Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``State of Federal Privacy and Data Security Law: Lagging Behind the Times?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2012, at 2 p.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Doing Business in Latin America: Positive Trends but Serious Challenges.''

Madam President, if the majority leader is finished, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

That is fine.

Thank you, Madam President.

I come to the floor this evening to talk about an amendment I have filed to the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414. This is the fourth time I have filed this amendment, and it is not on the Cybersecurity Act per se, although it does address energy use, which is one of the critical challenges we face as we are trying to address cybersecurity in this country.

This is an amendment that is the substance of S. 1000, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, of which the other sponsor is Senator Rob Portman, and he is a cosponsor on this amendment.

What the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act and the amendment I filed does is create a national energy efficiency strategy for the United States. So this amendment is the same language Senator Portman and I filed to the Bring Jobs Home Act and the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, and it is one we are going to continue to file because we think it is important for this amendment and this legislation to have an opportunity for a vote from this entire Senate because we think this is bipartisan legislation that has broad support among our colleagues.

This legislation is based on two important premises I have already spoken to in the Chamber: first, that the American public desperately wants Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to address this Nation's energy needs; and, second, that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to meet our energy challenges. Not only does it help us develop a strategy around energy, but it is a strategy that can be supported whether you live in New England, as I do, whether you live in the West, whether you live in the South. It is a strategy that is important whether you support fossil fuels--oil and gas--whether you support nuclear, or whether you support wind and solar. We all benefit from energy efficiency. It is also a strategy that creates thousands of good jobs.

There is evidence that the American public wants to see the Senate act on energy efficiency legislation. I think that evidence is overwhelming because last week I started an online campaign asking people to sign a petition calling on Senate leadership to bring this bill to the floor. The text of the petition is what we see here--small print so it is hard to read, but it asks people to support the Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill.

I just wish to read a section of it. It says:

The Shaheen-Portman Act would help make the United States a

global leader in the fastest and cheapest method we have for

addressing our energy needs, energy efficiency. Energy

efficiency is within our grasp. It uses proven technology

that we can manufacture here at home to lower energy costs

across all sectors of our economy.

In just a matter of days, we have already collected over 4,600 signatures from supporters across the country, and that number continues to grow. Anyone interested in signing the petition and in learning more about the many benefits of energy efficiency can easily do so by visiting my Web site at shaheen.senate.gov.

While drafting the bill, Senator Portman and I met with a number of stakeholders so we could better understand the obstacles the private sector faces when they are trying to deploy energy-efficient technology. So we had discussions with people from energy-intensive companies, from trade groups, from those representing the real estate community, from environmental advocates and from financing organizations.

The feedback we received about ways to remove these barriers and drive the adoption of energy-efficient technologies became the basis for this legislation. As a result, we have a bill that provides a variety of low-cost tools that will speed this Nation's transition to a more energy-efficient economy.

The bill addresses three major areas of U.S. energy use: residential and commercial buildings, which consume 40 percent of all energy used in the country; the industrial sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy; and the Federal Government, which is the country's single biggest user of energy.

Highlights of the bill include: establishing advanced building codes for voluntary residential and commercial buildings to cut energy use. I would emphasize that those codes are voluntary. We worked with the real estate and the building industries on those codes.

Second, the legislation helps manufacturers finance and implement energy-efficient production technologies and practices because that is one of the biggest obstacles to retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency.

Third, the legislation would require the Federal Government to adopt better building standards and smart metering technology.

Our legislation is bipartisan. In addition to the thousands of signatures on this petition, it has support from well over 200 businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade association. Those groups include: The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Environmental Defense Fund, businesses such as Johnson Controls, Honeywell, United Technologies Corporation.

This broad coalition of supporters recognizes that the legislation is an easy first step that will make our economy more competitive and our Nation more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and still meeting the demand for energy saving technologies for individuals and businesses alike.

I think it is important to point out that there are real economic benefits. A recent study by policy experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the legislation will achieve savings for consumers and businesses. Specifically, their study found that by 2020, the bill could save consumers $4 billion a year once it is enacted. It would add 80,000 jobs to the economy.

In a time when we are worried about growing the economy, when we are worried about the fragile recovery, this is the kind of legislation that will allow us to create good jobs with off-the-shelf technologies. With the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, the Senate has an opportunity to provide the American people with exactly what they want, an effective bipartisan approach to addressing this Nation's energy needs that also creates jobs and grows the economy. I hope we will be able to persuade leadership and my colleagues that this is legislation that merits full debate and a vote on the floor and that we will be able to bring S. 1000 or this amendment to the floor for a vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow the attention of the world will turn to London as we witness the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Over 10,000 athletes representing 204 nations from around the world will be competing in hundreds of sporting events at the games of the 30th Olympiad. Here in the United States, we will be cheering on the 529 U.S. athletes as they look to bring home the gold for the United States of America. The Olympics no doubt will have countless stories of triumph and disappointment, competition and camaraderie.

I rise today to share the remarkable story of one particular athlete who will be competing this year. His story is one of inspiring triumph of character and spirit. But until just days ago, this Olympian had no flag to compete under. This story is about a talented young runner named Guor Marial whose mere survival in southern Sudan defied the odds. Having escaped the bloodshed and violence in war-torn Sudan, Guor found his way to my home State of New Hampshire as a teenage refugee. Who could have imagined that in just over a decade, Guor would be applying for U.S. citizenship and traveling to London to compete in the Olympic marathon?

Guor was born in a town in what is now part of the fledgling country of South Sudan. Many of his family and friends, including his brother, were killed at the hands of Sudanese security forces. Many more died of starvation or disease brought on by the violence and unspeakable crimes committed by these Sudanese forces.

Before escaping Sudan, Guor was a victim of violence on numerous occasions. As a child, he was kidnapped from his hometown and enslaved as a laborer before eventually finding a way to escape and return to his family. Guor was severely beaten by the Sudanese police and had to spend days in a hospital to recover. Finally, he was able to flee to neighboring Egypt and eventually to the peace and safety of New Hampshire as a refugee seeking asylum.

Guor arrived in my home State of New Hampshire in 2001, almost exactly 11 years ago. He remembers that day well and still considers New Hampshire his home. He lived in Concord, the State capital, moving in with the families of his friends, teammates, and his cross-country coach for 2 years in order to graduate from high school. The contrast between Guor's former life and his new life is stark. In Sudan, he was running in fear for his life. In New Hampshire, he was running for the joy of athletic competition and to be part of a team.

Amazingly, in only his second official marathon, Guor ran fast enough to qualify for the 2012 London Olympics. Given his unique situation, however, it looked as if the bureaucracy would triumph over his bravery and that Guor might not be able to compete because according to the rules of the International Olympic Committee, permanent residents of a country are not permitted to compete on that country's team. As a result, Guor can't compete under the American flag because he is not yet a full citizen. In addition, Guor can't run for the newly recognized country of South Sudan because it is such a new country, it doesn't yet have an official Olympic committee.

