes on Internet access.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act has broad bipartisan support. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Since 1998 the Internet Tax Freedom Act has kept the Internet free of new taxation, which has helped the Internet flourish and become the driver of economic activity it is today.

Unfortunately, this ban on new Internet access taxes expires this November, and Congress must take action to keep the Internet tax-free. I strongly support keeping the Internet tax-free, and the vast majority of Congress supports it. In fact, just this week the House voted to make this ban on Internet taxation permanent. The Internet Tax Freedom Act could pass the Senate and the House today with strong bipartisan support. Yet based on the action earlier this week, the Senate may be asked to consider a bill that includes new tax burdens on small businesses. That is right. It doesn't make sense, but on a bill that is meant to keep the Internet free from taxation, there is now an effort to impose new tax collection burdens on Internet retailers, and that not only doesn't make sense, I think it is just wrong.

Just yesterday I sent a letter with a bipartisan group of our colleagues urging leadership to bring a clean Internet Tax Freedom Act bill to the floor. I was joined by Senators Cruz, Ayotte, Tester, Merkley, and Paul. We believe the Internet should be tax-free and that we should pass this noncontroversial legislation as soon as possible.

We also think it is wrong to use a critical, must-pass extension of this law to keep the Internet tax-free as a vehicle to pass a fundamental shift in how e-commerce operates. Combining these two very different issues into one bill does nothing to protect New Hampshire's small businesses from the flawed so-called Marketplace Fairness Act.

We should keep this Internet sales tax legislation from moving forward, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. We should do that because it is bad for New Hampshire and the other States that have no sales taxes that are in the same position as New Hampshire. It is bad for small businesses and it is bad for our economy.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to recognize my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, who I think has come to the floor to also express her concerns about the commingling of the Internet Tax Freedom Act with the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. She will be speaking from her perspective about the concerns it places on New Hampshire's small businesses. I am very pleased to see my colleague from New Hampshire here to also express her concern about what is happening.

Mr. President, I am here today to express my concerns with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case and the steps we are taking--hopefully, this week--to protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. I want to thank Senators Murray and Udall for their leadership on this issue and for introducing the Not My Boss's Business Act.

I appreciate hearing from the Republican leader about their interest in supporting women's access to contraceptive care, and I hope that is something we can all agree on. But the issue here is not just access to that care, it is the cost of that care. When you charge women more for contraceptive coverage, then you are denying them access to that care.

The legislation that has been introduced by Senators Murray and Udall, and of which I am a cosponsor, will prevent employers from being involved in an employee's health care decisions and it will reverse the Supreme Court's decision.

Throughout my career in office, I have fought to ensure that women have access to important contraceptive services and that women are able to make their own decisions about their health care with their doctors and with their families.

In 1999, when I was Governor of New Hampshire, I signed into law a bipartisan bill that required insurance companies to cover prescription contraceptives--the issue we are debating right now. I signed that law with strong bipartisan support because both Republicans and Democrats knew it was the right thing to do. In fact, that legislation passed in the New Hampshire House with 121 Democratic votes and 120 Republican votes and 2 Independents.

That law, passed in 1999, has now provided thousands of New Hampshire women with the ability to access the medications they and their doctors decide are right for them because they have that insurance coverage to pay for those medications. The Affordable Care Act also established that women would have access to prescription contraceptive services with no copays, just as New Hampshire did in 1999.

Do you know what is interesting? We are having this debate about religious objections. Back in 1999 the legislature appointed a committee to look at whether there were any religious concerns about what we had done. They came back and reported that this was not an issue.

A recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services reports that because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 30 million women are now eligible to receive preventive health services, including contraception, with no copays. In fact, since 2013 women have saved nearly $500 million in out-of-pocket costs because of the ACA's requirement to cover contraceptive care.

The Supreme Court's decision has a real financial bearing on women and their families throughout the country because this ruling will have a profound impact on the health and economic security of women throughout this Nation. As noted by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case, when high cost is a factor, women are more likely to decide not to pursue certain forms of health care treatments that involve contraceptive care.

There are many reasons why a doctor may decide to prescribe contraceptives for a woman's health care needs. Contraceptives can be used to treat a broad range of medical issues--hair loss, endometriosis, acne, irregular menstrual cycles. Contraceptives have also been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers. But just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court jeopardized that access to affordable preventive health care for too many women. As a result of the Hobby Lobby case, some employers now have the ability to claim religious objections as a justification for not providing contraceptive health care with no copay.

