Floor Statements

I applaud my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for the work he has done on the FDA legislation--as he pointed out, the good work that has been done by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get to this bill, to move it forward and to have a responsible and reasonable amendment process. So I hope we can move it forward this week and actually see its passage on the floor because it is so important to so many people who are dependent on what the Food and Drug Administration does in this country.

(The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen pertaining to the introduction of S. 3218 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week we celebrate National Small Business Week. Small businesses are so important to job creation in this country. So much of the innovation that takes place in this country happens as the result of the work of small businesses. Two- thirds of the jobs we expect to be created to lead us out of the recession and through this recovery are going to be created by small businesses.

It is important that in this Chamber we do everything we can to support small businesses. I am pleased that I have been able to be a member of the Small Business Committee. I applaud the leadership of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe, the chair and ranking member, for all of the good work they have done for small business.

I can tell you from my own personal experience just how important small businesses are. My husband and I started our married life and for 8 years ran a family business. It put us both through graduate school and gave us a downpayment on a house. It employed a number of young people for 8 years. It taught me a lot about meeting a payroll and making sure we could take care of our employees, help make sure they had good jobs. So I have had that personal experience to make me understand just how critical small businesses are to our economy.

I am here on the floor also to talk about bipartisan legislation that my colleague from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, and I are introducing today to boost small business exporting.

Just as small businesses are the backbone of so much of this country's economy, they are clearly the backbone of New Hampshire's economy. It should come as no surprise to all of our constituents in New Hampshire that both Senator Ayotte and I serve on the Small Business Committee because we know how important those businesses are to our State. We both recognize how critical it is for us as a delegation to work across the aisle and across Chambers when possible to help the small businesses in New Hampshire provide the good jobs the residents of New Hampshire need.

So I am glad Senator Ayotte and I are working together to introduce legislation to help remove barriers to exporting for small businesses in New Hampshire and across the United States. The bill we are introducing today, the Small Business Export Growth Act, is the result of a Small Business Committee field hearing that we hosted together in Manchester, NH, last August. We held that hearing because we recognized that exports offer a tremendous opportunity for small businesses.

Unfortunately, for so many small businesses, those foreign markets have remained an untapped resource for most of them. Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of our small businesses export. That is a particularly shocking number when we compare to it large businesses because over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas. So we have to do more to help our small businesses get into those international markets.

At our field hearing we heard about some of the barriers our small businesses face when they try to go global. Our legislation is an attempt to remove some of those barriers so that small businesses can access new sources of revenue and create jobs. One of the problems we heard about is that navigating the Federal bureaucracy can be a special challenge for small businesses that wish to export. I know the Presiding Officer and I can both appreciate that because we know how hard it is for us to navigate the Federal bureaucracy.

Senator Ayotte and I heard from two such New Hampshire companies that rely on State and Federal offices to help them export. I want to talk about one of those companies specifically. It is a company that is called Secure Care. Secure Care has developed a technology that protects Alzheimer's patients who may wander away from

their home or their place of residence. It also protects newborns who are still in the maternity ward.

Grace Preston, who is the international sales manager for Secure Care, told us that the company has significantly expanded its growth by selling overseas. Grace also told us that Secure Care could not have done that without Federal and State export programs working together. In New Hampshire, we are very fortunate because our State and Federal export services work seamlessly, and that has been important in helping our businesses grow their exports.

In 2010 New Hampshire's exports grew about 40 percent. That was almost twice the national average and the most of any State in the country. So it has been very critical to our small businesses.

But we also heard that State and Federal agencies don't always have that same collaborative relationship in other places across the country. According to our former New Hampshire trade director, Dawn Wivell, these services sometimes, in some places, can overlap or, even worse, sometimes there are agencies that refuse to work together. Our bill attempts to require better coordination to make more successes like Secure Care a reality across the country.

Our bill also encourages the Federal Government to do more to promote the opportunity of exporting and to get the word out about Federal export programs.

Foreign markets can be daunting for small businesses, but that should not stop our innovators from trying to compete. Our small businesses must be assured that the Federal Government will help them when considering exporting. Part of our responsibility is to try to do everything we can to put into place policies that help small businesses when they want to try to export.

I thank Senator Ayotte for her cooperation and for the work we have done together. I thank both Senator Ayotte and her staff, along with mine, for working on this issue. I look forward to advancing this legislation in the Senate and to continue to recognize the important role that small business plays in our economy.

