Floor Statements

Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has done an excellent job. While I appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Dakota, I actually think that in order to deal with the budget challenges facing the country, we have to look at both revenues and spending.

One of the areas of spending that have been the most problematic has been health care costs. It has been one of the fastest growing costs for the Federal Government, and what we have to do is look at how we can lower the health care costs.

The amendment I proposed that we are going to vote on this morning, amendment No. 438, is one that actually reduces health care costs.

In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, women's access to affordable health care has improved. Women now have access to a wide range of preventive services, such as well-women appointments, screenings for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and counseling for domestic violence. All women now have access to contraceptive coverage for free through their insurance plans. Ninety-nine percent of women report that they have used birth control at some point in their lives, and access to birth control is directly linked to the decline in maternal and infant mortality. I think that is a really important message we need to get across to people. There is a direct connection between access to birth control and maternal and infant mortality. Access to birth control can also reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to overall good health outcomes.

Sadly, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies in the industrialized world, and preventing unintended pregnancies just makes fiscal sense. Studies have found that medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies can cost taxpayers up to $12 billion a year.

My State of New Hampshire has one of the lowest teen birth rates in the country. As Governor, I was proud to sign a law that required health care plans to cover contraception. It was a law that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in our legislature. The fact is that accessible family planning matters, and it can make a difference.

Despite the research which shows that investments in women's health make sense, we continue to see efforts to deprive women from receiving the most basic of care.

The amendment I am going to be offering this morning will protect women's access to primary and preventive health care, to family planning, and to birth control. At the most basic level, this amendment ensures that a woman's family planning decisions are ones she makes with her doctor and her family, and that they are not dictated by government or by her employer.

Thank you. So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. President, amendment No. 438 establishes a deficit- neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to basic health care, including family planning and birth control. It ensures that employers cannot deny coverage for contraceptives.

We have seen that improving access to preventive care, including contraception, is good health policy, and as a result it means healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, and the other opponents of this amendment.

Senator Alexander said that States should be able to decide what to do about taxes. Well, in New Hampshire we have decided. We don't want a sales tax. We don't collect one, and we don't ask our small businesses to collect one. And the fact is that this amendment would harm small, family-owned retail businesses in New Hampshire.

I talked to a business in Hudson, NH, which is along the border with Massachusetts. He has six employees, and he is about to reach $1 million in sales. He said that under this legislation, his company would have to start collecting taxes not just in New Hampshire but for 45 other States. It would put him at such a disadvantage that he could not continue to grow. Just as Senator Wyden said, what these businesses are going to do then is go look for someplace else where they don't have to worry about collecting these taxes over the Internet.

I agree with Senator Alexander. I think we should ensure States rights and ensure that small businesses are protected, but we don't do that by passing this amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Isakson. I was a Governor for three budgets, and we were able to balance them every other year every cycle because biennial budgeting gives us an opportunity to prioritize scarce resources and provide more oversight to the budgeting process.

This is idea whose time has come. We need this reform and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for the work he has done to look at the tax loopholes that should be closed and to bring attention to really the fairness we should have in our Tax Code.

I am here to join my colleagues in talking about the importance of passing a budget that will address our debt and deficits and protect middle-class families while investing in our future job growth. I applaud Senator Murray for her leadership and the work of the Budget Committee in bringing this document before us.

We have made significant progress in the last few years to get the American economy growing, and we have taken real action to reduce our deficits, but there is more we can do on both fronts, and the budget before us addresses both of these urgent priorities in a responsible way.

No one is questioning the need to address our debt and deficits. The question is, Can we do this in a responsible way? Can we come together in a way that protects our economic recovery?

Unfortunately, because of continued political stalemate, we have seen the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration go into effect. Now we need to come together to support a plan to address these harmful automatic cuts because they are hurting small businesses. They are having an impact on our economic recovery. They are forcing furloughs of public employees--in New Hampshire, people such as our Portsmouth Naval Shipyard workers and our air traffic controllers. They are creating economic uncertainty that is putting our economic recovery in jeopardy.