I understand the host of issues employers face on a daily basis. I appreciate the complexity they face when they decide to offer health insurance coverage to their employees. For example, take Jane Valliere, who owns Hermanos Mexican restaurant in Concord, NH. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Jane and to discuss the Hobby Lobby case. Jane made it clear that while she has many choices and decisions to make on a daily basis to keep her business running, she never expected to be put in a position where she could be responsible for making a health care decision for her employees at the restaurant.

Like Jane, I do not think it makes sense for employers to make those personal, private health care decisions for their employees. Critical health decisions are simply not an employer's business. Where a woman works should not determine whether she gets insurance coverage that has been guaranteed to her under Federal law.

While we do not yet know the full extent of the impact from this ruling, we do know the Supreme Court's decision turns back progress women across the country have fought for years to achieve.

We must ensure that women have access to the health care services and medications they need. That means making them affordable, that they are able to make their own decisions about their care with their doctors and their families.

Thankfully, we have an opportunity this week to correct the Supreme Court's shortsighted decision. This week the Senate can stand for women and pass the Not My Boss's Business Act. A woman's health care decision should be made with her doctor, with her family, with her faith, not by her employer and with her employer's faith. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that fellows in my office: Annie Dreazen and Lemeneh Tefera be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss legislation that I introduced this week with our colleagues, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Kirsten Gillibrand. Our legislation responds to the rising cost of childcare in the United States and the impact it is having on millions of working families.

Our bill, called the Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act, would help these working parents. It would help them afford childcare so they can go to work and support their families. What it does is update the child and dependent care tax credit that was passed in 1976 and has only been updated once since that time.

Access to affordable childcare is a necessity for working parents. I raised three daughters and I have seven grandchildren, so I appreciate just how important it is for working parents to know their children are being supervised by quality caregivers.

Sadly, I struggled with childcare from the time my first child was born in 1974 until the year my last child finally went off to college in 2004. Unfortunately, I am watching my daughters deal with that same struggle of how to find quality childcare for their kids.

A working parent can be productive in the workforce only when they know their children are safe. That is why the rising cost of childcare is a real burden for millions of families--especially for working mothers. Childcare costs are taking up an increasingly larger share of a typical family's take-home pay.

I visited a great NAEYC accredited childcare center in Nashua, NH, earlier this week, and I saw their infant room--where they care for infants. The average cost for full-time care for an infant in New Hampshire in a childcare center was almost $12,000 in 2012, the last year for which we have data. It costs $12,000. For a family trying to make ends meet, this is a huge cost.

In fact, in the Northeast the cost of full-time, center-based care for children now represents the highest single expense for a typical household. It costs more than housing, more than college tuition, more than transportation, food, utilities or health care.

Unfortunately, as the cost of childcare has grown, one critical tax credit that helps defray childcare costs has failed to keep pace. The child and dependent care tax credit was first enacted in 1976 with strong bipartisan. It was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. This credit provides a tax credit to working parents for a portion of their childcare expenses. However, the limits on the credit are not indexed to inflation, and so their value has actually decreased over time. In fact, the limits have been increased just once in the past 25 years. The tax credit simply is not keeping pace with the growing cost of childcare.

The Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act would update and improve this tax credit so it responds to the increasing burden of childcare costs. First, the bill would increase the amount of childcare expenses that are eligible for the credit. Right now families can only claim expenses up to $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more children. That just doesn't make sense in New Hampshire or anywhere else in the country. In New Hampshire the average cost of childcare can exceed $12,000 for a single child.

This bill increases the tax credit starting in 2015 and indexes the cost to inflation so they will continue to keep pace with rising childcare costs. The bill also makes the tax credit fully refundable and phases out the credit for families making over $200,000 a year. It better targets how the money is spent.

Right now the tax credit is poorly targeted. It provides zero benefit for too many families who need it the most. By making the credit refundable, the bill better targets the tax credit to families who are most in need of childcare assistance.

I have been working on early childcare and education for most of my public career, especially during my years as Governor of New Hampshire. One of the lessons I have learned is that providing access to early and affordable childcare and education is not just about helping families make ends meet--although that is an important piece of it--it is also a short-term and long-term issue for our businesses and our economy.