Mr. President, this week we celebrate National Small Business Week. Small businesses are so important to job creation in this country. So much of the innovation that takes place in this country happens as the result of the work of small businesses. Two- thirds of the jobs we expect to be created to lead us out of the recession and through this recovery are going to be created by small businesses.

It is important that in this Chamber we do everything we can to support small businesses. I am pleased that I have been able to be a member of the Small Business Committee. I applaud the leadership of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe, the chair and ranking member, for all of the good work they have done for small business.

I can tell you from my own personal experience just how important small businesses are. My husband and I started our married life and for 8 years ran a family business. It put us both through graduate school and gave us a downpayment on a house. It employed a number of young people for 8 years. It taught me a lot about meeting a payroll and making sure we could take care of our employees, help make sure they had good jobs. So I have had that personal experience to make me understand just how critical small businesses are to our economy.

I am here on the floor also to talk about bipartisan legislation that my colleague from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, and I are introducing today to boost small business exporting.

Just as small businesses are the backbone of so much of this country's economy, they are clearly the backbone of New Hampshire's economy. It should come as no surprise to all of our constituents in New Hampshire that both Senator Ayotte and I serve on the Small Business Committee because we know how important those businesses are to our State. We both recognize how critical it is for us as a delegation to work across the aisle and across Chambers when possible to help the small businesses in New Hampshire provide the good jobs the residents of New Hampshire need.

So I am glad Senator Ayotte and I are working together to introduce legislation to help remove barriers to exporting for small businesses in New Hampshire and across the United States. The bill we are introducing today, the Small Business Export Growth Act, is the result of a Small Business Committee field hearing that we hosted together in Manchester, NH, last August. We held that hearing because we recognized that exports offer a tremendous opportunity for small businesses.

Unfortunately, for so many small businesses, those foreign markets have remained an untapped resource for most of them. Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of our small businesses export. That is a particularly shocking number when we compare to it large businesses because over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas. So we have to do more to help our small businesses get into those international markets.

At our field hearing we heard about some of the barriers our small businesses face when they try to go global. Our legislation is an attempt to remove some of those barriers so that small businesses can access new sources of revenue and create jobs. One of the problems we heard about is that navigating the Federal bureaucracy can be a special challenge for small businesses that wish to export. I know the Presiding Officer and I can both appreciate that because we know how hard it is for us to navigate the Federal bureaucracy.

Senator Ayotte and I heard from two such New Hampshire companies that rely on State and Federal offices to help them export. I want to talk about one of those companies specifically. It is a company that is called Secure Care. Secure Care has developed a technology that protects Alzheimer's patients who may wander away from

their home or their place of residence. It also protects newborns who are still in the maternity ward.

Grace Preston, who is the international sales manager for Secure Care, told us that the company has significantly expanded its growth by selling overseas. Grace also told us that Secure Care could not have done that without Federal and State export programs working together. In New Hampshire, we are very fortunate because our State and Federal export services work seamlessly, and that has been important in helping our businesses grow their exports.

In 2010 New Hampshire's exports grew about 40 percent. That was almost twice the national average and the most of any State in the country. So it has been very critical to our small businesses.

But we also heard that State and Federal agencies don't always have that same collaborative relationship in other places across the country. According to our former New Hampshire trade director, Dawn Wivell, these services sometimes, in some places, can overlap or, even worse, sometimes there are agencies that refuse to work together. Our bill attempts to require better coordination to make more successes like Secure Care a reality across the country.

Our bill also encourages the Federal Government to do more to promote the opportunity of exporting and to get the word out about Federal export programs.

Foreign markets can be daunting for small businesses, but that should not stop our innovators from trying to compete. Our small businesses must be assured that the Federal Government will help them when considering exporting. Part of our responsibility is to try to do everything we can to put into place policies that help small businesses when they want to try to export.

I thank Senator Ayotte for her cooperation and for the work we have done together. I thank both Senator Ayotte and her staff, along with mine, for working on this issue. I look forward to advancing this legislation in the Senate and to continue to recognize the important role that small business plays in our economy.

Mr. President, I ask permission to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. I would like to address a problem that affects many women who are victims of domestic violence. We have addressed a variety of important concerns with the Senate's recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act, and I hope the House will promptly pass that important, bipartisan bill. A major barrier for women seeking services in New Hampshire and across the country is lack of transportation. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, you may have encountered this issue also.