I have had the chance to travel around New Hampshire in the last month or so and talk to companies that are concerned about the impact of these automatic cuts. One of those companies I visited is called Cirtronics, which is a manufacturing company in Milford, NH. The company employs about 150 people, and it manufactures a diverse array of products, from circuit boards, to medical equipment, to defense and homeland security products. Cirtronics doesn't have any direct government contracts, but many of its clients do. As a result, the company is facing a lot of uncertainty under sequestration. According to its CEO, Geraldine Ferlins, this uncertainty is getting in the way of the company's growth. She said:

How do you plan without knowing how you will be affected?

You hear about how CEOs are hesitant to hire. This is why.

Another company in Salem, NH, called Micro-Precision Technologies is a small, family-owned business with about 20 employees that makes semiconductors used in the military, aerospace, medical, and communications industries. About 80 percent of Micro-Precision's business is with the Department of Defense. Sequestration has meant that their orders are down about half for the month of January. They had been planning to hire two new people, but unfortunately they cannot do that because they are so uncertain about what is going to happen.

That is why we need a better approach to addressing our budget situation. We need a plan that looks at all areas of our spending--at our domestic, at our defense, at our mandatory programs--as well as at revenues through tax reform. That is exactly the approach that was taken by the Budget Committee in passing out the budget resolution that is before us this week. That is why I supported it. It replaces the harmful cuts under sequestration with a balanced mix of responsible spending cuts as well as additional revenues. So instead of across-the- board cuts, the budget makes targeted cuts to several areas. It cuts health care spending without harming beneficiaries; it reduces defense spending cuts, as we wind down our operations in Afghanistan; and it results in reduced interest payments on our debt.

The budget also provides a balanced approach by ending, as Senator Levin pointed out, the unfair tax breaks for the wealthiest and for big corporations. I certainly applaud Senator Levin and Senator Whitehouse, and I was really glad to hear that Senator McCain has joined them in addressing these unfair tax breaks.

The budget does all this, and yet it still invests in our economy in a way that allows it to grow. It provides much needed funding for our aging transportation infrastructure. It creates an infrastructure bank that is a bipartisan idea that allows us to get a greater bang for the taxpayer buck. There is no doubt that we have to do more to fix our debt and deficits, but we need to do it in a smart, responsible way. That is what this budget does.

I certainly hope we will be able to come together this week to replace the harmful cuts under sequestration with a comprehensive and responsible plan for addressing our debt and deficit. That is why I intend to vote for this budget--because it does exactly that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia Senator Isakson for his eloquent and thoughtful remarks in support of the biennial budgeting amendment. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the legislation we introduced last week, in fact.

I am pleased to point out on the floor with us is Senator Angus King, my neighbor from Maine, who is also a sponsor of biennial budget legislation.

I appreciate we have the budget resolution before us. I think it is an important step toward returning to regular order. But the fact is, as my colleague just pointed out, since 1980, we have only had two budget processes that have finished on time, according to schedule. We have had every President since that time, since Ronald Reagan, endorse a biennial budget. As my colleague said, I have been there and done that. As Governor of New Hampshire, as the Governors of 19 other States, we have biennial budgets. It has worked very well--because as this amendment would do, and as the biennial budget process would do, it would give us the chance to spend the first year of the budget cycle working on the budget, looking at programs and preparing for the budget and then the second year in oversight, so we can make sure what we are spending our money on is effective and is doing what we want it to do. It would give us a more transparent process and would, hopefully, allow us to address what has been one of the real challenges we have faced in Congress; that is, getting a budget through on time, according to the process.

As my colleague from Georgia pointed out, as we think about addressing the debt and deficits facing the country, as we think about investments we need to make going forward, thinking about how we can use the process in a way that is more effective, that works better, is something we also ought to be including. We have had a lot of momentum that is built around the biennial budget legislation. In the last Congress, we had 37 bipartisan cosponsors. We had the support of then- budget chair Kent Conrad and ranking member Jeff Sessions. So we have some momentum. I think we clearly have an opportunity. I hope we will take advantage of it and that our colleagues will support this effort.

