Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

This amendment would address the only program within the farm bill that hasn't been reformed: the Sugar Program. What we have now is a sweet deal for sugar growers and a bad deal for consumers.

Right now, according to the Department of Commerce, we are losing three jobs in manufacturing for every one job we save in the sugar grower industry. That is not a good deal for job creation in this country. We need to change it.

I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe and to introduce legislation aimed at modernizing the way the United States addresses this critical national security challenge. My bill, the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, requires the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive and well- resourced regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance cooperative threat reduction and related nonproliferation efforts in one of the most critical regions to U.S. national security interests: the Middle East and North Africa.

Fifty years ago, in 1963, President Kennedy famously said that he was ``haunted'' by the possibility that the United States could soon face a rapidly growing number of nuclear powers in our world. At the time, he predicted that by 1975, there could be as many as twenty countries with nuclear weapons. However, thanks to strong, forward-thinking and innovative American leadership on the nonproliferation agenda, including efforts like the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nunn-Lugar program, we have so far averted Kennedy's nuclear nightmare.

Recent WMD-related developments, including Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and Iran's nuclear program, have begun to test the limits of our nonproliferation regime. I am afraid we may be quickly reaching an important crossroads--one where we either prove President Kennedy wrong for a little while longer, or find out that his nightmare prediction was simply a half-century too soon.

As WMD-related materials and know-how continue to spread, the challenge of WMD proliferation is getting more

diffuse and harder to track. Our focus and our resource commitment need to match the severity of this emerging threat. Now is the time for us to recommit to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda and to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. will continue to lead in curbing the threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons around the world.

We should start in one of the most dangerous, most unstable regions in the world today: the Middle East and North Africa.

Nowhere is the proliferation challenge more glaring than in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where political instability and deeply-rooted violent extremism sit atop a complex web of ethnic differences, a history of violence and extremism, robust military capabilities, a growing collection of unsecured conventional and possible WMD-related weapons and a variety of inexperienced and potentially unstable governments brought into power by the Arab Spring.

Continued upheaval in Syria and the threat posed by the Assad regime's substantial chemical weapons stockpile pose a grave challenge to U.S. interests. Iran's continued illicit development of its nuclear program and its movement towards an advanced nuclear weapons capability threatens the U.S. and our allies and could lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda continue to operate throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and their direct ties to the Iranian and Syrian regimes only exacerbates the threat posed by these groups as they seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction or know-how.

Add to these threats the fact that the Arab Spring and continued revolutions across the region have brought popularly elected, yet untested governments into power that possess minimal capability and very little experience in countering WMD proliferation.

In the face of this growing and complex challenge, it is obvious that the Middle East and North African region represents the next generation of WMD-related tests for the United States. Yet, our resources and our programming are not getting ahead of the threat. In fact, the nonpartisan ``Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy'' estimates that, excluding programs in Iraq, only two percent of last year's nonproliferation-related programming, or approximately $20,000,000 of an estimated $1,000,000,000, was spent in Middle East and North Africa countries.

Luckily for us, we have a successful model for engagement on this issue that we can fall back on. Just over two decades ago, Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar initiated what has proven to be one of the country's most effective foreign policy efforts. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program has led to the successful deactivation of well over 13,000 nuclear warheads, as well as the destruction of over 1,400 intercontinental ballistic missiles and almost 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents. Because of Nunn- Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free and Albania is chemical weapons free.

The principles of Nunn-Lugar can and should be more fully translated into the Middle East and North Africa. Congress has long supported expanding CTR into the Middle East, but it was only last fall that the Administration finally completed the bureaucratic changes necessary to more robustly engage in this region.

It is time we expand and ramp up our CTR efforts to prevent the potential proliferation of WMD-related weapons, technologies, materials, and know-how in this difficult and volatile part of the world. That is why I am introducing the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, which is aimed at modernizing our CTR and nonproliferation programs and expanding them more comprehensively throughout this region.

The bill calls for the President to develop and implement a multi- year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance CTR and nonproliferation in the Middle East and North Africa. The strategy requires an integrated, whole-of-government commitment to building on the cooperative threat model demonstrated by Nunn-Lugar's successes, the initiation of new CTR programs with newly elected partners in the region, and plans to ensure burden-sharing and leveraging of additional outside resources.

The bill allows for the support of innovative and creative assistance programs aimed at enhancing the capacity of governments in the region to prevent, detect, and interdict illicit WMD-related trade. Activities could include:

Encouraging and assisting with security and destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; Promoting the adoption and implementation of enhanced and comprehensive strategic trade control laws and strengthening export controls and border security, including maritime security; Promoting government-to-government engagement among emerging political and public policy leaders, including the possibility of training courses for parliamentarians and national technical advisors; Promoting activities that seek to work with civil society organizations, media representatives, and public diplomacy officials to help develop a culture of nonproliferation responsibility among the general public; The possible establishment of nuclear, chemical, or biological security Centers of Excellence in the Middle East; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon regional nonproliferation programs and institutions already in place, including such multilateral initiatives as the December 2010 Gulf Cooperation Council conference on the implementation of UNSCR 1540 or the Arab Atomic Energy Agency and its Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon previous multilateral initiatives, including the Group of Eight's Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction or the White House-led Nuclear Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 to more fully incorporate and include countries of the Middle East and North Africa region; Encouraging countries to adopt and adhere to the IAEA Additional Protocol; Promoting and supporting WMD- related regional confidence-building measures and Track Two regional dialogues on nonproliferation and related issues; Working collaboratively with businesses, foundations, universities, think tanks and other sectors, including the possibility of prizes and challenges to spur innovation in achieving appropriate Middle East and North Africa nonproliferation objectives; Supporting and expanding successful existing Middle East and North Africa partnerships, including the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance; Promoting the establishment of professional networks that foster voluntary regional interaction on weapons of mass destruction-related issues; or enhancing United States-Europe cooperation on combating proliferation in the Middle East and North Africa region.

The threat posed by WMD-related materials falling into the hands of terrorists remains our greatest and gravest threat. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Every senior leader, when you're asked what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.''

To date, we have largely kept WMD materials out of terrorists' hands. Unfortunately, however, being successful ``to date'' is not good enough. When it comes to terrorism and WMD in our world, the reality is that the international community cannot afford to make a single mistake. We cannot be complacent because one miscalculation . . . one unprotected border . . . one unsecured facility . . . could all lead to a mushroom cloud somewhere in our world.

We need to remain vigilant, to think ahead, and to anticipate where the next threats will come from and adapt to get ahead of it.

That is why I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and pass the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013. We need to demonstrate that the United States will continue to lead the international community in curbing the threat posed by WMD proliferation. My legislation does just that. I hope the Senate will support this important effort.

Before yielding the floor, I want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, at the White House and at the Departments of State and Defense who contributed to this legislation. I also want

to give special thanks to the Co-Chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy, including David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector and Michael Yaffe, whose report, ``U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,'' served as the inspiration for this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe and to introduce legislation aimed at modernizing the way the United States addresses this critical national security challenge. My bill, the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, requires the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive and well- resourced regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance cooperative threat reduction and related nonproliferation efforts in one of the most critical regions to U.S. national security interests: the Middle East and North Africa.

Fifty years ago, in 1963, President Kennedy famously said that he was ``haunted'' by the possibility that the United States could soon face a rapidly growing number of nuclear powers in our world. At the time, he predicted that by 1975, there could be as many as twenty countries with nuclear weapons. However, thanks to strong, forward-thinking and innovative American leadership on the nonproliferation agenda, including efforts like the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nunn-Lugar program, we have so far averted Kennedy's nuclear nightmare.

Recent WMD-related developments, including Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and Iran's nuclear program, have begun to test the limits of our nonproliferation regime. I am afraid we may be quickly reaching an important crossroads--one where we either prove President Kennedy wrong for a little while longer, or find out that his nightmare prediction was simply a half-century too soon.

As WMD-related materials and know-how continue to spread, the challenge of WMD proliferation is getting more

diffuse and harder to track. Our focus and our resource commitment need to match the severity of this emerging threat. Now is the time for us to recommit to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda and to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. will continue to lead in curbing the threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons around the world.

We should start in one of the most dangerous, most unstable regions in the world today: the Middle East and North Africa.

Nowhere is the proliferation challenge more glaring than in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where political instability and deeply-rooted violent extremism sit atop a complex web of ethnic differences, a history of violence and extremism, robust military capabilities, a growing collection of unsecured conventional and possible WMD-related weapons and a variety of inexperienced and potentially unstable governments brought into power by the Arab Spring.

Continued upheaval in Syria and the threat posed by the Assad regime's substantial chemical weapons stockpile pose a grave challenge to U.S. interests. Iran's continued illicit development of its nuclear program and its movement towards an advanced nuclear weapons capability threatens the U.S. and our allies and could lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. Terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda continue to operate throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and their direct ties to the Iranian and Syrian regimes only exacerbates the threat posed by these groups as they seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction or know-how.

Add to these threats the fact that the Arab Spring and continued revolutions across the region have brought popularly elected, yet untested governments into power that possess minimal capability and very little experience in countering WMD proliferation.

In the face of this growing and complex challenge, it is obvious that the Middle East and North African region represents the next generation of WMD-related tests for the United States. Yet, our resources and our programming are not getting ahead of the threat. In fact, the nonpartisan ``Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy'' estimates that, excluding programs in Iraq, only two percent of last year's nonproliferation-related programming, or approximately $20,000,000 of an estimated $1,000,000,000, was spent in Middle East and North Africa countries.

Luckily for us, we have a successful model for engagement on this issue that we can fall back on. Just over two decades ago, Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar initiated what has proven to be one of the country's most effective foreign policy efforts. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program has led to the successful deactivation of well over 13,000 nuclear warheads, as well as the destruction of over 1,400 intercontinental ballistic missiles and almost 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents. Because of Nunn- Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free and Albania is chemical weapons free.

The principles of Nunn-Lugar can and should be more fully translated into the Middle East and North Africa. Congress has long supported expanding CTR into the Middle East, but it was only last fall that the Administration finally completed the bureaucratic changes necessary to more robustly engage in this region.