The International Olympic Committee suggested that Guor compete as a member of the Sudanese team, and the Sudanese Government extended him an invitation. But Guor rightfully refused, explaining that running for Sudan ``would be a disappointment and an embarrassment to me and the people of South Sudan who died for freedom, including my brother.'' Guor was not comfortable running on behalf of the country that tortured and murdered so many of his family members. That solution would have been cruel and unacceptable.

Fortunately, after some pressure by Refugees International and other friends of Guor who wrote to the International Olympic Committee on his behalf, we received the great news this week that the IOC executive board has decided to make an exception for Guor. He will run in the marathon as an independent Olympic athlete under the great Olympic flag. I want to thank the International Olympic Committee for this very appropriate ruling. In addition, I want to thank the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Department of State, and the other friends of Guor who worked so hard to make his participation possible.

As he runs under that five-ringed flag, long a symbol of hope for peace in our world, Guor will run with the support of his family, his New Hampshire supporters, Americans everywhere, and his new country, South Sudan. I have a feeling that such support might help him run even faster.

We are so proud of Guor in New Hampshire and proud that in the United States someone who has lived through such tragedy and adversity can start a new life and rise to such incredible heights.

Scott Hamilton, an American Olympic gold medalist, once said, ``Most other competitions are individual competitions. But the Olympic games is something that belongs to everybody.'' No matter the outcome in London, the story of Guor Marial and the adversity he has overcome belongs to everyone. Win or lose, he will stand as a lasting inspiration for people around the globe and as a tribute to the greatness that is the United States of America. I look forward to welcoming Guor home from the Olympics as a winner, regardless of the outcome of the marathon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues who have been to the Senate floor earlier this afternoon to emphasize the importance of getting the House to act to pass the Violence Against Women Act. We have passed a bipartisan reauthorization in the Senate and now it is time for the House to do the same.

There are provisions in the Senate version of the bill that offer critical protections for survivors, Native Americans, immigrants, the LGBT community, and for students, young women on college campuses. It is that importance of protecting those victims on college campuses that I want to specifically address this afternoon.

According to the Department of Justice, 25 percent of college women-- that is 1 in 4--will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within their 4-year college period. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reports that college-aged women are four times more likely than any other age group to face sexual assault. In addition, experts believe that rape and sexual assault are among the most underreported crimes, so that one in four could be even greater.

In the Senate-passed legislation, the Leahy-Crapo bill, there are provisions to address the challenges that young women face on college campuses. The legislation we passed here in the Senate requires schools that receive VAWA funds to do the following: State the policies and procedures that are in place to protect victims and provide prevention education for all incoming students. Many young girls arrive on a college campus to live on their own for the very first time. They are struggling to orient themselves in a new environment, and this makes them vulnerable. They need to be given clear guidance about what to do in case they become victims.

The legislation also requires institutions to implement a coordinated response both internal and external to the campus. This means that survivors are helped if they want to hold their attackers accountable, whether through a process that the university has set up or by bringing criminal charges and working with the police. This provision tells young women they are not alone; they are supported and their school will help them.

The third part of the provision that is very important in the Senate- passed bill is that it would require schools to provide training on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking for campus law enforcement

and to members of the campus judicial boards.

Last week in New Hampshire my office spoke with Forrest Seymour, the sexual assault prevention coordinator at Keene State College, which is a small college with about 6,000 students in the western part of New Hampshire. Forrest said that all of these provisions in the Senate- passed bill are very important and necessary because universities need more guidance about how to best serve students who are victims of rape, dating violence, and stalking. This is especially important at small universities such as Keene where they have limited resources.

Training for campus law enforcement is critical because they are the first responders. School administrators who serve on campus judicial boards also need special training because word spreads very fast on college campuses about whether survivors should feel comfortable going forward. These processes need to be handled with appropriate sensitivity, and the training that is required by the Senate Violence Against Women Act will help make sure these young women feel safe.

The Senate-passed version of the bill will help young women like Harmony, who began her first year in college at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire in 2006. She was excited to be there. She made new friends, and she quickly became comfortable in her new surroundings.

Unfortunately, one night someone she thought was a friend took advantage of that trust and sexually assaulted Harmony. Harmony was ashamed and confused. She felt violated. She began to question all of her new relationships. She was scared all of the time, and she was sure everyone could tell she was a victim, so Harmony didn't tell anyone. She didn't know where to turn. She was scared that she would not be believed, and she even considered dropping out of school.

Fortunately, Harmony did finally reach out and found support. She graduated from Plymouth and now she works as a case manager for survivors of domestic violence in an emergency shelter helping other survivors through the most difficult periods in their lives. Harmony shares her story all over the country, encouraging victims to come forward, promising them they will be believed, they will be supported.

If Harmony has the bravery and the courage to make these promises to survivors, so should we. We owe it to the young and vulnerable women on college campuses across this country to pass the Violence Against Women Act now. It is time for the House to act. The session is running out. We need to see this legislation reauthorized. We need to see the Senate version reauthorized so we can guarantee to young women such as Harmony across this country that they will get the support they need.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, today the Senate is considering legislation to end tax breaks included in our own Internal Revenue Code that actually help companies that want to ship American jobs overseas. The Bring Jobs Home Act provides not only a tax credit to encourage companies to move jobs back to the United States, but it would end those tax breaks that help companies ship jobs overseas.

Offshoring of American jobs has hurt the middle class and it continues to be a real problem. There is no good reason we should continue giving companies an incentive to offshore good American jobs.

We can address high unemployment by encouraging companies to bring jobs back to the United States, and the tax credits in this bill will help to reverse the trend and put Americans back to work. In fact, this incentive could help bring 2 million to 3 million jobs back to the United States, according to some economic estimates. So I hope all of our colleagues will support this bill.

I also wish to take a few minutes to talk about another way that I think we in the Senate and in Congress could work together in a bipartisan way to create jobs and help the economy. Today I filed an amendment, along with Senator Portman from Ohio, that provides us with a great opportunity to create jobs in America. This amendment is the text of S. 1000. It is the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Portman and myself that will create a national energy efficiency strategy for the United States.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to improve our Nation's energy infrastructure and our economy's energy independence. It is also something we can all agree on. Whether we are from the Northeast, as I am in New Hampshire, from the South, from the West--all of us can benefit from energy efficiency.

What our bill would do, which is the amendment we filed today, is create jobs for our workers, lower energy costs for consumers, and make businesses more competitive. In fact, a recent study by the American Council for

an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that our bill would create almost 80,000 jobs and save consumers $4 billion by 2020.