As Governor I worked with the New Hampshire business community and established the Governor's Business Commission on Child Care and Early Childhood Education to engage business leaders in addressing the State's childcare and early education needs. We did a study that looked at the impact of the shortage of quality childcare in New Hampshire back in the 1990s. We found that businesses were losing up to $24 million a year as a result of childcare-related absenteeism, and nearly one in four employees was forced to change jobs or switch to part time as a result of their inability to find satisfactory childcare.

We have many national studies that show that quality, dependable childcare for employees is vital to a company's productivity. In fact, researchers estimate that childcare breakdowns leading to employee absences cost businesses $3 billion a year because parents are concerned about where their kids are.

In addition, a majority of companies report that employee absenteeism is reduced when quality childcare services are offered. Employee turnover is also reduced, and we know how important employee retention is to a business's bottom line.

The long-term benefits to our workforce are also clear. Research shows that quality childcare and early childhood development are critical to preparing our children for tomorrow's jobs. We know that the first 5 years are the most critical in the development of a child's brain. During these years children develop their cognitive, social, emotional, and language skills that form a solid foundation for their lives.

Research shows that children who received quality childcare do much better in school; they are less likely to drop out; they are more likely to read at grade level; they are less likely to repeat grades; they are less likely to need special education; and they are less likely to get into trouble. The experiences children have in their first few years will affect them, their families, and our society for the rest of their lives. I think it makes more sense for us to invest in early childhood care and education because we can either spend the money then or we can spend a whole lot more money later. When kids don't get a good start in life, they wind up getting into trouble and can end up in prison.

I used to talk about the cost of early care and education being about $1 for $7 that gets spent at the other end if we don't pay for these costs. It is a whole lot cheaper to pay for childcare than it is to pay for prison. That is why we have to respond to the rising cost of childcare. We have to ensure that working families can afford quality childcare.

The legislation we introduced this week will help working families in the short term, and it will especially help working mothers as they go to work. It will support the early development of our children, which is so critical to our future, our economy, and our workforce.

I am hopeful we can get a lot of sponsors for this legislation and get bipartisan support just as the credit had when it passed in 1976 so we can provide the help that working families need.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Katherine ``Kay'' McLaughlin.

Kay was born in South Boston, MA, on July 11, 1921. She is the middle child of the five children of Francis Pucci and Mary O'Donnell.

Kay grew up a short walk from Boston Harbor near Castle Island, a Revolutionary War-era fort that still stands today, and spent many days walking from her home to Castle Island and back, a lifelong habit that has contributed greatly to her long life. She graduated from Boston Girls High School

and would take great joy in telling her children of the day she and her friends skipped school to see Frank Sinatra perform.

After high school, she attended Boston Secretarial School and went to work at Submarine Signal Company located in Boston. By that time, she had already caught the eye of a young man in the neighborhood named Leo McLaughlin. In 1944 they were married.

Leo and Kay's first child, a girl, arrived in 1946 and there were more to come. In 1957, Kay and her family moved to Bedford, NH. By 1961, there were six girls and seven boys in the McLaughlin family. Included in this group were the children of Kay's deceased sister-in- law and brother-in-law.

At the age of 36, Kay was a mother of 13 with another child to come in the immediate future. With wisdom beyond her years, Kay arbitrated disputes between rival factions amongst her children. She provided what was needed to solve their problems and keep the family moving in the right direction.

Though Kay endured many losses--the death of a baby in childbirth, losing a talented daughter in the prime of her life, and losing her husband--they were not enough to stifle her spirit. As time passed and her children produced children of their own, she once again became a resource to her 16 grandchildren, keeping secrets and providing aid and comfort.

Should Kay somehow find a way to live forever, we are all sure she will provide the same aid and comfort to her 17 great-grandchildren. While she is with us today in person, she will always be with us in spirit.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Plaistow Chief of Police Steven Savage for his extraordinary leadership and service to New Hampshire and to our Nation. The Plaistow Police Department will soon dedicate the town's tactical training center in his honor.

As a young man, Chief Savage enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and answered the call to service during the Vietnam war. He was honored with numerous service ribbons including the Air Force Presidential Unit Citation, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation.

After an honorable discharge from the Air Force, Chief Savage went on to earn a B.S. with honors in criminal justice from Northeastern University. He first worked as a police officer in Baltimore, MD, where he earned a Bronze Star and four Ribbons of Commendation from the city's Meritorious Conduct Board.

He returned to his native New Hampshire in 1977, when he was selected as police chief of Haverhill. After 10 years there, he became chief in Plaistow, where he has served for 28 years. These combined 38 years have distinguished Chief Savage as the second longest serving police chief in the state of New Hampshire.