It is time we expand and ramp up our CTR efforts to prevent the potential proliferation of WMD-related weapons, technologies, materials, and know-how in this difficult and volatile part of the world. That is why I am introducing the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, which is aimed at modernizing our CTR and nonproliferation programs and expanding them more comprehensively throughout this region.

The bill calls for the President to develop and implement a multi- year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance CTR and nonproliferation in the Middle East and North Africa. The strategy requires an integrated, whole-of-government commitment to building on the cooperative threat model demonstrated by Nunn-Lugar's successes, the initiation of new CTR programs with newly elected partners in the region, and plans to ensure burden-sharing and leveraging of additional outside resources.

The bill allows for the support of innovative and creative assistance programs aimed at enhancing the capacity of governments in the region to prevent, detect, and interdict illicit WMD-related trade. Activities could include:

Encouraging and assisting with security and destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; Promoting the adoption and implementation of enhanced and comprehensive strategic trade control laws and strengthening export controls and border security, including maritime security; Promoting government-to-government engagement among emerging political and public policy leaders, including the possibility of training courses for parliamentarians and national technical advisors; Promoting activities that seek to work with civil society organizations, media representatives, and public diplomacy officials to help develop a culture of nonproliferation responsibility among the general public; The possible establishment of nuclear, chemical, or biological security Centers of Excellence in the Middle East; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon regional nonproliferation programs and institutions already in place, including such multilateral initiatives as the December 2010 Gulf Cooperation Council conference on the implementation of UNSCR 1540 or the Arab Atomic Energy Agency and its Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators; Supporting, enhancing, or building upon previous multilateral initiatives, including the Group of Eight's Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction or the White House-led Nuclear Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 to more fully incorporate and include countries of the Middle East and North Africa region; Encouraging countries to adopt and adhere to the IAEA Additional Protocol; Promoting and supporting WMD- related regional confidence-building measures and Track Two regional dialogues on nonproliferation and related issues; Working collaboratively with businesses, foundations, universities, think tanks and other sectors, including the possibility of prizes and challenges to spur innovation in achieving appropriate Middle East and North Africa nonproliferation objectives; Supporting and expanding successful existing Middle East and North Africa partnerships, including the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance; Promoting the establishment of professional networks that foster voluntary regional interaction on weapons of mass destruction-related issues; or enhancing United States-Europe cooperation on combating proliferation in the Middle East and North Africa region.

The threat posed by WMD-related materials falling into the hands of terrorists remains our greatest and gravest threat. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Every senior leader, when you're asked what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.''

To date, we have largely kept WMD materials out of terrorists' hands. Unfortunately, however, being successful ``to date'' is not good enough. When it comes to terrorism and WMD in our world, the reality is that the international community cannot afford to make a single mistake. We cannot be complacent because one miscalculation . . . one unprotected border . . . one unsecured facility . . . could all lead to a mushroom cloud somewhere in our world.

We need to remain vigilant, to think ahead, and to anticipate where the next threats will come from and adapt to get ahead of it.

That is why I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and pass the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013. We need to demonstrate that the United States will continue to lead the international community in curbing the threat posed by WMD proliferation. My legislation does just that. I hope the Senate will support this important effort.

Before yielding the floor, I want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, at the White House and at the Departments of State and Defense who contributed to this legislation. I also want

to give special thanks to the Co-Chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy, including David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector and Michael Yaffe, whose report, ``U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,'' served as the inspiration for this legislation.

Mr. President, today, Senator Fischer and I, rise today to speak about the alarming crisis of sexual assault within our nation's military.

Three particularly disturbing cases have arisen in recent weeks. First, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was arrested for sexual battery, and an Army first sergeant is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct at Fort Flood. Finally, the Army also relieved a lieutenant colonel from his post for a domestic dispute that violated a stalking protection order. What is most concerning is that all were responsible for either handling sexual assault cases or managing policies pertaining to military sexual assault.

We have seen three incidents of this kind in a period of two weeks. The fact that the cases involved multiple services speaks volumes to the need to elevate all Sexual Assault Prevention Response, SAPR, jobs to the level of importance that they deserve. Given the challenge of addressing the sexual assault crisis, we need the best and brightest taking on these jobs in our military today.

We should take steps to ensure that these jobs are on par with those that the military values most. This will address one of the primary factors at the heart of the issue--the need for cultural change in the military. It starts with increasing the value of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions and enforcing a rigorous application, intense record review and an interview process that screens applicants prior to selection for those duties.

While we appreciate Secretary Hagel's efforts to ensure that candidates for these jobs are rescreened, retrained and recertified, the bigger issue is making sure that there is a robust process in place to get the highest caliber candidates into all Sexual Assault Prevention and Response jobs at the start. We firmly believe that changes to the military justice system are critical, but we also believe that changing military culture will require transforming the process by which we fill these positions. It will also require holding the leadership accountable for selecting those individuals.

That is why, today, we are introducing legislation that will make the highest-level Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions nominative ones.