Also, S. 1000 has broad support on both sides of the aisle. It passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with an 18-to- 3 vote. In addition, there is a large and diverse group of industry, energy efficiency, and environmental stakeholders who have endorsed the bill. That list includes the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, the National Resources Defense Council, Best Buy, and the Environmental Defense Fund just to name a few of the organizations on the list.

Anytime we can get organizations as diverse as the ones I just listed to endorse one piece of legislation, it is clear there is broad bipartisan support for the effort. This legislation contains a broad package of low-cost and effective tools to reduce barriers for businesses, homeowners, and consumers who want to adopt off-the-shelf technologies, so we don't have to wait for something to happen in order for the bill to make a difference. These are all efforts that will help consumers, businesses, and homeowners save money.

This is an easy first step to make our economy more competitive and our Nation more secure while still meeting pent-up demand for these energy-saving technologies from individuals and business alike.

The American public is desperately looking for Congress to work in a bipartisan way on policies to spur growth and create jobs. Energy efficiency legislation represents our best chance to achieve both of those goals this year.

We need to get some energy legislation to the floor. I have had the great opportunity to work for the last 4 years with Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Lisa Murkowski, the chair and ranking members of the Energy Committee. We have done some great work in our committee. We passed significant pieces of bipartisan legislation out of the committee. In fact, there are 15 pieces of legislation that have been passed and all but one of those with strong bipartisan votes. Those pieces of legislation are just sitting in committee because we have not been able to get an agreement to bring them to the floor.

We can get an energy efficiency policy in place. We can pass this legislation. That kind of an energy efficiency policy would be one that enhances our national security, addresses our energy needs, and puts Americans back to work. We can do it in this Congress if we can bring the Shaheen-Portman energy bill to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what this amendment would do. I hope we have that opportunity.

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

I am here to be on the Senate floor to join my colleagues in support of the DISCLOSE Act. We need to bring some transparency to the secret money that is being spent on campaigns across this country.

I ask unanimous consent for the following speakers to speak in the order that I am listing them: Senator Klobuchar, followed by Senator Menendez, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Levin, and then myself.

Mr. President, since the Supreme Court's decision 2 years ago in Citizens United, we have seen a new system of campaign finance emerge. Without limits on donations or limits on spending by outside groups

such as super PACs, we have been inundated with mostly political advertisements while candidates from both sides of the aisle struggle to raise more and more money just to keep up.

Nearly $170 million has been spent so far in this election cycle by outside groups, and that does not include much the candidates themselves have spent. Just think what good we could do with that $170 million. The rising influence of donors and corporations is a problem. But the larger issue, and the one we are here to talk about--and I wish to recognize the leadership of Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who has done such a great job of raising the importance of this issue. The larger issue is the prevalence of secret money that is increasingly making its way into our campaigns. Millions of dollars of untraceable money have already been spent during this election. This spending is unacceptable because there is too much at stake in this election for Americans who are struggling. By that, I am not talking about the secret donors who can afford to spend millions of dollars on secret political ads. I am talking about middle-class families who are struggling with their mortgages, trying to pay for college, fighting to get their credit card payments mailed in on time. These are the Americans who need our attention.

They deserve to know who paid for the most recent negative ad they see on their television. The truth is middle-class families will not be able to catch a break unless we start by reducing the influence of special interests, of big donors, and of corporate lobbyists, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why it deserves our support.

We have heard Senator Levin speak very eloquently to the 501(c)(4) organizations, those organizations that are allowed to keep their donors secret. In many cases, they are actually allowed to deduct those contributions. Those secret donors can deduct those contributions from their taxes. It is hard to understand why they should be allowed to do that. It is not right. It is not fair. We need to change the system.

Some have objected to requiring disclosure of donors because they say it undermines free speech. Let me address that. Because our democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas--and political speech should enjoy the highest level of protection--we should recognize that citizens always have the right to speak and be heard, especially on matters as important as who should represent them in Washington.

That is not what the DISCLOSE Act is about. It is precisely because we need to make sure citizens stay involved in the political process that we need this reform, because freedom of speech does not mean freedom of secrecy. Anonymous political speech by these organizations has no place in our democracy. Accountability, transparency, and credibility must be preserved in our political system.

When I talk to voters in New Hampshire these days, they are not optimistic about being heard in Washington. According to the Granite State Poll that is done by the University of New Hampshire, three- quarters of our New Hampshire adults think Members of Congress are more interested in serving special interest groups. One-quarter of New Hampshire adults think they have no influence at all on what the Federal Government does.

People throughout New Hampshire and throughout this country do not believe their interests are being represented. What they do support is the kind of legislation we are talking about in the DISCLOSE Act. Three-quarters of New Hampshire adults strongly support a law that would require corporations, unions, and nonprofit groups to disclose their sources of spending when they participate in elections, and this support is not limited to New Hampshire.

According to a Greenberg-Quinlan poll recently, 77 percent of voters nationwide, regardless of party, say reforming our campaign finance system is very important.

I get a lot of cards and letters from people. Most of the people who write to me and write to all of us sign their names. Because they sign their names, we know who they are and we can respond. We can correct misunderstandings. We can engage in a discussion with them about policies before the Congress. The same should be true for political speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote--and we put this on poster board because I thought it was so apropos to what we have been talking about with the DISCLOSE Act. He said:

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political

acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is

doomed.

It is important for donors to own their participation. That is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why we should all vote to support it.

I can't finish my remarks without talking about a New Hampshire woman who really represents what we are talking about when we talk about participation in the political process. Her name was Doris Haddock, or Granny D, as we in New Hampshire knew her. Some people may remember that when she was 89 years old, she started walking across America to call attention to the importance of campaign finance reform. In the 14 months she took to walk across this country--and she turned 90 on the way--she traveled 3,200 miles, went through four pairs of sneakers, and everywhere she stopped, she talked about the importance of addressing campaign finance reform so that ordinary Americans could be heard.

Well, Granny D died 2 years ago at the age of 100.

She left behind 2 children, 8 grandchildren, and 16 great- grandchildren. She also left behind an incredible legacy that embodies the importance of what the first amendment was designed to protect and what it need not protect.

We need to make sure people like Granny D can continue to be heard regardless of how much money they have. That is why we need the DISCLOSE Act. The first amendment doesn't protect the rights of shell corporations and dummy organizations to flood our airwaves with negative ads using money from anonymous donors. Let's take a lesson from Granny D and take a stand and pull back the curtain to see who is behind all of this secret money. The DISCLOSE Act will allow us to do that. That is why we should support its passage. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will decide they should join us. It is critical to our democratic process.

Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues, Senator Landrieu and Senator Casey, in talking about the importance of addressing some of the concerns that face small business.

Senator Casey said something that I think is very important. He said, when he goes around Pennsylvania, one of the things he hears from his constituents is that they expect us to work together here in Washington, in the Senate, in Congress, to get things done for the people of this country. I hear that from my constituents. I am sure the Presiding Officer hears that from her constituents. People throughout the country expect us to work together, and they want to see us address the economic challenges we are facing in this country.