Chief Savage has held leadership positions in local, regional and national law enforcement organizations, from chairman of Plaistow's Highway Safety Committee to president of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association. He has been active in his community as well, volunteering on social service boards, committees, and supporting local youth sports.

For more than 25 years, Plaistow's police department has been working to upgrade its firing range and tactical training facilities, which are used by police from Danville, Hampstead and Haverhill for their annual re-qualification as well as by U.S. postal inspectors from across New England and upstate New York. Finally, under Steven's leadership, a site plan was approved for the project earlier this year. Previously maintained unofficially by its many stakeholders, it will now be more permanently improved and supported.

Chief Savage has worked tirelessly his entire career to keep others safe, and the tactical training center, to be dedicated on June 26th, will stand as a lasting symbol of his commitment. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in congratulating Chief Savage on his distinguished career in service to New Hampshire and to our country.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from California giving me an opportunity to respond.

As those of us on the floor probably remember, several weeks ago we were talking about trying to address the Energy Efficiency and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman, an effort that Senator Portman and I had worked on for 3\1/2\ years to try and put in place a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy for this country. The bill has no mandates in it and no new spending. It has the support of over 260 groups--everybody from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers to the NRDC to several trade unions, companies from Johnson Controls to Honeywell, the American Chemistry Council. It has the support of a broad coalition of people.

According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, if the legislation of Senator Portman and myself were to pass this year, by 2030 it would help create 192,000 jobs, save consumers $16.2 billion a year, and it would be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.

As part of that discussion, we actually had what we thought was an agreement to have a vote on Shaheen-Portman on a date certain that would have a 60-vote threshold and also have another vote on the Keystone Pipeline on a date certain. All the Senators would know when the vote would take place, and again it would have a 60-vote threshold. Sadly, some of the sponsors of that legislation who worked with us to try and get a bill put forward refused to vote to consider the bill, and it went down. It is unfortunate because we could have had a vote on the Keystone Pipeline at that time. It was an agreement I thought we had all agreed made sense.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2262

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2262, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill; that the motion to commit be withdrawn; that amendment Nos. 3023 and 3025 be withdrawn; that the pending substitute amendment be agreed to; that there be no other amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, but no later than Thursday, July 17, 2014; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that the bill be subject to a 60- affirmative-vote threshold.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

I wish to say I am disappointed we can't move forward to address the concern on both voting on the Keystone Pipeline as well as the concern Senator Portman and I have to consider the Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill.

Shaheen-Portman is legislation that would go very far to address our energy needs. After all, energy efficiency is the first fuel. It is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with this country's energy needs. It has support from those people who believe in fossil fuels and from those people who support alternatives, such as wind and solar. It is something everybody benefits from, and it is something that would move us in a direction that would help address the pollution we are seeing-- not just from carbon but from so many other pollutants that are being thrown into the air. It is a reasonable way to address both our concerns as well as the concerns of those people who support the Keystone Pipeline.

Let's have this vote--up or down--with a 60-vote threshold. I believe we have strong bipartisan support for Shaheen-Portman. We saw that in the motion to proceed when it got more than 70 votes here on the floor. We had strong bipartisan cosponsors on the legislation. I think we could have those votes now, everybody would be happy, and let the votes fall where they may.

I am disappointed to hear the objection. I hope we will have an opportunity to reconsider, and I hope we can all agree that there is a benefit to both sides of the aisle in voting on both of these issues in a way that gives the American people some idea of where we stand.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Happily.

I know my colleague from California wishes to answer, but I will say that I share the Senator's disappointment. I think this was a great opportunity for us to address both energy efficiency in the Shaheen-Portman legislation and to also get a vote on the Keystone Pipeline, which is something we discussed several weeks ago when the energy efficiency legislation came to the floor. I thought we had an agreement where we would vote on the bill and then separately vote on Keystone, and they would both have a 60-vote threshold. Sadly, some of those sponsors of the legislation didn't vote for it when the bill was filibustered, and so it did not pass. I am hopeful we can still bring it back. I am happy to bring it back in a way that allows us to have the same 60-vote threshold for a vote on the Keystone Pipeline.

I will.

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

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise this evening to honor the life and service of U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Brandon Garabrant. Brandon was a native of Greenfield, NH, who, sadly, was killed in action on Friday in Afghanistan.