I thank my colleague for his leadership.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to address Senator Toomey's amendment, which would remove the provisions around biofuels, amendment No. 115. I think it is important to point out that this is really more than a budget issue. The Presiding Officer understands, as he and I worked together to address this when we passed the Defense authorization bill. This is really a national security issue.

I had the opportunity, as chair of the Water and Power Subcommittee in Energy, to go down to Norfolk to have a hearing aboard the USS Kearsarge to talk about exactly what the Navy--and they are reflective of the military--is doing to address energy use. I saw some very amazing progress in terms of their

reduction in energy use, their energy efficiency. I saw some of the things they are doing, such as using solar blankets and small, compact batteries out in the field. This allows them to do their mission much better.

They pointed out that our access to energy is complicated by political unrest and by threats to our supply lines around the globe. We spend billions to protect these fragile supply lines.

Oil prices are set on a global market, often driven by speculation and rumor. Our military is too often exposed to price shocks. The military consumes about 300,000 barrels of oil a day, which is about $30 million a day.

The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States, with 93 percent consumed by the military. For every dollar rise in a barrel of oil, the Navy incurs a cost of $30 million at current prices. Last year the Navy incurred a $1.1 billion budget shortfall because the cost of a barrel of oil increased by $38. The commander of the Pacific Fleet was forced to cut $200 million from its flying and steaming costs because of those cost increases.

In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Department of Defense came up $5.6 billion short for military operations and maintenance because it needed to spend more on fuel than anticipated.

As I saw in Norfolk on the Kearsarge, each of our services is making real progress on energy efficiency and moving to alternative fuels. This is not the time to hinder those efforts.

The per-gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under Navy contracts has declined more than 90 percent over the past 2 years, and it is going to continue to decline. The Navy and the Department of Defense have been on the leading edge of innovation and technological achievements over the last 200 years. This is another example of innovation and technological advancement.

Last year the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, sent a letter to my office advocating his strong support for the Navy's efforts on biofuels and urging Congress to provide him with the flexibility to continue this effort. He states:

I support the Secretary of the Navy's efforts . . . to

accelerate the establishment of a domestic alternative fuels

industry through DPA, Title III. This effort will enhance our

energy security by diversifying the supply of fuels.

Restricting this biofuel effort will ``impede America's

energy security.''

I applaud my colleague Senator Toomey for the efforts he made to look at what we are spending in government to attempt to reduce those costs. He and I are working very closely in an attempt to reduce the cost of sugar subsidies in this country. This is a situation where, for short- term gain, they would risk the long-term benefit.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment and ensure our military continues to be on the leading edge of energy security for the world.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I came to the floor to speak on an entirely different issue, but before I do that, I would like to commend Appropriations Chair Mikulski--and I do like saying that, Appropriations Chair Mikulski--and Ranking Member Shelby for all of the work they and their staffs and the other Senators on the Appropriations Committee have done to try to put together a continuing resolution that is going to keep this government open.

I share the frustration and the concern we have heard expressed on the floor tonight about the hold-up when we thought there was agreement to get this done.

So I appreciate all the work that has been done, and hopefully we can get past this and get this bill done.

That is correct.

It is.

I was hoping to learn that this session because unfortunately we have not had a lot of regular order in terms of moving appropriations bills and the budget through the Senate. As I talk to my constituents,

they really want to see us do that. They want to see us work together to move the agenda forward for this country, just as the chairwoman and Senator Shelby have done in the last week.

That is correct. And I appreciate the leadership the Senator has shown.

Madam President, the world came together once again last week to celebrate International Women's Day. Today I want to belatedly commemorate that special day here on the floor of the Senate and welcome the passage of this year's International Women's Day resolution, which I am proud to say that I cosponsored on a bipartisan basis with my colleague Senator Collins, and we had 14 other cosponsors on that resolution.

International Women's Day is observed all over the world. It honors the economic, political, and social achievements of women past, present, and future. It also highlights just how far women around the world still have to go and the many barriers and closed doors they continue to face in the fight for equal rights and opportunities.

I want to recognize and celebrate this year's nine recipients of the 2013 State Department International Women of Courage Awards. This prestigious annual award recognizes women who have shown exceptional leadership in advocating for women's rights and empowerment around the globe, often at great risk to their own well-being.