Well, one of the best ways to address the fiscal issues we are facing is to be able to grow this economy. Nothing is more important to growing the economy, to creating jobs, than small businesses.

Senator Casey talked about the recent report that came out from his congressional committee talking about the importance of small business. The fact is that over the last decade, businesses with fewer than 250 employees accounted for nearly 80 percent of all new hires. Economists tell us that about two-thirds of the jobs that are going to be needed to get us out of this recession are going to come from small businesses.

In New Hampshire, small businesses are particularly important. We are a small business State. Over 95 percent of all New Hampshire companies have fewer than 500 employees. About 85 percent of New Hampshire companies have fewer than 20 employees.

We have to look at how we can help those small businesses continue to grow.

Yesterday afternoon, I met with a group of small business owners from New Hampshire. They were all owners of construction companies. The construction industry in New Hampshire has been one of those industries that has been hardest hit in our State, and these businesses still need help. These business owners need help if they are going to be able to keep their businesses prospering and create jobs.

The legislation that is before us, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, will help these small businesses.

The Landrieu amendment that I want to speak specifically to is critical as we look at how we can provide additional help to these small businesses. I want to talk specifically to two provisions that are in the Landrieu amendment, also known as the SUCCESS Act.

The first one would deal with export issues. What I have learned, as I have been working with business and looking at how we can improve our economy and help create jobs, is that giving those small businesses access to international markets is critical.

What we know is that about 95 percent of the markets are outside of the United States, and yet only 1 percent of our small and medium-sized businesses actually export. So what we have to do is help in every way we can through our policies to give them access to those international markets.

Senator Ayotte and I both serve on the Small Business Committee. We represent New Hampshire. Last year we held a field hearing in New Hampshire, and we heard from small businesses in our State about what we can do here in Washington that might help them export. As a result of what we heard, we have introduced some stand-alone legislation. But provisions in that stand-alone legislation have been incorporated into the SUCCESS Act--the amendment that Senator Landrieu is going to be offering.

Those provisions would help our small businesses. One, they would improve governmentwide export promotion. Right now we have a lot of independent silos, independent efforts that exist in different agencies to help small businesses with exporting. What we want to do is provide more coordination among those independent programs.

It would also increase State events that are targeted to help small businesses export. Both provisions, as we heard from our small businesses in New Hampshire, are important to them, as they think about what they can do to improve their chances of exporting, getting into those international markets, and having the jobs that can be created as a result.

So that is one of the provisions in the Landrieu amendment, the SUCCESS Act, that I think is very important. Senator Ayotte and I and our staffs have worked very hard on this.

Another provision that again is from stand-alone legislation that was introduced by Senator Landrieu, Senator Snowe, Senator Isakson, and myself--so it is also bipartisan legislation--would extend the 504 refinancing program through the Small Business Administration.

As I go around New Hampshire, I still hear the small businesses in my State saying that they are still having challenges accessing credit. Well, extending the 504 refinancing program is to me a no-brainer as we think about how we can give those small businesses access to credit. What these provisions would do is extend for a year and a half the ability for the Small Business Administration to continue refinancing short-term commercial real estate debt into long-term fixed-rate loans, again, through the existing 504 loan program--something that makes eminent sense, something that we ought to do.

So those are two provisions I have worked on specifically with other Members of this body. They are provisions that are bipartisan. I think they have a lot of support. If we can get this amendment to the floor, I think there will be a lot of support for it. And it reflects all of the provisions of the SUCCESS Act that Senator Landrieu has been putting together.

Again, I want to end with where I started; that is, the people of New Hampshire and the people of this country expect us to work together to address the issues facing the country. Nowhere is that more important than in what we need to do to help create jobs and helping small businesses have the support they need so they can create the jobs that are going to get us out of this recession. Providing long-term help to those people who are unemployed is absolutely critical. This legislation would help do that. I hope our colleagues, when it comes to the floor, will decide this is one more way we can help small businesses create jobs and grow this economy.

I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership and Ranking Member Snowe on the Small Business Committee for her leadership and hope we can move this legislation forward this week.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Pennsylvania in supporting his amendment. This is the last opportunity for a bipartisan amendment to reform sugar subsidies that are costing consumers $3.5 million a year and losing 20,000 jobs a year in this country.

This amendment maintains the current sugar program but rolls back the additional subsidies that were provided for sugar in the 2008 farm bill.

Mr. President, I ask permission to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from Michigan and Vermont, Senators Stabenow and Leahy. I wish to address a problem that affects many farmers and agricultural producers in States, including New Hampshire, with significant forest cover. Agricultural producers face tremendous development pressures as the value of land increases. As chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, I know Senator Stabenow has a great familiarity with this issue.

I agree that easement programs are an essential part of the effort to keep land available for agriculture. In New Hampshire, the Farmland Protection Program has provided a crucial backstop against development pressures, but the program has not been as effective as it can be. I know Senator Leahy helped to create the Farmland Protection Program when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee and his State has used this program very effectively.

I thank my friend for making that critical clarification. Agricultural producers in New Hampshire and many other States work primarily on small farms. They may actively use only a small number of their acres at any given time, and the rest of their parcels tend to be forested. We need to ensure that Federal programs are tailored to fit local conditions and doing away with restrictions on forested land is an important part of making NRCS easement programs as effective as they can be.

I couldn't agree more. I thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Vermont for engaging in this colloquy to address the importance of allowing agricultural producers who own heavily forested tracts to access NRCS easement programs. This issue is of critical importance to farmers in New Hampshire, Michigan, and many other States.

Multi-year Price Declines

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the efforts to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards or MATS. This far-reaching resolution would severely and permanently undermine EPA's authority to protect our Nation's air from harmful and dangerous pollutants.

In New Hampshire, we have long enjoyed bipartisan cooperation when it comes to crafting policies that ensure clean air, a strong economy, and healthy citizens. We do have coal-fired powerplants in New Hampshire, but they have scrubbers on them to clean up the air. When I was Governor, we passed the pollutant bill to address mercury, and it passed with bipartisan support.

Nobody appreciates our clean air more than a woman named Lia Houk, from Henniker, NH. She has lived with cystic fibrosis for the past 40 years. In order to breathe, she must use a nebulizer three times a day and has to exercise daily to clear her lungs. When pollution poisons the air, she suffers from chest tightness and lung hemorrhaging that can lead to hospitalization. Pollution also worsens the long-term effects of cystic fibrosis, such as lung scarring, and it causes her disease to progress more rapidly.

To protect Lia and millions like her, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and it has long been one of our most successful public health and environmental laws. Yet despite the success of the Clean Air Act, we now face efforts to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic air pollutants.