You know well the issues facing rural communities in Vermont, as I do in New Hampshire. Domestic violence occurs as frequently in rural areas as it does in cities, and many women in rural settings do not have access to a car or public transportation.

It does. When you are a woman in a violent situation, not having access to transportation is more than an inconvenience, it can be life threatening. One woman in Atkinson, NH, called the local crisis center for transportation because her husband would not let her have access to the car keys and controlled the family's finances entirely. She was simply trapped.

Yes, that is exactly right. The Violence Against Women Act provides support for important services like medical treatment, counseling, shelter, and legal assistance to seek protective orders. Clearly women need to be able to get to these centers in order to take advantage of these important resources.

Many crisis centers that receive grants from VAWA do use their general funds to assist women with transportation costs who could not otherwise afford them. I believe that is a use of funds consistent with the intent of Congress to expand services to all women and families who are victims of domestic violence. Do you agree?

And I thank the Senator for including language in the reauthorization of VAWA recently passed by the Senate that further clarifies that transportation services are an acceptable use of VAWA funds. The bill adds language in the new victim services definition in section 3 to include ``other related supportive services'' and in section 102(a) adds ``other victim services'' to the victim services purpose area in the grants to encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders. Both of these changes would provide even more ability than under current law for VAWA grants to cover crucial transportation services.

I also appreciate the bill's new language emphasizing the importance of providing services to women in rural or geographically isolated areas. Identifying this particularly vulnerable population will be helpful for those centers which focus services on women and families in these isolated areas. I believe this provision makes clear the intent of Congress to supplement the costs of reaching these women and bringing them to safety.

That is a real problem. Many women initially rely on the police or an ambulance to remove them from unsafe situations, but their problems continue once they reach a shelter or crisis center. They have no way to get to court for hearings related to protective orders, child custody and divorce. One of the directors of the crisis center in Berlin in the North Country of New Hampshire spends at least 25 percent of her time taking women to and from court. Due to recent State budget cuts, the closest courthouse is 45 minutes away. That is a significant investment of time and money.

I thank the Senator from Vermont for engaging in this colloquy to address the importance of providing transportation services to women and families in need. I thank him, too, for his leadership on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It has helped so many women over the years, and I know it will continue to save the lives of women in New Hampshire and across the county.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleague, Senator Menendez, and I think some of our other colleagues who will be here soon, to reaffirm our commitment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. That act recently passed out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote that recognizes our bipartisan commitment to end domestic and sexual abuse, stalking, and dating violence. The House of Representatives will soon be taking a vote on their proposed counterpart to the Violence Against Women Act, and I want to address some of the concerns I have with the bill that is on the floor in the House.

What we have seen in this country is that domestic violence has a significant impact on families, on victims. It comprises the very stability of our towns and communities. The Violence Against Women Act provides essential resources for victims and for law enforcement. I was pleased to see so many of us in the Senate put politics aside and support this important reauthorization.

Unfortunately, the House version of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act does not provide the same level of protection for victims, and it does not include some resources that have specifically been requested by law enforcement.

In the House bill protections are diminished for college students, for lesbian, gay, and transgender victims, for immigrants, and for Native Americans.

The Senate bill strengthens the Violence Against Women Act to provide more protections to more women and their families. The House bill weakens the law by failing to state that same-sex couples will have equal access to services, by decreasing protections for immigrant victims, and by declining to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts.

One example of some of the changes in the House bill, where I think it fails, is around protections the Senate bill provides to women students on college campuses.

The Senate bill provides strong protections that have been omitted in the House bill. The Senate bill includes a provision requiring a university to implement prevention programs, teaching all students, male and female, how to help prevent sexual violence and dating violence, including bystander education.

The Senate bill also requires a university to make reasonable accommodations for students who need to change their living, working, or academic situation as a result of being victimized. For example, if a young woman is the victim of an assault and her attacker lives in her dorm, what the Senate bill would do is require the university to help that young woman find another place to live. Unfortunately, these kinds of protections are not included in the House bill.

The Department of Justice recently estimated that 25 percent of college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a 4-year college period, and women between the ages of 16 to 24 will experience rape at a rate that is four times higher than the assault rate for all women.

There is no doubt this is a serious problem. The safeguards we implemented in the Senate bill must be preserved if we are to provide the protections that young women and men in college deserve.

When we were working on our reauthorization in the Senate, I had a chance to meet with case workers at crisis centers and with some of the victims of domestic violence in New Hampshire.