Lance Corporal Garabrant was serving his first tour overseas after completing basic training at Camp Lejeune last year.

In the days since we learned that Brandon made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, we have been touched by the selfless devotion with which he lived his life and which defined him as a citizen and a marine.

His dedication to our country was so focused that he completed his basic training at Camp Lejeune just 1 day before he graduated from ConVal Regional High School. Brandon also served throughout his high school years as a volunteer firefighter with the Temple Volunteer Fire Department.

Although he was just 19 years old when he deployed to Afghanistan, Brandon faced the enormous task of defending our Nation with unshakable conviction.

Brandon's thoughts on the eve of his April deployment most aptly demonstrate his devotion to his country, to his community, and to his fellow marines. Brandon wrote:

Fighting for our country, our brothers to the left and

right, our friends and families back home. So that you can

have the right for freedom and to live the American dream

without fear of anything. Here comes a long journey into the

unknown.

It is certainly a very long journey for Brandon.

Brandon is survived by his mother Jessie, his father John, and his younger siblings Jacob and Mykala.

It is my hope that during this extremely difficult time Brandon's family and friends will find comfort in knowing that Americans everywhere appreciate deeply his sacrifice in defense of our country so the rest of us may continue to live in peace and freedom.

Brandon epitomized the best New Hampshire tradition of service, and his example will not soon be forgotten by those who were fortunate enough to have known him.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life and service of this brave young American, Brandon Garabrant.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor Joseph ``Joey'' Lee for his outstanding achievements as a teacher at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH. Mr. Lee is the New Hampshire Department of Education's Granite State Teacher of the Year for 2014, selected from a field of 36 nominees.

Mr. Lee is also New Hampshire's candidate for the National Teacher of the Year award, the Nation's oldest and most prestigious program focused on excellence in teaching.

In May, Mr. Lee visited Washington, DC, to meet President Obama and discuss education initiatives with representatives from the Department of Education.

Born in Hooksett and a graduate of Plymouth State University, Mr. Lee has taught at Pinkerton Academy for 6 years. A social studies teacher, he currently teaches cultural geography while also coaching golf, directing the hockey program and co-advising the China Exchange Program.

Mr. Lee has a talent for connecting with students, recognizing their unique strengths and challenges and adapting his teaching style to their needs. He is passionate about applying classroom content to real- life situations.

The New Hampshire Department of Education recognized Mr. Lee for his conviction and passion for teaching, his energy in the classroom and his commitment to his students. I congratulate Mr. Lee on the honor of being the Granite State Teacher of the Year.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Bill Lonergan for his exemplary leadership as assistant principal of Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH. Bill was named Assistant Principal of the Year by the New Hampshire Association of School Principals for commitment to helping students succeed.

A 1980 graduate of Pinkerton Academy, Mr. Lonergan first returned to the school as a student teacher in the English department. He soon became a full-time member of the staff, both teaching and serving as associate dean of students. In total, he has worked at Pinkerton for 21 years.

Mr. Lonergan developed Pinkerton's ``Freshman Academy'' program, working with parents, teachers and students to ease the transition from area middle schools to the high school level. The program, which is among Mr. Lonergan's many accomplishments, is personalized to each student's strengths and interests, and has improved academic performance and integration into the Pinkerton community.

Mr. Lonergan's vision and dedication have made a difference for countless students. I am pleased to recognize his contributions to Pinkerton Academy, and congratulate him on being named Assistant Principal of the Year.

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

I rise this morning to discuss the very pressing challenge that too many of our young people are facing; that is, the issue of college affordability.

As I travel throughout New Hampshire, I continue to hear young people and their families express their deep concerns about the high cost of college and about their student loans.

In New Hampshire this problem is especially significant because New Hampshire ranks second highest in the Nation for the proportion of students who are graduating from college with debt and also for the average amount of debt per graduate. Seventy-four percent of students in New Hampshire graduate with debt, and that debt is an average of $33,000 per student. I have talked to some young people who worry that they are never going to be able to get out from under that student debt burden.

We all know that obtaining a college education has been viewed as a step that can propel Americans into the middle class, allowing them to pursue goals such as starting a family, opening a business, or purchasing a home.

Unfortunately, education costs have increased at four times the rate of inflation from 1985 to 2011. This is a problem that has both short- term and long-term implications for our citizens who want to continue their education after high school. It is also a problem that has serious implications for the Nation's economy. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, approximately 40 million Americans hold more than $1.2 trillion in student loan debt. The agency also indicates that student loan debt has exceeded credit card debt in the country and is exceeded only by home mortgages in terms of total amount of debt. So we have more student loan debt than credit card debt, and only home mortgages exceed the student loan debt.