At issue are the new mercury and air toxics standards, which will require powerplants to control the pollution that affects Lia and others who suffer from respiratory problems. For the first time, the standards set Federal limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases that powerplants can release into our air. These standards will eliminate emissions of these poisonous chemicals from the powerplants by 90 percent by 2015.

The new nationwide standards are based on widely available pollution control technologies that are already in place at powerplants across the country. They represent a realistic, achievable goal. Yet opponents of MATS argue the environmental regulations will hurt the economy. That is simply not true. These standards will benefit our health, our economy, and our environment.

By removing the largest source of many of these toxins, the new standards will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year. America's children will be spared 120,000 asthma incidents and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. That is particularly important for us in the Northeast. The Presiding Officer, who is from Rhode Island, knows what this is because we are in the tailpipe of the Nation in New England in the Northeast. We get all the pollution coming out of the Midwest from those dirty powerplants. In New Hampshire, we have one of the highest children's asthma rates in the country because of that pollution.

Far from being job killers, these regulations will mean new work for the innovative American companies that supply the equipment needed for plants to comply with the law. In fact, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found that enactment of these standards would create a net gain of 117,000 jobs.

Of course, clean air is also vital to the tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which, in my State, is the second largest industry.

All the beautiful sights of our State, from the White Mountains to the Great Bay, can only be enjoyed if our air is free of smog and clean to breathe.

So as we consider whether to keep the Clean Air Act in place, we don't have to choose between helping people such as Lia or helping our economy. We can and we must do both.

I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution that Senator Inhofe has offered and to continue to protect the health and welfare of our citizens.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in talking about why it is so important to pass this transportation bill. I thank Senator Whitehouse for organizing this effort.

In New Hampshire, we understand what Senator Klobuchar was saying, that it is important to get this bill passed so we can get our construction season underway. We have a limited amount of time. In only 17 days, this Nation's surface transportation programs are going to shut down unless Congress acts to reauthorize them.

In March, nearly three-quarters of this Senate voted to pass a bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that maintains current funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and in gas taxes. This legislation is important as we look at roads and bridges and mass transit that are going to have support. It is important as we look at the jobs in the construction industry and manufacturing businesses that depend on our transportation system.

In fact, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion in highway spending, we support about 27,000 jobs. I was pleased last week to see an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House vote to reject policies that will cut spending on roads and public transit by one-third. If that had passed, an estimated 2,000 New Hampshire jobs would have been lost. I think that vote sends an important signal to members of the conference committee that there is a strong bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress to support funding for crucial investments in our transportation network.

I call on the House to work with the Senate in a similar bipartisan manner, as we did in the Senate, to pass transportation policies that put Americans back to work and generate economic growth. We have seen it in New Hampshire, where we have 29 construction projects that are going to be on hold if we cannot get transportation legislation passed here. We have seen it with Interstate 93, one of our main corridors going up and down the middle of our State, which has been delayed because of the delay in passing this transportation bill.

If we are unable to set aside election year amendments, unable to set aside this partisan politics and come together to do what is right for our country and our economy and pass a transportation bill, it will be putting this country in a very difficult situation.

The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the highway trust fund will run out of money next year--sometime in 2013. We are not exactly sure when. But that will mean funding to States will face drastic cuts without any reauthorization to shore up that revenue. And were the highway trust funds to run out of money, projects in this country would grind to a halt; it would decimate jobs in the construction industry. We cannot afford that.

Investing in transportation creates jobs and creates the conditions for our small companies to succeed. It should not be an issue about politics or partisanship. I urge our colleagues on the House side-- because they are the ones holding this up--to come together and pass a transportation reauthorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Toomey to talk about what truly is an egregious oversight in the underlying farm bill we are considering.

This morning, the Senate is going to have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would repeal the Sugar Program. As Senator Toomey has pointed out, I submitted several amendments. One would reform the Sugar Program. The one we are going to vote on this morning is the one to actually repeal the program. I, as does Senator Toomey, hope we will get a vote on both, but I certainly hope people will vote against the tabling motion to repeal the Sugar Program.

The underlying farm bill we are considering reforms almost every farm program we have. Every farm group has had to sacrifice with this farm bill so we can reform these programs. Unfortunately, there is one glaring exception to these reforms; that is, the Sugar Program.

We need to reform the sugar subsidy because it costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion each year in the form of higher prices. That is almost double the world average. We can see on this chart--which shows sugar prices over the last 30 years since 1981. This is the world price for sugar, and that is the U.S. price. We can see demonstrated very graphically--no pun intended--that we in America are paying almost twice what the world price is for sugar. It also costs us about 20,000 jobs every year. We are doing all this--we are affecting consumers and hundreds of thousands of jobs--to benefit fewer than 5,000 sugar growers. To benefit those 5,000, all of us are paying more, and we have been paying more, as this chart clearly indicates, for the last 30 years.

How does the subsidy program work? Senator Toomey did a great job of explaining it, but it essentially manipulates the market. It controls how much sugar is grown in the United States. It restricts how much sugar comes into the United States from outside the country. It sets a floor on sugar prices by providing a government guarantee to sugar growers on what they are going to get paid, and it requires the government, in some cases--this is what is truly outrageous--it requires the government to buy sugar off the market and then sell it to ethanol plants at a loss to taxpayers. The proponents of this program say it doesn't cost us any money? What our amendment would do is phase out this outdated program over the course of a couple years.

I wish to respond to some of the claims we have heard from those who support this Sugar Program. The first is that it doesn't cost taxpayers any money. That is if we ignore the fact that consumers are paying out of one pocket; they may not be paying as taxpayers in taxes, but they are paying out of the other pocket as consumers. But, in fact, that is not even accurate when it comes to taxpayer dollars. A recent study by Iowa State University showed that the program costs $3.5 billion a year to consumers in the form of higher prices, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates this program will cost taxpayers directly in the coming years. CBO has scored this amendment as saving millions of dollars for taxpayers in the next decade. So repealing the Sugar Program, according to CBO, will save millions for taxpayers in the next decade.

Those who support the Sugar Program also claim prices just aren't that high and that consumers actually benefit from the sugar subsidy. That is absurd. We can see graphed out very clearly what consumers are paying. Consumer groups, such as the Consumer Federation and the National Consumers League, support our amendment because the sugar subsidy costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion a year.

Subsidy supporters cite a study which was paid for by the sugar industry to support their data. That is not accurate. Using data from USDA shows a very different story, because for wholesale prices which represent two-thirds of the sugar bought by businesses in the United States, the effect of the Sugar Program is obvious, and it is hard to argue with this drastic difference as displayed on the chart. What we have is a hidden tax that is designed to benefit a small powerful interest group. Again, studies have found that consumers are paying a cost to the tune of $3.5 billion a year.