I heard from one woman who said if it had not been for that 24-hour hotline and her caseworker at the Bridges Crisis Center in Nashua, she would never have been able to leave her abuser. She was finally able to stand up for herself and end the terrible cycle of abuse because of the Violence Against Women Act.

All victims should have equal access to these important resources, and it is imperative this bill provide that.

So I urge my colleagues in the House to insist on these essential components so we can move forward on this reauthorization and we can protect all of the victims of domestic violence.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, with summer approaching, the travel season will soon be in full swing, and this week we celebrate National Travel and Tourism Week. It is a time to call attention to the importance that travel and tourism play in our national economy and in the creation of jobs.

I know the Presiding Officer understands this issue very clearly because, for his State of Alaska, like the State of New Hampshire, travel and tourism is a very important industry. The fact is that the travel and tourism industry is one of the top 10 industries in 48 States, and it supports over 14 million American jobs. In New Hampshire, travel and tourism is our second largest industry, and it supports over 60,000 jobs in New Hampshire.

The Travel Promotion Act, which Congress passed in 2010, and of which I was very proud to be one of the cosponsors, will help the United States compete for foreign travelers. This year we will begin to see the impact of this landmark legislation.

For most of our history, the United States has been one of a very few developed countries that did not advertise overseas. The Travel Promotion Act changes all of that because it created what is called Brand USA. It is a low-cost public-private partnership, and Brand USA has just started rolling out an advertising campaign for America. Brand USA is going to leverage millions of dollars in contributions to the private sector to help encourage more foreign travelers to bring their dollars to the United States. This is important because what we have learned in New Hampshire is that overseas visitors tend to stay longer when they get to America and they tend to spend more money. For the first time we are going to be advertising overseas to attract visitors to come to the United States.

But there is even more we can and should do working together to support the travel sector. Traveling and tourism rely on a good infrastructure, on keeping our highways, our bridges, and our airports running. That is essential for the travel industry to grow. That is why it was so important that this year--after many years of trying--we finally reauthorized the FAA, and with that legislation are putting in place a new NextGen system of air traffic control that is going to allow our airplanes to get from point to point faster and more efficiently.

That is why it is so critical that we pass the highway bill that is pending in Congress, which is at a committee of conference. We passed that bill in the Senate on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and now we need to get this bill out of the Congress.

We also need to look at ways to improve our visa system so we can make it easier for foreign travelers to come to the United States. We need to pass legislation--and there are several bills that have been introduced--that will help us clear the backlog of visa applications so we can make sure those travelers who want to come to the United States are going to be able to do so, again bearing in mind that those overseas visitors tend to stay longer and spend more money.

I want to conclude by highlighting what is an exciting new campaign in New Hampshire to help build New Hampshire's reputation as a world- class travel destination with something to offer for everyone. I know a lot of people have been to New Hampshire every 4 years as part of our Presidential primary. A lot of people are familiar with our State's slogan, ``Live Free or Die.'' This slogan actually captures what was uttered by GEN John Stark, who was a Revolutionary War general talking about the British during the Revolution. A few days ago our State Division of Travel and Tourism Development launched a new campaign to promote New Hampshire to show the world what we have to offer as a unique travel destination, and that campaign very cleverly plays on our famous State slogan. We can see in this advertisement ``Live Free and Explore.'' It is one of our beautiful lakes. We can see the family out canoeing.

We also have another one, ``Live Free and Reconnect.'' Here is a family out hiking. We can see some of our mountains in the background. They are not quite as high as the mountains in Alaska, but we think they are a great place for families to come and explore. Hikers can enjoy and reconnect and relax.

This one is ``Live Free and Discover.'' Again, kids getting ready to jump into one of our lakes. We can see the wilderness in the background. This is another great example of one of the opportunities New Hampshire has to enjoy our beautiful State.

We are very proud of what New Hampshire has to offer. We have a new logo that shows how you can visit our travel and tourism site on the Web and see what New Hampshire has to offer. We hope all of those who come to experience our Presidential primary will come back every 4 years and maybe in the meantime look at what we have to offer for enjoying the natural beauty and activities of the State. We would like that, but I understand that all of us here in Washington have very busy schedules and sometimes finding time to travel is difficult. Fortunately, soon we are going to have a great opportunity for everyone on the Hill to experience what New Hampshire has to offer without even leaving the building. On June 6, the New Hampshire State Society and our office are going to be hosting a reception called ``Experience New Hampshire.'' It is a great opportunity to experience New Hampshire's signature hospitality, our history, our culture, and our scenic beauty. I invite all of my colleagues to enjoy New Hampshire beverages, to taste some of the menus from our historic grand homes, our charming inns, and to come and celebrate with us.