One of those recipients I want to talk about is Razan Zeitunah. She is a human rights lawyer in Syria, and she has made it her mission to track the ongoing atrocities that have been committed by the Assad regime. Mrs. Zeitunah was forced into hiding after the government accused her of being a foreign agent when she began reporting on these atrocities. Despite living in fear for her life, with her husband in prison, Mrs. Zeitunah continues to risk so much to make sure the world knows all about Assad's brutal crackdown on the people of Syria.

She is one of nine remarkable women who are being honored by the State Department this year, each with an equally inspirational story to tell.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of all nine honorees.

While I am very pleased that the Senate was able to take up and pass the International Women's Day resolution last night, I am also extremely disappointed that this bipartisan resolution was objected to at the eleventh hour over a clause that addressed the impact of our changing climate on women in developing nations, and I just want to read that clause.

Whereas, according to the International Union for

Conservation of Nature, women in developing countries are

disproportionately affected by changes in climate because of

their need to secure water, food, and fuel for their

livelihood.

That was the extent of the clause that was objected to. Unfortunately, this clause from the resolution was blocked by a Member of the Senate on the other side of the aisle. It was a clause that was included in the 2011 resolution that unanimously passed in the Senate.

Just this past weekend, Navy Admiral Locklear, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, was asked during a 2-day trip to New England what was the biggest long-term security threat facing the Pacific region. His answer was very clear: climate change--this from an admiral who is dealing with a bellicose North Korea and escalating conflict between Japan and China in the East China Sea. His answer to what is the biggest threat to America is climate change. Yet we have one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who objected to a clause that points out what is very clear in data around the world, and that is the impact changes in our climate are having on women who are so often the food gatherers for their families.

This issue of climate change is not going away anytime soon. We can deny that it exists, but it exists. The data is clear, and I believe we need to come together to address this serious concern to help other countries find ways of mitigating the harmful effects of climate change.

Just as climate change deserves attention, we also need to continue our effort to promote equal rights and equal opportunities for women everywhere. We know that all of society benefits when women are more fully integrated into their communities and countries, and we need to remain focused on this effort. That is why International Women's Day is so important, and that is why passing a resolution to talk about that in this body is so important.

I am sorry we couldn't agree on everything, but I do think it is important for us to recognize International Women's Day and also to point out areas of disagreement that clearly are going to remain at the forefront in the future.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 21, H.R. 933.

This evening cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the continuing appropriations bill. If no agreement is reached, the cloture vote will be Thursday morning.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to applaud the passage by the House, just a little while ago, of the Violence Against Women Act.

I wish to also congratulate my colleagues, Senator Leahy, my neighbor from Vermont, and Senator Crapo, who is on the floor today, for their leadership in getting this legislation passed so early in this session and for helping to see that it got shepherded through the House where it had been so challenging.

This is legislation that treats all victims equally regardless of whether they are Native Americans, whether they are members of the LGBT community, whether they are immigrants. It supports law enforcement by providing critical funding for police officers and prosecutors so they can hold abusers responsible. It supports crisis centers for women and families, to provide for immediate needs such as shelter and counseling.

On behalf of the thousands of women and families in New Hampshire who will benefit because of this reauthorization, I wish to thank all the 268 Members of the House who voted for it and all the people in the Senate where it had such a broad bipartisan majority.

Again, I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Crapo, for the leadership they provided in getting this done.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, today I rise with a heavy heart because our Nation has lost one of its outstanding citizens and many of us have lost a dear friend.

Charlie Morgan, chief warrant officer of the New Hampshire National Guard, passed away early Sunday morning with her wife Karen and their daughter Casey by her side. Chief Charlie Morgan was just 48 years old. For those of us who had the pleasure of knowing Charlie, it has been a difficult week. However, as I rise today, I take comfort in the opportunity I had to share part of Charlie's life and work.

Many know Charlie for the national attention she received over the last several years advocating on behalf of her fellow gay servicemembers and their families. However, first and foremost, Charlie was a soldier. She enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1982. After a brief period away, Charlie returned to service as a member of the Kentucky National Guard in 1992, 1 year before the now-repealed don't ask, don't tell policy became law.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Charlie returned for a third time, joining the 197th Fires Brigade of the New Hampshire National Guard, a tour that included a yearlong deployment in Kuwait.