The supporters of the sugar subsidy also say this program doesn't get in the way of job creation. This is an argument that just doesn't hold up when we look at the facts. Multiple studies have found we are sacrificing hundreds and thousands of jobs by keeping sugar prices high. In 2006, the Department of Commerce found that for every job protected in the sugar industry, three were lost in manufacturing. A recent study from Iowa State University found that we are sacrificing 20,000 new jobs created every year due to the sugar subsidy program. So we are losing 20,000 jobs every year because of the sugar subsidy. There is no evidence sugar reform is going to hurt job creation; in fact, it is going to help. We have a small business in New Hampshire, a family-run business called Granite State Candy. They have been doing very well. They would like to expand, but because of the high cost of sugar they are having trouble thinking about how they are going to pay for that.

There is nothing more definitive than the illustration Senator Toomey showed earlier today and that I showed yesterday on the floor which is from a Canadian brochure designed to attract businesses in the confectionery industry to come to Canada. It points out how much less they are going to pay. Here it is. It points out how much less businesses are going to pay for sugar in Canada and how much more beneficial it would be for companies to do business in Canada rather than the United States. It says very clearly:

Consider these hard facts: Sugar refiners import the vast

majority of their raw materials at world prices. Canadian

sugar users enjoy a significant advantage. The average price

of refined sugar is usually 30 to 40 percent lower in Canada

than in the United States. Most manufactured products

containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA region.

If one needs any other evidence, that is it. It is clear we are losing those jobs.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against tabling this amendment today.

This may be our only chance to reform the Sugar Program in this farm bill. Tabling this amendment would be a vote to support special interests, those fewer than 5,000 sugar growers, at the expense of over 600,000 employees in the food industry and millions of consumers.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow, who has done such a great job of chairing the Agriculture Committee. She and Ranking Member Roberts really have done amazing work to bring this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan, and it is legislation that makes some significant reforms in the farm programs we have had.

In New Hampshire, many of the programs that are authorized in the farm bill are critical for our farmers and our rural communities, as well as for the protection of our natural resources. I hope we do have some agreement so that we will be able to actually have a full debate on this bill in the remainder of this week and in the upcoming week.

As I said, this legislation makes much needed reforms to our farm programs, and it helps to reduce the deficit. For all of that terrific reform and the work that has been done, Senator Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts deserve real appreciation and thanks from this body.

However, there is one glaring exception to the reforms that have been made in the bill; that is, the bill contains no reform to the Sugar Program. The sugar subsidies we provide to farmers in America are really unique because what the Federal Government does is to artificially restrict supply and provide a subsidy that keeps prices for sugar in the United States at nearly twice the world average. These are high prices that hurt consumers. They hurt businesses. In fact, a recent study found that the program costs Americans $3.5 billion a year.

Let me explain how the subsidy works. First, the Federal Government sets a floor on sugar prices through guarantees. So they guarantee how much is going to be paid for the price of sugar. These price floors ensure that sugar growers and processors will always receive a minimum price for sugar regardless of what happens on the world market. But sugar prices have been far higher than the minimum price for years now, and that is thanks to some additional, very egregious government controls on sugar. Under the sugar subsidy program, the Federal Government tells sugar growers how much they can grow. These restrictions are called marketing allotments, and they limit how much sugar is available on the market and restrict the ability of buyers and sellers to trade sugar freely. So this is not a market enterprise when it comes to sugar in the United States, and no other U.S. crop is subject to these same kinds of government controls. As a result, in the United States we have severe supply shortages which keep sugar prices artificially high.

The last component of the subsidy program for sugar is trade restrictions. The Federal Government severely restricts the amount of sugar companies can import into the United States. So only about 15 percent of sugar in the United States is imported at those lower world average prices.

Again, no other crop is subject to the kinds of restrictions and price controls I have just described. The result is a

subsidy that hurts hundreds of thousands of businesses and consumers and only benefits about 4,700 sugar growers. Unfortunately, the farm bill before the Senate, while it contains a lot of reforms, contains no reforms to this subsidy program.

I have introduced several amendments, but the one we are going to be voting on tomorrow is one that would repeal the subsidy so that prices are determined by the market instead of government controls.

For the past 1\1/2\ years, I have been working with our colleague, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, on bipartisan legislation--the SUGAR Act--which would phase out the Sugar Program over several years and eliminate government control of sugar prices. Unfortunately, Senator Kirk can't be here tomorrow for this vote because he is continuing his recovery, but I am pleased there is a bipartisan group of our colleagues who have joined in support of this sugar reform. In particular, Senators Lugar, McCain, Durbin, Toomey, Lautenberg, Coats, Portman, Feinstein, and my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, have all joined me in calling for elimination or significant reform of the Sugar Program.

This is a big concern for us in New Hampshire and other States around the country that actually make candy or other products that rely on sugar. In New Hampshire, we are the American home of Lindt chocolates. We also have a number of other small candy companies. As this chart shows, American manufacturing companies such as Lindt pay almost twice the world average price for their sugar. In fact, prices have gone up considerably since Congress passed the last farm bill in 2008.

We can see that this blue line at the bottom is the world price of raw sugar. This red line is the U.S. price of raw sugar. This green line at the top is the U.S. wholesale refined sugar price. So while we can see how much higher that raw sugar price is, we can also see what it does to the refined sugar price, and we can see how significantly it has increased since the last farm bill. Again, the sugar subsidy program is able to keep these prices so high because it distorts the market.

In addition to the minimum prices guaranteed by the government, the Federal Government drastically restricts the supply of sugar in the United States, with only about 15 percent of sugar sold coming from abroad--thanks to those import restrictions. The government controls how much each individual sugar processor can sell, and that further restricts supply on the market. Again, the result of these government controls is to keep the artificially high prices for sugar that are reflected on this graph.

These high sugar prices hurt job creation. According to the Department of Commerce, for every one job protected in the sugar industry through this program, we are sacrificing three jobs in American manufacturing. A recent study by an agricultural research firm called Promar suggests that the program--the sugar subsidy, that is-- costs 20,000 American jobs each year. In addition, a recent analysis that I referred to earlier found that the program also costs consumers $3.5 billion every year in the form of artificially high sugar prices. These really are pretty startling numbers, but I wish to talk about how this subsidy program affects just one of the small businesses in New Hampshire.

We have a company called Granite State Candy Shoppe. It is a small family-owned candy manufacturing company in Concord, NH, the capital of New Hampshire. Sugar is that company's most important ingredient. Jeff Bart, who is the owner, tells me that the artificially high cost of sugar has forced the company to raise prices on their goods but, more importantly, the subsidy has also prevented the company from hiring new workers as quickly as it would like to. So while Granite State Candy Shoppe would like to grow and expand, the sugar subsidy is really slowing down that expansion because of the high price of sugar. Granite State Candy Shoppe is just one of many companies that want to grow but are forced to slow down their expansion due to an outdated, unnecessary government program that benefits relatively few sugar cane and sugar beet growers nationwide.