As we celebrate travel and tourism this week, I hope all of us will take a few minutes to reflect on the importance of this industry to our State and local economies and to the country.

I thank the Chair.

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

I will yield.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Connecticut and from New York and others who have been on the floor today to talk about the importance of addressing the--of avoiding, I guess I should say, the potential for the student loan interest rates to rise at the end of June. The fact is that the U.S. workforce needs to have the skills to compete in the global economy, and that means making sure college is affordable because so many of the new jobs that are being created require higher education.

The reality is that students today face ever-growing tuition rates, and student loans are a critical bridge for them to cover these costs. But unless we act, over 7 million students--38,000 in my State of New Hampshire alone--who rely on subsidized Stafford student loans will see an increase in their student debt when they graduate.

This is a particular problem for students in New Hampshire because our students have the highest average student debt in the Nation. They are graduating with just over $31,000 in debt per student. Not only do they have the highest average debt, but 74 percent of our college students are in debt, and that is the second largest number in the country. So we have the highest average debt and the second highest number of students graduating with debt.

Students in New Hampshire and across this country need some relief, and doubling the interest rate is exactly the wrong way we should be going in terms of policies to promote giving every American the opportunity to succeed. We need to encourage our students to go on to higher education, to advanced-degree programs, and to professional schools. Their future employment and our future economy both depend on this.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit with two of our State colleges, Keene State College and Plymouth State University. Everyone I spoke with had stories about the escalating cost of college and concern for rising student loan interest rates. Over the past 24 hours I have heard from hundreds more constituents who are anxious about this.

Now, to be clear, the legislation we are considering would affect current and future students who will receive subsidized Stafford loans starting July 1. The last thing anyone needs in this economic climate is a reason not to pursue their undergraduate or graduate studies.

Meghan Jordan of Amherst is a sophomore at the University of New Hampshire. She told the Union Leader newspaper that student loan debt has become a constant concern for her. Meghan says that her parents would do just about anything to pay for her college education in full, but with two brothers also in college the finances are simply not available. Meghan views the prospect of interest rates doubling as an attack on college students trying to make a better future for themselves. Sadly, she said it feels like it is a punishment for trying to obtain a college degree.

When I was at Keene State College in Keene last week, I met Keith Couch, a parent who has a daughter at Keene and a son at Boston College. Between his two kids, his annual tuition bill comes to $90,000. No wonder he is having trouble figuring out from where the money is going to come. He spends hours trying to figure out how his family will make college payments each month. He said loans help bridge that gap.

One constituent, Erin, posted on my Facebook wall that her husband recently completed medical assistant courses at Hesser College in Manchester. He is due to start paying his student loans next month, but he hasn't been able to find a job in his chosen field. Erin said that family finances are tight and if interest rates were to double on the loans they have, there is no way they would be able to pay them back.

The stories I have heard in New Hampshire are similar to the stories Senator Blumenthal told about Connecticut and what Senator Schumer has had to say about New York and what we are hearing from students and families across the country. Higher education is essential for economic opportunity and personal growth. It is equally essential to the prosperity of our country, and, most importantly, the prospect of higher debt levels affects whether people choose to enter college to begin with.

When I was in Plymouth last week at Plymouth State University, a student stood up and said: I want to teach history. Tell me why I shouldn't just drop out of college and be a mechanic. I said: Well, I like teachers myself, and we need more of them. But in this rapidly changing, highly competitive global economy, we should be doing everything we can to make sure college is more accessible to Americans so we don't have students across this country saying: Why shouldn't I drop out if no one supports my getting a college education?

It is critical for all of us, and, unfortunately, high debt burdens have serious consequences for individuals, for families, and for the economy. Student loan debt affects where graduates live, the kinds of careers they can pursue, whether they can start a new business, when they can start a new family, when they can purchase a new home, and when they can start to save for retirement.