In addition to the mental and emotional challenges of military service, Chief Warrant Officer Morgan shouldered the constant burden of keeping her life secret from her fellow soldiers. Married to her partner Karen in 2000, Charlie was unable to live openly under the military's don't ask, don't tell policy.

Immediately following the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, Charlie made national news as one of the first servicemembers to publicly confirm her homosexuality and shed light on many of the remaining inequalities faced by same-sex military families.

I first met Charlie in 2011. She contacted my office during her deployment in Kuwait when she learned that despite the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, her partner Karen of over 10 years would not be allowed to attend mandatory National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Programs upon her return. I was pleased to work with Secretary Panetta and the New Hampshire National Guard, which has been very supportive of Charlie, to ensure that she and her wife Karen would be able to participate in the program together.

However, as those of us who appreciated her determination understood, Charlie was not satisfied. She continued to vigorously pursue equal benefits for same-sex spouses, particularly survivors' benefits and compensation still denied under the Defense of Marriage Act. And this was not an abstract issue for Charlie. In 2011 she was diagnosed for a second time with breast cancer. Concerned for the future well-being of her family, Charlie took aim at DOMA by challenging its constitutionality in Federal court, and her case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court later this year.

Several days ago my office sent out an online condolence card to the Morgan family, and the response from that card has been overwhelming. In less than a week we received over 2,000 messages of support from citizens all across our country, and I would like to read just a couple of those this morning.

From Hobkinton, NH, we heard: Charlie is a hero to many of us. Thank you for making your lives public so others can live their lives privately in love.

From Oregon, we heard: Thinking of you in this time of loss. It is also a loss for our country, but she leaves a legacy that will carry on.

From Fulton, IL, we heard: Thank you so much, Charlie, for all you have done. You will not be forgotten, and your service, work, and legacy will live on. Those of us left behind will honor you by continuing on in this all-important fight for equality.

I hope Charlie Morgan knew how many lives she touched and how greatly we admired her efforts. I know that she will be sorely missed and that her example will continue to guide us well into the future.

With Charlie's memory in mind, I will soon be introducing the Charlie Morgan Act. This bill will end a number of restrictions on benefits for legal spouses of all military servicemembers and veterans regardless of their sexual orientation. Every individual who provides for our defense deserves the peace of mind that comes with knowing one's family will be taken care of should the worst happen. No one should ever again go through what Charlie and her family had to go through. I hope all of us in the Senate will take up this legislation and act quickly to address this issue. It is long overdue.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR 328A of the Russell Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drought, Fire and Freeze: The Economics of Disasters for America's Agricultural Producers,'' during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR 328A of the Russell Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 10 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 February 14, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Wall Street Reform: Oversight of Financial Stability and Consumer and Investor Protections.''

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Insurance Exchanges: Progress Report''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 14, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. President, Senator Collins and I are here because we agree we must take action in this body and in this Congress to avoid sequestration. Sequestration is a term we have all been throwing around, and it refers to the automatic cuts that are scheduled to take effect on March 1. Those cuts were designed to force Congress to make a tough decision and to take comprehensive action on our debt and deficits.

I think we all agree there is no question we need a comprehensive and balanced plan to put us on a more sustainable fiscal path. I think that plan should look at all areas of spending. It should look at domestic, mandatory, and defense as well as comprehensive tax reform. I think there are many areas of bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, including controlling the long-term cost of health care.

Unfortunately, Congress has missed several opportunities to enact a long-term plan to get our debt and deficits under control. That is why we are again facing a deadline at the end of this month to address those automatic cuts. As a result of that, we are starting to see the very real and negative consequences of our inaction. We are seeing it on our national security, and we are seeing it on our economy as businesses and agencies alike begin to prepare for the automatic cuts under sequestration.