High sugar prices also put American companies at a competitive disadvantage with foreign manufacturers. Since foreign companies can get sugar so much cheaper, it is tempting for American companies to look elsewhere to manufacture their candy. In fact, low sugar prices are a major selling point for foreign governments encouraging candy companies to relocate.

We just copied this cover of a brochure from Canada. It says:

Canada--North America's Location of Choice for

Confectionary Manufacturers.

Consider these hard facts. Sugar refiners import the vast majority of their raw materials at world prices. Canadian sugar users enjoy a significant advantage--the average price of refined sugar is usually 30 to 40 percent lower in Canada than in the United States. Most manufactured products containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA region. So we are losing these jobs to Canada and to other places-- 20,000 jobs a year--in businesses that need sugar as a major ingredient.

This outdated program puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage, and it should go. That is why I hope our colleagues, as they are considering this amendment tomorrow morning to repeal the Sugar Program, will decide to support it. I hope we will not have opposition to voting on the amendment from any of our colleagues in the Senate.

We have had consumer and business groups calling for the repeal of the Sugar Program for years now. The Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League have joined business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers in support of this amendment. These groups support reforming this program because they recognize that these special interests are hurting consumers and they are hurting American businesses.

So I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment tomorrow. Help us grow small businesses and create those American jobs. Let's reform the Sugar Program. It is long overdue.

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

Mr. President, actually, I am not here to play the blame game. I am here to talk about a place where we in the Senate have found real bipartisan consensus. It is an issue that is critical to us in the State of New Hampshire and to all the Senators because, in 23 days, our country's surface transportation programs are going to shut down unless Congress can come to an agreement on critical legislation.

Nearly 3 months ago, 74 Senators voted to pass a measure that would reauthorize these programs through the end of fiscal year 2013, providing much needed certainty to our States and to private industry. In this Chamber, Senators from vastly different ideologies were able to lay aside those differences and come up with bipartisan ways to pay for this bill, to streamline Federal programs, and to make our transportation investments more efficient, so we spend less on overhead, more on roads and bridges and other transportation projects.

This process was not easy, as everyone remembers. It required compromise from both sides to ensure that we could put together legislation that would bring America's transportation policies into the 21st century. But if Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Barbara Boxer, the chair of that committee, can come together and figure out how to put together a transportation bill, there is no reason why our adjoining body over in the House cannot do the same thing.

I have been very disturbed by recent news that the House is less interested in finishing this bill than in approving a host of unrelated policies. There is a time and a place for us to consider whether some of the amendments that have been proposed on the Transportation bill in the House, such as whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous material, but the Transportation bill is not one of those places.

We need to focus on policies that will encourage the types of investment in our highways, in our railroads, in our bridges that put Americans back to work and spur economic growth. We just heard the unemployment rate went up slightly for the last month. We have legislation pending that came out of the Senate that would put people back to work.

Every billion dollars we spend in transportation funding puts 28,000 people to work, and we have the House fiddling while construction workers all over this country are out of work. The conference committee needs to focus on transportation policies that will reduce congestion, that will create jobs, and that unleash economic development.

We have a project similar to that in New Hampshire. It is one of our most important roads. It is the corridor that goes from our largest city of Manchester down to the border with Massachusetts. It has too much traffic on it today. It is a safety concern. We need to finish this road. We are being held up from doing that because of the failure of the House to be willing to go along with what the Senate did and reach agreement.

Our Department of Transportation in New Hampshire has said that work on just a single portion of this highway, Interstate 93, will put to work 369 people in the construction industry, which is still struggling. That is the industry in this country that still has the biggest impact from this recession. Last year in Nashua and Portsmouth, NH, construction employment declined by 7 percent. Job creation in that industry remains stagnant in New Hampshire and nationwide and we need this legislation to get these folks back to work.

It is not only construction jobs that depend on Federal investments in transportation; it is our economy as a whole. The deteriorating condition of America's infrastructure, its roads, its railroads, its bridges, costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity, and this is a bill that a broad coalition of people are behind. Both the AFL CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that we need transportation legislation.

Despite the importance of this spending to American workers and businesses today, the House plans to vote on a motion to cut Federal transportation investment by one-third. The Federal Highway Administration found that cutting funding so severely would put 2,000 people in New Hampshire alone out of work, one-half million people in the country out of work.

This is a time when we should be creating jobs, not destroying them. Cutting funding at this time would be so shortsighted. Brazil, China, and India are all spending about 9 percent of their GDP per year on infrastructure, roads, bridges, public transportation. What we are spending in the United States is roughly 2 percent. That is half of what we were spending in the 1960s when there was real bipartisan support for policies from both President Kennedy and President Dwight Eisenhower to invest in projects such as our Interstate Highway System.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that investment in our Interstate Highway System was one of the best decisions in our Nation's history. Members of both parties need to come together as we have for decades and focus on reasonable bipartisan policies that will end the uncertainty that States and private industry are facing when it comes to our transportation legislation.

On June 30, it will have been 1,000 days since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. Congress needs to come together now and pass a transportation reauthorization bill before we get to the end of those 1,000 days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my dear friend, Harvey L. Schwartz, who passed away on April 13 at his home in Harrisville, NH. While I was not able to attend Harvey's memorial service on May 20, I did send a remembrance to be read, and wanted to share these thoughts with my colleagues on a truly remarkable man.

Harvey was born in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression into a family of modest means living in Brooklyn, NY. He graduated from Brooklyn College and then Columbia Law School. Harvey's career began at Time, Inc., where he was groomed for leadership in the company's executive training program. Later, he answered his country's call, serving with the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps in Japan during the Korean War and then in these very halls as an aide to Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky. He went on to have an impressive career in international business with a focus on Latin America. It was experience that, Harvey would readily admit, greatly expanded his worldview.

Harvey and his wife, Nell, moved to New Hampshire in 1987. Fortunately for my fellow Granite Staters and me, they put down lasting roots in our State. During his later years in New Hampshire, Harvey called upon his years of experience in the public and private sectors at home and abroad, to find common ground and to unite when too often there were calls to divide. Harvey was a proud Republican, but he was also a consensus builder and a problem solver. I think my colleagues would agree that we could use more people like Harvey Schwartz today. I ask unanimous consent that my May 20 remembrance be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

I was very sad to hear the news of Harvey's passing, but I

understand he had requested this event be a celebration of

his life, so I will keep this reflection upbeat.

We were all extremely fortunate when, in 1987, Harvey and

his beloved Nell chose to settle down in the lovely and

historic town of Harrisville. From then on, Harvey had a

great impact on New Hampshire.

I first became aware of Harvey's impact on the state

through the critical role he played in helping block the

proposed Route 101 bypass through Harrisville. That was an

impressive feat and one that would most likely have failed

were it not for Harvey's involvement.