Nominative jobs, also referred to as ``high visibility,'' are given that designation because of the caliber of person needed to fill them. These are some of the most significant, challenging and highly desired positions in the military. Transitioning SAPR jobs to a nominative process enables direct leadership involvement from the commander, who would now hand-pick the person to fill the role. Furthermore, there is a level of prestige that comes with taking nominative jobs because they are recognized as premiere jobs within the organization. Applicants know up front that these jobs will be challenging and career-enhancing. As such, only the best of the best need apply.

This crisis has reached a breaking point that requires more than the traditional process for filling military positions. We can no longer be comfortable placing the service member in a SAPR position solely based upon individual career paths and personal aspirations. As proven over the last several weeks, there are holes in that process. We need to enact a stringent application, record review and interview process that holds leaders accountable for SAPR job selection and increases the likelihood of getting the best possible applicants.

There is a sense of urgency surrounding military sexual assault that requires answers now. Secretary Hagel was correct in saying, ``Sexual assault has no place in the United States military'' and that ``the American people, including our service members, should expect a culture of absolutely no tolerance for this deplorable behavior.'' We could not agree more, but we are also of the belief that the change in culture with respect to sexual assault will require more than education and awareness training. Our military needs to develop a culture that gives preeminence to jobs related to sexual assault prevention.

We know that military leaders share our concerns and appreciate the leadership demonstrated thus far. We trust that they will also acknowledge the benefits of making SAPR jobs nominative positions. We hope my colleagues in the Senate will take up and pass this legislation as we attempt to address the scourge that is sexual assault in our military.

Mr. President, today, Senator Fischer and I, rise today to speak about the alarming crisis of sexual assault within our nation's military.

Three particularly disturbing cases have arisen in recent weeks. First, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was arrested for sexual battery, and an Army first sergeant is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct at Fort Flood. Finally, the Army also relieved a lieutenant colonel from his post for a domestic dispute that violated a stalking protection order. What is most concerning is that all were responsible for either handling sexual assault cases or managing policies pertaining to military sexual assault.

We have seen three incidents of this kind in a period of two weeks. The fact that the cases involved multiple services speaks volumes to the need to elevate all Sexual Assault Prevention Response, SAPR, jobs to the level of importance that they deserve. Given the challenge of addressing the sexual assault crisis, we need the best and brightest taking on these jobs in our military today.

We should take steps to ensure that these jobs are on par with those that the military values most. This will address one of the primary factors at the heart of the issue--the need for cultural change in the military. It starts with increasing the value of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions and enforcing a rigorous application, intense record review and an interview process that screens applicants prior to selection for those duties.

While we appreciate Secretary Hagel's efforts to ensure that candidates for these jobs are rescreened, retrained and recertified, the bigger issue is making sure that there is a robust process in place to get the highest caliber candidates into all Sexual Assault Prevention and Response jobs at the start. We firmly believe that changes to the military justice system are critical, but we also believe that changing military culture will require transforming the process by which we fill these positions. It will also require holding the leadership accountable for selecting those individuals.

That is why, today, we are introducing legislation that will make the highest-level Sexual Assault Prevention and Response positions nominative ones.

Nominative jobs, also referred to as ``high visibility,'' are given that designation because of the caliber of person needed to fill them. These are some of the most significant, challenging and highly desired positions in the military. Transitioning SAPR jobs to a nominative process enables direct leadership involvement from the commander, who would now hand-pick the person to fill the role. Furthermore, there is a level of prestige that comes with taking nominative jobs because they are recognized as premiere jobs within the organization. Applicants know up front that these jobs will be challenging and career-enhancing. As such, only the best of the best need apply.

This crisis has reached a breaking point that requires more than the traditional process for filling military positions. We can no longer be comfortable placing the service member in a SAPR position solely based upon individual career paths and personal aspirations. As proven over the last several weeks, there are holes in that process. We need to enact a stringent application, record review and interview process that holds leaders accountable for SAPR job selection and increases the likelihood of getting the best possible applicants.

There is a sense of urgency surrounding military sexual assault that requires answers now. Secretary Hagel was correct in saying, ``Sexual assault has no place in the United States military'' and that ``the American people, including our service members, should expect a culture of absolutely no tolerance for this deplorable behavior.'' We could not agree more, but we are also of the belief that the change in culture with respect to sexual assault will require more than education and awareness training. Our military needs to develop a culture that gives preeminence to jobs related to sexual assault prevention.

We know that military leaders share our concerns and appreciate the leadership demonstrated thus far. We trust that they will also acknowledge the benefits of making SAPR jobs nominative positions. We hope my colleagues in the Senate will take up and pass this legislation as we attempt to address the scourge that is sexual assault in our military.

I am here to join my colleague Senator Warren to also express my frustration about what is happening with the nominees to these critical agencies that are being held up by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As Senator Warren said very eloquently, last week the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chose not to appear for the important business of considering the nomination of Gina McCarthy. They made this decision with only a few minutes' notice. As a result, this action prevented an already overdue vote from taking place as scheduled.

The refusal to allow a vote on such fundamental business is unacceptable. The EPA conducts vital work to safeguard public health and protect our environment. Yet the agency has been without permanent leadership for months. It is the Senate's duty to act in a timely manner on these kinds of vacancies, and it is clear from Ms. McCarthy's impressive and expansive record that this nominee has earned and deserves a vote.