Last week, Senator Collins and I wrote to the leadership in the Senate urging bipartisan action on sequestration and the need to find a better approach. In our letter, we talked about the impacts we are starting to see in New Hampshire and Maine, including the threat to jobs, our national security, and to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is critical not only to New Hampshire and Maine but also to this country's national security. We called attention to the drastic effects we face for our economy, for our jobs, and for our national security.

Today we are here to reiterate the importance of addressing sequestration and doing it now.

I wish to thank the senior Senator from Maine, my colleague, for joining me to talk about this important issue, and I am looking forward to hearing her remarks. I know it is something she cares about as much as I do and as much as I think most of the Members of this Chamber do.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for laying out what we are seeing in terms of the potential impact of those automatic cuts. The comments and the statistics the Senator from Maine had about China and what they are going to be able to do with the money we are paying is really eye-opening and scary.

The Senator from Maine spoke about some of the impacts we are beginning to see at the ports of naval shipyards. As the Senator pointed out, it is something very important to both Maine and New Hampshire. It employs about 4,000 workers, almost evenly split between our two States. As a result of the sequester, starting March 1, one of their major projects, the repair of the USS Miami, which was damaged in a fire, is going to be halted immediately. Just stopped--16 days from now. The Navy is going to cut over 1,100 temporary civilian workers, mostly from shipyards such as Portsmouth. The needed maintenance and military construction will be postponed indefinitely. It is not just about those jobs at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or at the shipyards across the country, but that has a ripple effect across our economy, and it affects the grocery stores and the restaurants and all of the small contractors and small businesses doing work at those shipyards.

There will be ramifications for our national defense across the services. Yesterday, we had some harrowing testimony in front of the Armed Services Committee from all of the chiefs of the military outlining what they see coming as a result of the consequences of the sequester and the continuing resolution the Senator from Maine spoke about.

DOD-wide--so across the Department--they expect to lay off a significant portion of the 46,000 temporary and term employees. All services and agencies will likely have to furlough most DOD civilian employees for up to 22 working days. Imagine that. That is a whole month of paychecks that those workers are not going to have to support their families, to be able to spend into the economy, and that is going to have a huge impact.

It is possible that DOD might not have enough funds to pay for TRICARE, health care coverage for our veterans through the end of the fiscal year. As we saw on the front pages of the paper this week, the Department delayed the deployment of the USS Harry Truman, the carrier strike group that was headed to the Persian Gulf. If sequestration goes into full effect, the Navy will shrink by about 50 ships and at least two carrier groups.

By the end of the year, the Navy, if we do nothing, will lose about 350 workers a week or 1,400 a month from our civilian industrial base. That will have a huge impact in New Hampshire, as I know it will in Maine as well.

So there are real, significant impacts, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, on the defense industry, on this country's national security, and on the domestic side of the budget. It is already starting to have ramifications on our economy and job growth. We saw in the last quarter of 2012 that our economy contracted for the first time since 2009, and much of that decline was due to sharp reductions in government spending in anticipation of the sequester coming into effect.

We saw it in New Hampshire, in some of our businesses that are dependent on government contracts, particularly in the defense industry. So our failure to act is not only irresponsible, but it is beginning to have a real impact in slowing down this economy.

It is simply unacceptable that we are not addressing this issue. We need to act. If we let the sequester go into effect, we stand to lose, according to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 1.4 million jobs. A recent forecast from Macroeconomic Advisers suggests that sequestration would reduce our gross domestic product by .7 percentage points this year.

We can't risk putting our economic recovery in jeopardy with these indiscriminate cuts. They are going to have an impact on research and education vital to our ability to grow this economy and remain competitive.

The National Institutes of Health would face a $2.5 billion cut. They would have to halt or curtail scientific research, including needed research in cancer and childhood diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would see a $464 million cut. States and local communities would lose billions of Federal education funding for title I, for special education grants, and for other programs.

As many as 100,000 children will lose their places in Head Start, 25,000 teachers could lose their jobs, and we will see those impacts immediately in Maine and in New Hampshire.

I wish to turn back to the Senator from Maine to share what she is seeing in Maine.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins very much for her kind words. I know we both care a great deal about this situation we are in, as I think most of the Members of the body do. What is so frustrating is that it is avoidable. This is not something that has to happen because we are facing a crisis. This is happening because of what we have done in our actions. So we can undo these actions, as the Senator points out.