Community leaders, business leaders, political leaders of

every stripe listened to Harvey. I was especially hopeful

they would listen to him when, to my surprise, he supported

my run for governor! Though Harvey was a staunch Republican,

his spirit of bipartisanship was strong, and one that I

admired a great deal.

While I was Governor, we held an Executive Council Meeting

in Harrisville. It was a proud day for Harrisville, and

therefore, a proud day for Harvey. Unfortunately, while we

were there, a rather challenging issue facing our state

government required immediate consideration. Harvey, as

creative and giving as always, offered up his beautiful home

with its breathtaking view of Mount Monadnock for a private

emergency meeting. Once again, Harvey was finding solutions

for his state.

Harvey's enthusiasm for public service and his community

were evident to all who knew him. Over the years, we worked

closely on the issues that matter for New Hampshire,

particularly how we provide economic opportunities for all of

our citizens, especially our state's young people. In fact,

right until his passing, Harvey served as director of the

High Bridge Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to providing

high school students in New Hampshire with the tools

necessary to thrive in a changing economy. He was doing his

part to prepare the next generation of Granite Staters.

Harvey was a great consensus builder. At a time when too

many focus on what divides, Harvey worked to unite.

Harvey, you will be missed, but your legacy will be honored

and remembered for generations to come because of your hard

work and your dedication to New Hampshire.

And for that, we all thank you.

Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join our colleague and leader on so many issues that affect women and families, Senator Mikulski. I am here today to join her and our other colleagues who will be coming to the floor to talk about something that is a real matter of fundamental importance for our country.

Workers should have equal access to every opportunity that will help them put food on the table, send their children to school, and save for retirement. Unfortunately, here we are in 2012 and still millions of American women lose nearly a quarter of their potential earnings to pay discrimination. Almost 50 years after the landmark Equal Pay Act banned wage discrimination based on gender, women in our country continue to be paid just over three-quarters of what their male counterparts receive for performing the exact same work. Every day this wage gap exists is a further injustice to current workers, such as my daughters, and to future members of the workforce, such as my granddaughters and so many other granddaughters of Members of this body.

Pay discrimination does not just hurt the employee, it endangers the families who depend on these women. One in three working moms is her family's only source of income. With the money that mother loses to pay discrimination every year, she could be paying housing and utility costs on her home or she could be feeding her family, with money to spare.

Back in the early 1980s, I chaired a task force for New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Women looking at women and employment. What we found was discrimination in a whole range of areas, including, of course, pay discrimination. The conclusion of the report was that kind of discrimination against women does not just hurt women who are affected, it hurts their families, their children, their husbands, and it has a ripple effect throughout our economy.

As Governor, I signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay discrimination in New Hampshire and to require equal pay for equal work. In the year before that law was signed, women in New Hampshire made 69 percent of their male colleagues' wages. Today they make 78 percent. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, women made less than 60 cents for each $1 earned by men. Today we make 77 cents. So we have made some progress, but clearly we still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do.

I recently heard from a woman named Marie in New Boston, NH, about her experience with pay discrimination. She wrote:

I worked for many years in a male-dominated company where

the fresh-out-of-college boys were paid substantially more

than I was for the same position.

She continued to recount that she actually trained these same men to do their jobs, and yet she still was not paid at the same rate.

Since the Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963, the gender gap impacting wages has only narrowed by an average of half a cent per year. So at this rate, it is going to take another 45 years for that gap to close entirely.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would make commonsense updates to the law by requiring pay differences to be based on legitimate business reasons. It would also protect women whose employers try to shirk their responsibilities by prohibiting employees from discussing their salaries. Finally, this important legislation would create a program to strengthen women and girls' negotiation skills so they can seek directly the pay they deserve.

It is long past time for us to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan. It is good for women and their families, and it is good for the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased that I could be here today to join you, to join Senator Whitehouse and our colleagues who have been working to try to bring to light for the public the serious and ongoing problem of excessive campaign spending. I congratulate Senator Whitehouse for all of his work in leading this effort. It has been very important.

This excessive spending has been a problem for the last 2 years, since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, because their decision has allowed for the formation of what has been called super PACs, which are really organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of money without ever having to disclose where that money came from. So the public doesn't know who is spending the money, doesn't know how the decisions about spending are made.

We are actually in the middle of the first Presidential election since that Supreme Court decision, and we can see the dramatic impact of that spending. There are now more than 500 super PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission. They are permitted to raise and spend unlimited amounts of secret money to fund political advertisements.

Again, I want to emphasize the fact that we do not know where this money is coming from. We do not know if it is coming from corporations. We have heard a lot of stories and seen a lot of stories that there are very wealthy individuals who are putting up money for these super PACs. But the amount of money that has been spent by these super PACs so far this election cycle alone has just topped $100 million. Nearly $80 million of that came from just five groups.

As we are looking at this money being spent, it is important for all of us to reflect on our national priorities. What does it say about our country that we allow this kind of deluge of money to flood our electoral process? Who is really being represented? Are average voters in America being represented in this process?

To provide some perspective, I think it might be useful to examine what else this amount of money could pay for. In the past few weeks we have been discussing the importance of providing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault with the resources they need by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. What has already been spent so far by these super PACs, $100 million, could fund all of the domestic violence and sexual assault assistance in the State of New Hampshire for 20 years. It could serve more than 320,000 victims.

The New Hampshire job training program provides workers with valuable instruction at community colleges across our State. It prepares workers for high-skilled jobs and creates a stronger economy. With the $100 million that has been spent by these super PACs, we could train 288,434 workers in New Hampshire. Mr. President, $100 million would provide low-income heating assistance to more than 135,000 households. That is enough to keep

New Hampshire's neediest families warm for three winters.

The starting salary for a police officer in the city of Manchester, the largest city in New Hampshire, is $50,000. With $100 million we could put an additional 2,000 police officers on the street. Instead, this money is being spent on political advertisements, millions of dollars from groups that refuse to disclose their donors. Most of these expenditures are being made on attack ads. According to a study by the Wesleyan Media Project, at this point during the last Presidential campaign in 2008, just 10 percent of the ads were negative. Now, in this Presidential campaign, 70 percent of those ads are negative. It is no wonder that Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with our political process.

The challenges confronting this country are significant. We need Americans to be engaged and invested in our political process, not throwing up their hands in frustration as the attack ads pile up. We need campaign finance reform.

I have been pleased to work with the Presiding Officer, with Senator Whitehouse, and with all of our colleagues in developing the DISCLOSE Act, which makes some important changes to our system. Senator Whitehouse described the DISCLOSE Act very well. It will make sure voters know who is paying for all of these campaign ads. It does not eliminate super PACs, but it is a very important step in the right direction.

I urge all our colleagues to join us in calling for change and urging reform of our campaign finance system. I urge everyone in this body to support the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield the floor.