I understand and I respect those Senators who feel they have to vote against a nominee for substantive reasons. However, this failure to even appear at last Thursday's meeting and take a vote shows an alarming level of disregard for the importance of permanent leadership at the EPA and for the

Senate's confirmation process. As Senator Warren said, committee Republicans have already asked Ms. McCarthy to answer over 1,100 questions for the record, more than three times what any previous nominee for this position has faced. She has provided 234 pages of answers, and it is past time that the committee held a vote. We need to move forward on filling the position of EPA Administrator so the agency can resume addressing today's public health challenges in the most effective manner.

Simply put, the type of obstructionism we saw last week has no place in this Senate, no place in our government, particularly for a position as critical as this one. In addition to its work to reduce harmful pollution at the national level, the EPA plays a vital role in safeguarding public health in our local communities.

For example, in my State of New Hampshire, testing in 2009 revealed elevated levels of contaminants in the wells of homeowners living in the town of Raymond because of their proximity to a Superfund site. Following this discovery, we worked with the EPA, with the State Department of Environmental Services, and with the town of Raymond to find a solution that would address the health concerns because the families didn't have safe drinking water. With the EPA's support, the town has extended its water lines to ensure that these homeowners and their families can be provided access to safe clean drinking water.

I had the opportunity to view the progress of this construction project in person last year. I applaud the EPA for working with communities on vital local priorities such as this.

Communities across our country face public health challenges, and the EPA plays an important role in addressing these challenges. Even now we are working in New Hampshire in a similar situation where wells have been contaminated in the town of Atkinson.

We can't continue to delay the Senate's responsibilities to provide agencies such as the EPA with the leadership they need to operate. With 30 years of public service in a variety of roles, Ms. McCarthy has both the experience and the expertise to do the critical job of leading the EPA. Her expansive and lengthy career is rooted in working at the forefront of pressing environmental issues for leading New England Governors of both political parties.

Most recently, Gina McCarthy served in Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection under former Republican Gov. Jodi Rell. Before that, Ms. McCarthy served five different Massachusetts Governors, including Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney--the Republican Party's own nominee for President in last year's election.

These diverse work experiences on a broad range of environmental issues have provided Ms. McCarthy with the first-hand knowledge of environmental and public health challenges we face. They are evidence of her ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle to address the problems faced as we look at agencies such as the EPA.

Ms. McCarthy was confirmed by the Senate to her current EPA post with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2009. That makes the boycott last week even more shocking. In her current role as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Ms. McCarthy has worked with environmental advocates and industry leaders to reduce harmful emissions that threaten clean air. These efforts are particularly significant for downwind regions such as in New England, where we serve as the tailpipe to the rest of the Nation and suffer the effects of pollution from coal-fired powerplants in the middle part of the country. I am sure the Chair understands this issue.

In recognition of her successful tenure, Ms. McCarthy has received widespread praise from a diverse group of industry leaders who recognize her ability to find common ground and compromise.

Coming from New Hampshire, which is the second most forested State in the Nation, I know New Hampshire's forest products industry will benefit from an EPA Administrator with a strong reputation for constructive dialog. Following Ms. McCarthy's nomination, Donna Harman of the American Forest and Paper Association described her by saying: ``She's very data- and fact-driven, and that's been helpful for us as well as the entire business community.''

Leaders in an array of other sectors have voiced similar appreciation for the way in which Ms. McCarthy values finding common ground. Heaven knows we can use some common ground here.

Robert Engel of the American Automotive Policy Council praised the care she takes in listening to stakeholders, saying:

We look forward to continuing to work with Gina McCarthy.

She has demonstrated a willingness to consider the views of

those affected by the agency she has been nominated to lead,

and to find practical solutions to issues facing the

automobile industry.

These words describe a public servant who understands the importance of listening, understanding, and bringing stakeholders together.

I am confident Gina McCarthy will be an excellent leader of the EPA. She deserves fair consideration. She deserves a timely vote.

I am pleased we received news that there will be a rescheduled vote later this week. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to move forward in good faith and give fair consideration to this nominee. The EPA must have a permanent Administrator who is an advocate for protecting public health and providing valuable support to our Nation's communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Ayotte and I wish to commemorate the life of Evan Dube, a young man from Plaistow, NH, whose life was tragically cut short on May 19, 2012. Evan's spirit touched the lives of many in his community, and his legacy as a kind and loving friend will not be forgotten.

While Evan earned great success in his academic pursuits, his most profound impact was on the lives of those with whom he interacted. Evan's thoughtful compassion touched the lives of hundreds of acquaintances, friends, and family members. This was evidenced in part by a ceremony held to honor Evan's life at the Timberlane Regional High School Performing Arts Center where nearly 900 individuals honored his memory and celebrated the life that he lived with extraordinary attention to the thoughts and feelings of those around him.

We express our true sorrow at the loss of such an admirable, accomplished, and compassionate young man. We would also like to recognize and offer our sympathies to Evan's family, including his mother Eileen, his father John, and his twin brother Conor. We are confident that Evan's friends and family have great pride when they remember the impact that his short life had on so many individuals.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a remarkable leader, Father Jonathan DeFelice, who will retire as the President of Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH, this June.