Our students deserve better. We need to get rid of any obstacles that are keeping our students from getting the education they need to succeed. We should not put more obstacles in their way. We need to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to stop this increase in student loan interest rates and to do what is in the best interest of our families and our young people who need that college education.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to join those of my colleagues who are urging that we come together this afternoon, and I am pleased we are going to see votes on the Violence Against Women Act to reauthorize the legislation as it has passed through the Judiciary Committee.

As we all know, domestic violence continues to be a serious problem across our country. In New Hampshire, nearly one in four women has been sexually assaulted. At least one-third of New Hampshire women have been victims of a physical assault by an intimate partner. More than one- half of all women in my State have experienced sexual or physical assault over the course of their lifetimes.

All of us share in an obligation to stop this epidemic, and VAWA is a proven tool in this fight. The real importance of this legislation lies not in the statistics but in hearing about those women who have been helped by the services that are provided by the Violence Against Women Act.

I have had a chance to visit several crisis centers around New Hampshire in the past few weeks, and I have met with the survivors and the advocates who depend on this funding. I went to a crisis center called Bridges in Nashua where I spoke with a survivor of domestic violence. She told me: When you are a victim of domestic violence, you think you are worthless. She said: There are so many times that I would have gone back to my abuser, except that I had the ability to call Bridges crisis line at 2 o'clock in the morning and talk to somebody who could help me so that I knew I was supported.

Because of the Violence Against Women Act, the Bridges program can operate and have a crisis line for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the support she got through the Bridges program, this survivor is going back to college, she is free from abuse, and she is going to have a life that is saved because of programs that are supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

The law enforcement community has been very supportive of this legislation. They need this bill too. In New Hampshire, half of all murders are domestic violence related. I spoke to the chief of police in Nashua, our State's second largest city. He gets just $68,000 from the Violence Against Women Act funding, but that allows him to have a dedicated unit within the police department that can respond to domestic violence and sexual assault cases.

I heard from retired Henniker police chief Timothy Russell. He is a 37-year veteran in law enforcement, and he now travels around the State teaching police officers how to respond to domestic violence cases. It is funds from the Violence Against Women Act that allow him to conduct the specialized training so police officers can identify patterns of domestic abuse and prevent those situations from escalating. Officers are taught to maintain good relationships with crisis centers, and Chief Russell tells them: If you see a victim in trouble, get a counselor on the phone to talk to them. Tell them what their options are. Again, thanks to funding from the Violence Against Women Act, he has resources to bring this training throughout New Hampshire to police officers so they can help the victims.

I saw just this kind of cooperation and action when I visited the Family Justice Center in Rochester, NH, this week. They have made a multitude of services accessible in one place so victims do not have to go all over town or all over the county to get the help they need. They can see a counselor, get childcare assistance, and fill out an application for a protective order; women can even get their injuries treated and officially documented. They can get free legal help--all in this Family Justice Center, made possible by a Violence Against Women Act grant.

If we do not support this because it is the right thing to do--and I think it is--we should also support this legislation because it saves money. It is a cost-effective approach because, in addition to reducing crime, victims are less reliant on emergency rooms. They are less likely to need State assistance when they can connect with resources. They can get help with childcare and housing and get back on their feet and become productive citizens. This is the type of help every citizen deserves and ultimately makes us all safer.

I am also pleased to see there is particular language in this legislation that requires service providers to help any victim of domestic violence regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status.

I think Sergeant Jill Rockey, whom I met when I was in Rochester at the Family Justice Center, put it best when she said:

When someone calls for help in a domestic or sexual

violence case, we don't ask if they are an immigrant or gay.

We just go.

Well, hopefully, today we will respond in passing this bill with that same sense of urgency. Let's make sure we do not let victims, first responders, or our communities down. Let's give everyone the help they need and deserve. Let's pass this legislation today.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Surface Transportation Act

Mr. President, 42 days ago--that is more than 1,000 hours--42 days ago, 74 Senators from this Chamber voted to pass a badly needed, long-term transportation bill. At that time, I joined many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to call on the House to consider the Senate's bill or a similar bipartisan bill that would provide highway and transit programs with level funding for at least 2 years.

While the House has not yet passed a long-term bill, I am pleased that they voted to go to conference with the Senate. That means we are one step closer to finally having legislation in place that would support nearly 2 million jobs--about 6,600 of those in New Hampshire-- and a bill that would maintain current funding levels, which would avoid an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. I urge the House and the Speaker to immediately appoint conferees so we can continue moving forward and finally pass a long-term transportation bill. We cannot wait any longer. Mr. President, 937 days have passed since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. If you are counting, that is 2 years, 6 months, and 27 days.