I share the Senator's belief that we need a comprehensive solution. We have to look at all aspects of the budget. We need to look at domestic, defense spending, mandatory programs, and we need to look at revenues. Comprehensive tax reform--that is a way we can address that.

There are areas of bipartisan agreement that we ought to be able to take action on right away. We have had a number of GAO reports that make recommendations on duplicative programs within government. We are already working to control the long-term costs of health care, to close tax loopholes, and on defense spending, we all know there are still reforms that can be done, as the Senator pointed out. We can get better physical controls. We can end some of the fraud and abuse in contracting. That is just the beginning of a list that, I am sure, if we all dedicated ourselves to coming up with a compromise on how we avoid the sequester, we could do.

We should not delay because our failure to resolve this issue is having damaging effects on our economy, and it is only going to get worse if we do not find the solution.

So, again, I thank Senator Collins for her commitment to address this challenge we face, for her willingness to come down and engage with me, and for us to work together, along with our colleagues, to try to get a resolution so we do not have these devastating cuts going into effect.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Always, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, both for his kind words and the tremendous leadership he has shown over the years in first passing this legislation and for getting it reauthorized time and again and now, after the bill died in the last Congress because of the unwillingness of the House to act, for his willingness to bring it forward so early in the session so that hopefully we can make sure all of those people who are victims of domestic violence and all of those advocates, the law enforcement community that is working so hard, can have the support they need as a result of this legislation. So I thank Senator Leahy very much.

One of the reasons I am proud to support this bill is because it takes a truly comprehensive approach to the problem. It supports crisis centers for women and families to provide for immediate needs, such as shelter and counseling.

Last year the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence reported that they were able to provide shelter for 630 people who needed a place to sleep. Unfortunately, although they helped those 630, they had to turn away 721 because they didn't have room. So even with the help that is in the Violence Against Women Act, they had to turn away more people than they could help.

In the face of this need, sometimes it is easy to feel discouraged, to wonder whether we can really help at all. But when I speak to the brave women who are survivors who reached out for help to the advocates who have helped them rebuild their shattered lives, I know that we can and we must continue to make a difference.

The Violence Against Women Act helps us do this by providing funding for police officers and prosecutors so abusers are held responsible. Time and again, we have heard from law enforcement that the Violence Against Women Act helps them keep our communities safe and helps stop the cycle of abuse--law enforcement officers such as a detective sergeant in New Hampshire's largest city of Manchester, who is an investigator and a domestic violence advocate.

I brought with me today a chart that gives us a real picture of just how pervasive the problem of domestic violence is.

As we can see in the chart, one in four women in the United States is a victim of domestic violence. Three women are murdered every day by their partners. This has been a very big problem in New Hampshire where half of all murders are domestic violence related.

Maybe the worst statistic on this chart shows that 15 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. I call this maybe the worst because, in fact, the cycle of domestic violence continues because so many children are exposed every year. They are not able to get out of this cycle. Let's recommit to shielding our children from senseless violence.

Another reason I am proud to support this bill is because it treats all victims equally, and it recognizes that members of the LGBT community are just as deserving of our support as any other survivor of domestic violence. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows us that those in LGBT relationships actually experience higher rates of violence than heterosexual couples. Let's recommit to helping all Americans regardless of whom they love or who has abused them.

Finally, I want to end with a quote from a woman in New Hampshire who sought help at a crisis center that receives funds from VAWA, the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention. Before she left that shelter--as she was putting her life back together--she told the case managers there:

You all have really made my life worth holding onto and not

giving up. Please don't ever give up doing what you do

because you truly saved my life.

I think that represents what we hear from so many survivors of domestic violence. Just as we are not going to give up on those survivors, we must not give up until this legislation is on President Obama's desk and signed into law. There are too many victims who are counting on us.

I certainly urge all of my colleagues in the Senate--as we did in the last session of Congress--to join me in supporting the Violence Against Women Act. I also hope our colleagues in the House will recognize how significant this challenge is and be willing to take up this legislation and get it done so survivors across this country will get the help they need.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.