Father Jonathan, as he is known to his beloved students and college community, has devoted his adult personal and professional life to Saint Anselm College. He lives and works at Saint Anselm in community with his fellow monks of the Order of Saint Benedict, who founded the college in 1889. Under his leadership, Saint Anselm College has become a nationally ranked liberal arts college and model for other institutions of higher education on ways to expand civic engagement and community service among all members of the campus community.

Originally a native of Bristol, RI, Father Jonathan attended Portsmouth Abbey School for high school and completed his undergraduate career at Saint Anselm in 1969. He joined the Order of Saint Benedict in 1973, and 1 later was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. Shortly thereafter, Father Jonathan returned to Saint Anselm, where he served in the administration, holding a variety of positions, including dean of freshman students, assistant to the academic dean and dean of students. The capstone of his years of work for his alma mater was his appointment as its president 24 years ago.

Father Jonathan believes that student development requires pursuing both academics and extracurricular activities. Building on that philosophy, he helped oversee the creation of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, established at Saint Anselm College to

educate citizens and encourage political and civic participation in the United States and abroad. Since its creation, the Institute has hosted hundreds of State and local leaders and international visitors and helped many new American citizens celebrate at five naturalization ceremonies. Every 4 years, Saint Anselm College becomes a main setting for national politics when it hosts numerous activities surrounding the presidential primaries.

Father Jonathan has also made service a priority for his students. Today, the college's student-led Meelia Center for Student Engagement manages more than 40 partnerships with New Hampshire non-profits, such as the Big Brother/Big Sister program. Father Jonathan built on that work by founding the State version of Campus Compact, a national initiative that works in cooperation with private sector partners to incorporate community service into college curriculum. Campus Compact New Hampshire is made up of 23 college and university member institutions in the state.

Father Jonathan has given back to the State by serving as chair of both the New Hampshire Colleges and University Council and the New Hampshire Higher Education Commission. He was a founding member of New Hampshire's Forum on Higher Education and, most recently, was appointed by Governor John Lynch to serve as director of the New England Board of Higher Education.

Throughout his tenure, Father Jonathan's commitment to higher learning has been a valuable asset to New Hampshire. With community service and civic engagement as cornerstones of his presidency, Father Jonathan has created a lasting and significant connection between the State of New Hampshire and the Saint Anselm College community.

I thank Father Jonathan for his service and his commitment to improving higher education in New Hampshire.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the tremendous selflessness and compassion demonstrated by Cameron Lyle of Plaistow, NH. Cameron is completing his senior year at the University of New Hampshire, UNH, and is a 4-year member of the school's track and field team. He elected to forgo his final two meets in order to donate bone marrow to a complete stranger who is battling acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Cameron Lyle is a graduate of Timberlane Regional High School and a standout thrower on UNH's track and field squad. He is a member of the National Marrow Donor Program's Be The Match Registry, which he joined as a sophomore along with many of his fellow UNH athletes by completing the mouth swabbing process that is the initial step in registering to serve as a potential bone marrow donor. Nearly 2 years later, Cameron received a call informing him that he was identified as a potential match for a 28-year-old man diagnosed with blood cancer. After additional testing, it was confirmed that despite incredibly small odds, Cameron's marrow was a match. Without hesitation, Cameron decided that he would give up participating in the final track and field meets of his senior year to potentially save another man's life.

The story of Cameron and the anonymous recipient of his bone marrow demonstrate the importance of bone marrow registries such as the National Marrow Donor Program's Be The Match Registry. These organizations can provide a critical lifeline for those individuals suffering from immune system, genetic or blood disorders. In addition, bone marrow donor registries serve as a place where patients afflicted with these terrible diseases can turn in hopes of receiving a transplant. While these disorders can be fatal, bone marrow registries give patients the hope of finding a lifesaving donor.

Cameron's decision truly demonstrates the strength of his character, but perhaps most importantly, his selfless act will undoubtedly never be forgotten by the man who received another chance at life. I know that residents of New Hampshire are extremely proud of Cameron and admire him for making such an important choice.

Once again, I would like to recognize and thank Cameron Lyle for making such a powerful and life changing decision for both himself and the recipient of his bone marrow. I commend Cameron's family, friends and the UNH and Plaistow communities for the support they have shown him in the weeks before and since his surgery. His story is truly memorable.

Mr. President, I come to the floor again this afternoon to continue my opposition and concerns about the Internet sales tax legislation that has been submitted.

I appreciate that we are going to vote on this bill in a few minutes, and I appreciate that I am probably going to lose. But I do think it is important to raise these concerns again because I think we have to take a look at the issues that have been raised and see if there are any ways to address them.

There are a number of problems with the bill that in my State of New Hampshire--which has no sales tax--makes it anything but fair. In fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways.

First, it is unfair for businesses in my State of New Hampshire and the four other States in this country that do not collect a sales tax. We did not have an opportunity to address this issue through amendments. I think it is not fair for us to pass a bill out of the Senate that fundamentally makes an impact on businesses in States where we have no ability to address the imposition of these taxes.