While Americans are struggling to pay back this staggering debt, it is projected that the Federal Government will earn $66 billion in profits from its role in student lending between 2007 and 2012. That is just not right.

Clearly it is time for Congress to take action to help individuals with student debt. It is time to help them reclaim their American dream, to help them have a chance at pursuing the goals that drove them to college in the first place.

To this end I am very pleased to join with so many of my colleagues in supporting the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This legislation would allow eligible borrowers who took out student loans before July 1, 2013, to refinance those loans at rates currently being offered to new borrowers.

It is clear that Congress needs to come together to work to reduce the cost of college for aspiring students throughout the country, but we also need to provide relief to those who have already borrowed to pursue their education, many of whom have interest rates for their student loans that are much higher than they would be if they were purchasing a home or a car.

This action is also way overdue. The extent to which young people are feeling this pressure really came home to me when I visited a veteran from New Hampshire named Calvin, who served in Afghanistan. I first met Calvin at Walter Reed Medical Center, where he was recovering after losing his leg from stepping on an IED. He was married, had a young child, and he was talking about the challenges he faced after he recovered from his injuries. But what impressed me the most was his No. 1 concern was how he and his wife were going to repay their student loans. That is why I think we have to do something about this problem. We have to make sure young people such as Calvin don't spend their professional lives worrying about how to pay back student loans.

I plan to file an amendment today as we take up the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act that will address the challenge young people have as they look at how to keep track of their student loans. I think they need to have a portal that gives them a one-stop shop so they can view all of their student loan information, public and private, in one central online location.

I have heard stories from young people in New Hampshire about this concern, from people like Kim, who is from Nashua. She is a 30-year-old woman, and she has student debt from obtaining her bachelor's and two master's degrees. Her student loan payments cost her more per month than a home mortgage. She recently found a job that is helping her make her loan payments, but before she got that offer she felt overwhelmed by her debt and she found it difficult to communicate and work with her lenders.

By providing a one-stop online shop for debt management, the amendment I will be offering will give people like Kim an easier way to track and understand their loans and their repayment options.

I am pleased that just yesterday the President announced a number of initiatives to help borrowers, including plans similar to the provisions in my Simplifying Access to Student Loan Information Act, so we can encourage the use of innovative methods to communicate with borrowers, but as we all know, we need to do more in this Congress to ensure that we can help borrowers who are struggling to repay their student loans.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, for her work on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with her and my other colleagues to ensure that student loan borrowers finally see some relief.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Semi-Annual Report to Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A More Efficient and Effective Government: Examining Federal IT Initiatives and the IT Workforce.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Protecting Taxpayers and Ensuring Accountability: Faster Superfund Cleanups for Healthier Communities.''

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate earlier today. Along with Senator Ayotte, I was in New Hampshire this morning and afternoon attending memorial services for Officer Steve Arkell of the Brentwood Police Department, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on May 14, 2014.

I missed rollcall votes in relation to the confirmation of Stanley Fischer to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Barron to be U.S. circuit judge for the First Circuit.

I support both the Fischer and Barron nominations, and would have voted yes if I were present during these votes.

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

Madam President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the memory of Brentwood Police Officer Stephen Arkell.

Officer Arkell's life was tragically cut short yesterday while responding to the call of duty--the same call of duty he courageously answered countless times over the course of his career. A 15-year veteran of the Brentwood Police Department, Arkell served as a part- time officer as well as an animal control officer for the town of Brentwood where he was born and raised. As is the case with all of our first responders, his commitment to protecting our communities was unparalleled. That commitment was integral to keeping our families, our children, and our community safe every day. That same commitment, and Officer Arkell's sacrifice, is something New Hampshire will never forget.

Stephen Arkell's life and career epitomized the heroism of our first responders, and all of us, every day, will be forever grateful for that. Today my thoughts and prayers are with his family--his wife and his two teenage daughters, his loved ones, the Brentwood Police Department, and the entire Brentwood community, as well as New Hampshire's entire law enforcement community. I hope they can all take some solace in knowing that New Hampshire joins them in both mourning Officer Arkell's loss as well as celebrating his selfless sacrifice and his service on behalf of Brentwood and our beloved State.

Thank you, Madam President. I note the absence of a quorum.