I also think we should not pass a bill that is going to create unnecessary new redtape for small companies across the country. One of the real benefits of the Internet has been the innovation and the job creation it has spawned. What this legislation does is put in place redtape that is going to put small companies that sell online at a severe disadvantage, making it harder for them to compete with large online retailers.

As a former small business owner myself, I know how time consuming regulations and compliance can be. Make no mistake about it, we are creating a bureaucratic morass for small businesses under this legislation. Small companies will be looking at complying with 46 different State laws. They are going to face audits or lawsuits, potentially, in some of these States.

Small business owners, who are working hard to grow their companies, do not need additional paperwork to distract them from running their companies. I fear that is what this bill will create. I urge my colleagues to take another look and see how we can address those concerns.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I came to the floor this evening to address what is known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, but before I do that, I wish to applaud Senator Coons for his work on the master limited partnerships legislation. I think it is a great bipartisan approach to one of our energy needs. I also applaud Senator Murkowski for her leadership on the Energy Committee and for her willingness to work in a bipartisan way to try to move an energy agenda from which this country can benefit. I thank both Senators very much for their efforts, and I look forward to working with both of them on the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency legislation, which I know that committee heard this week. I really appreciate the efforts to move that forward as well. So I thank both Senators very much.

Madam President, I really came down to the floor today to continue my opposition to the Internet sales tax legislation that is before us.

The proponents of this legislation claim it is about ``fairness,'' but when you really think about it, this bill is anything but fair. In fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways.

First, the legislation is particularly unfair for businesses in my State of New Hampshire and in the other four States in this country that do not collect a sales tax.

I filed amendments, as I know a number of my colleagues have--my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has filed a number of amendments--that I hope can help address this issue. But I think it is important for everyone here, especially those who are concerned with creating new redtape, to understand how this legislation is going to affect small businesses.

This proposal is going to put new regulatory burdens on small companies across the country, not just in New Hampshire. As a result, it is going to put those small businesses at a disadvantage, making it harder for them to compete with large online retailers.

As a former small business owner myself, I understand how time- consuming regulations and compliance requirements can be. Make no mistake, the bureaucratic nightmare we are

going to be creating for small businesses under this legislation is real. I think it is worth talking for a minute about what that process is going to look like for the small online retailers.

In a recent piece for the Daily Beast, writer Megan McArdle went through what the process would be like for a small business. She pointed to the SBA guidebook for small businesses when they collect sales taxes in multiple States. The guidebook tells small businesses:

Generally, states require businesses to pay the sales taxes

they collect quarterly or monthly. You'll have to use a

special tax return for sales taxes, and report all sales,

[all] taxable sales, [all] exempt sales and amount of tax

due. Not paying on time can result in penalties. As always,

check with your state or local government about the process

in your location.

McArdle points out that, despite claims from the proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act that tax collection will be easy and streamlined, the bottom line for a small business is that ``you've still got to keep fifty states worth of records and file 40-odd states worth of returns.''

McArdle went on to say:

For Amazon--the actual target of these laws--this is

trivial. Their staff of crack accountants can probably roll

these things out before their Monday morning coffee break.

For a small vendor, however, that's a whole lot of paperwork.

And that is what this legislation is really about--those small business owners who are working hard to grow their companies. They do not need an additional paperwork burden to distract them from running their companies.

Let me provide one example. There is a small company in the town of Epsom, NH. It is called Michele's Sweet Shoppe. Michele's sells popcorn and other gourmet treats both at their brick-and-mortar store in Epsom and online. This is a small business that is growing, and it wants to create jobs. They sell locally in New Hampshire at their brick-and- mortar store, but a big part of their future strategy for growth is taking advantage of new markets through the Internet.

Under this legislation, however, there is an arbitrary ceiling on this company's growth because as they get closer to $1 million in online revenue--as they have said to me--they are going to have to ask themselves, is it worth going through the bureaucratic nightmare of complying with 46 different States' sales taxes? Unfortunately, for them and for too many other businesses, the answer is more than likely to be no.

For Amazon and online retailers, this is not even a question. This is exactly the reason why this bill is good for big businesses and bad for small businesses. It makes it harder for small mom-and-pop stores to compete.

Small businesses--certainly in New Hampshire and in most of the country--are really the economic engine of our economy. Two out of three of the new businesses that are going to be created are going to be created by small business. We should really think twice before we pass this kind of legislation that will keep them from growing and that is really designed to help those big businesses.

I support a number of amendments to this bill. I would like to see them at least voted on. I hope some might be adopted because I think they would make the legislation fairer for small businesses. One of those is a bipartisan amendment we have worked on with Senator Toomey to raise the threshold for small businesses under the legislation. I have also filed an amendment to address a fundamental flaw in the legislation that I think must be addressed because this legislation is anything but fair to States such as New Hampshire, States such as Alaska, Montana, the other States in this country that do not collect a sales tax.

This is a proposal that fundamentally violates State sovereignty. It enables one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on the 49 other States and territories without their approval, and it provides zero benefit for the non-sales tax States while it creates an additional and unnecessary burden on our small businesses. That is why I filed an amendment to create an exemption for businesses in States such as New Hampshire. States will be able to force New Hampshire companies to collect sales taxes--especially when our States get no benefit whatsoever--and this amendment is designed to prevent that.

I am disappointed this evening that it does not look as though we are going to be allowed to vote on any of these amendments, although I am still hopeful that we might get a hearing.

I urge my colleagues, again, to think twice about this legislation. I urge them to look at the amendments when they are filed--if we are able to get an amendment process--and to think about supporting those amendments so the legislation really could live up to its billing as the Marketplace Fairness Act because right now it certainly does not meet that standard for the State of New Hampshire and our small businesses.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

My friend from Alaska and I, as she pointed out, represent States neither of which has a sales tax. Would the Senator agree with me that if this passes it sets a dangerous precedent that says at any point this Congress could impose on States such as ours, despite what we have chosen to do in our home States, a tax we may totally disagree with, and that that is a very dangerous precedent for us to set?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, my friend from West Virginia says this bill is important for his State. I understand that, but this is a bill that doesn't work for my State of New Hampshire. His suggestion that if States don't like it they have the option not to participate just doesn't work because the businesses in my State of New Hampshire are going to be affected.

This is a proposal that fundamentally violates State sovereignty. It enables one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on the 49 other States and territories without their approval. This legislation would impose new burdens on small businesses not only in New Hampshire but actually across the country.

I represent a State that does not have a sales tax. There are still some States in this country that don't have sales taxes. So my colleagues can understand why I oppose this measure, because this legislation will hurt small, online, family-owned businesses in New Hampshire--businesses that have no experience collecting sales taxes whatsoever.

The proponents of this legislation have said small businesses will not be affected, thanks to the exemption for businesses with less than $1 million in revenue. That is just not true. This legislation creates a disincentive for Internet firms to grow and create jobs for American workers. We know that the margins for so many small online retailers are very slim. I will give you an example.

I have heard from a small business owner in Hudson, NH. Hudson is down along the border of Massachusetts. I know the Acting President pro tempore knows it well. This small business owner's business is approaching $1 million in revenues, and he has about six employees-- just six employees.

Now, under the Internet sales tax legislation before us, this company would be considered a large business--revenues over $1 million--because they are almost there. But if this legislation passes, the company's plans to grow will be in doubt. They are going to be forced to reconsider whether they are going to continue to grow, continue to hire more employees, because this arbitrary threshold creates a real disincentive for them to grow.

Now, e-commerce has been a real boon to small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It has helped companies find new markets. It has helped them add new revenues. But for companies looking to grow through online sales, this legislation represents a real ceiling for growth.

That is why I have joined with a number of my colleagues to call on the Senate to rethink this legislation. We need to think through its unintended consequences. Small businesses across the country--not just in non-sales tax States, such as New Hampshire, but small businesses across the country--will see their tax burdens increase. I want to give just a few examples of the new burdens that are going to come with this legislation.

First, as I mentioned, each State has different sales and use taxes, so businesses would need new software to figure out how to collect and remit the right taxes. It is my understanding that the States, under this legislation, would be responsible for providing that software to the businesses in their State. I think this creates an unfunded mandate, for the State of New Hampshire to have to provide that software for the small businesses in the State that would be affected.

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 would also have to deal with audit and enforcement actions from out of State. In other words, they would have to answer to taxing authorities in places where they have no representation whatsoever. And 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.

So these are just a few examples of the many unintended consequences this legislation would create.

I intend to join with a number of my colleagues in filing amendments to improve this bill, including ways that we can protect States rights and small businesses. If the State of New Hampshire does not want to participate because we have no sales tax and we do not think our businesses should be forced to collect Massachusetts sales taxes or Maine sales taxes or Vermont sales taxes online, then it seems to me we ought to be able to opt out of this legislation.

The citizens and small businesses in New Hampshire that will be affected by this legislation deserve a full hearing on these issues, and I urge my colleagues to join us in addressing these defects before we pass this bill.

Mr. President, I couldn't say it any more eloquently than my friend from Oregon whose small businesses are facing the same kind of discrimination our small businesses in New Hampshire are facing.

I came straight from the airport--my flight was delayed; so I wasn't here to vote no on this legislation that I think has not been thought through carefully because, as the Senator from Oregon points out, it is going to affect innovation and the ability to use the Internet in a way that I think most of this should be used. It is going to set up a whole new set of rules that are very difficult for our businesses in New Hampshire and Oregon to comply with. I think it is not the best way for us to go about taxation and doing it in a fair way. Sadly, as a result of this legislation, if it passes, as the Senator pointed out, we are going to see a whole different set of rules for one set of businesses than for another and that just isn't right.

So I plan to come down to the floor and speak at greater length about this tomorrow, but I wanted to come this afternoon, when I heard the Senator was speaking as I came from the airport, to join the Senator in opposition to the legislation and point out that I certainly would have voted no and intend to continue to do everything I can to try to address what I think is a very unfair way to deal with taxation.

Mr. President, I look forward to working with my friend from Oregon to try and amend this legislation to address some of the concerns that we, along with a number of other members of this body, share. It should be an interesting week.