If the House does not join the Senate and support a reasonable bipartisan transportation bill that is paid for, States and towns will not have the certainty they need from Washington to plan their projects and improve their transportation infrastructure.

According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure--the highways, the railroads, the transit systems, the bridges that knit our economy together--cost businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. That is because we are not making the investments we need to make. And this is no time to further stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate for businesses to succeed.

In New Hampshire, we very directly experience the consequences of this uncertainty. The main artery that runs north and south in New Hampshire, Interstate 93, is congested. Currently, we have a project underway that would reduce that congestion on our State's most important highway. It would create jobs. It would spur economic development.

Although this project has been underway for several years, the pace of the project has slowed dramatically because we do not have a transportation bill in place. Businesses and developers along the I 93 corridor cannot hire workers or invest for the future while the project remains uncertain.

We need to act now to unleash the economic growth this project and transportation investments across the country will make possible. We know that projects such as Interstate 93 produce good jobs. New Hampshire's Department of Transportation said that work on just one section of the highway--just one section, between exits 2 and 3-- created 369 construction jobs. And all around the country we have projects like Interstate 93 that are waiting on Congress to complete this effort.

For every billion dollars we spend in infrastructure investment, it creates 27,000 jobs. It should not be so hard to get this done. If Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe can agree on legislation, then the House ought to be able to agree on legislation. Cities and businesses need the certainty as we get to the new construction season. And the longer the House waits to appoint conferees, the harder it will be for Congress to pass a long-term bill.

I urge the House to swiftly appoint representatives to negotiate with the Senate so that we can come together and make the Federal investments necessary to get transportation projects moving and get people back to work.

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

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

Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service is a fundamental part of our Nation's history and what it means to be an American. In fact, it was actually talked about in our Constitution.

Nationwide, the Postal Service employs 550,000 Americans, and it serves as the linchpin of an industry that contributes over $1 trillion to our economy. I have heard from a number of businesses in New Hampshire--one being Goss International in a neighboring community, which has been a major competitor in the area of printing presses, and now they are making wind turbines, or parts of wind turbines. They are very concerned, as is a company called Polaris Direct, about what is going to happen to our Postal Service and are we in Congress going to resolve this issue.

In New Hampshire, the Postal Service provides thousands of jobs, as well as a critical economic connection for many of our rural communities, which are not often in some areas of New Hampshire connected to the Internet, so they don't have high-speed broadband, and the Postal Service is their connection with much of the outside commerce and community.

Today, as we know, the Postal Service is facing a fiscal crisis that threatens its future. We should all be concerned about Draconian proposals that seek to slash 220,000 good jobs, close 3,700 post offices, and make mail delivery slower across America. The bill before us today attempts to avoid the worst of these outcomes, and I commend all of the bipartisan managers of the legislation, including Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Carper, for their tireless work to save the U.S. Postal Service.

I was proud to join a group of 28 Senators who pushed for important changes to the bill in an attempt to better protect rural post offices, develop new sources of business, and maintain the reliable and timely service Americans have come to expect. Some of these changes have been incorporated into the legislation, and I think they are an important step toward improving it.

With that said, I think we have more work to do. I know there are a lot of

people in this body who wish to see us debate a number of amendments related to the bill and try to make changes to improve the work already done. Rural communities rely on the Postal Service, and I think Congress and this Senate should improve the legislation to make sure that people have a real voice in the process when their post office is threatened.

If we don't act, the Postal Service could go bankrupt or could be forced to make devastating service cuts. So while this legislation is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture tomorrow so we can consider relevant amendments and make sure this important American institution, the U.S. Post Office, is saved for all Americans who so desperately need the services it provides.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to join my colleagues who were here earlier to talk about the bipartisan Senate-passed Transportation bill. I give credit to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member, for all of their good work on this legislation. They joined three other committees that also passed their portions of the bill with strong bipartisan support.

I think we could all agree that transportation is one of the Federal Government's core responsibilities. It has been far too long since Congress updated and reformed Federal transportation programs. Every committee that worked on the Senate's long-term Transportation bill passed it with a strong bipartisan vote. When the bill came to the floor, 74 Senators from both parties voted in favor of the Transportation bill.

Now I urge the House of Representatives to follow our lead in the Senate and act on a long-term bipartisan transportation bill. I think they ought to take up the Senate bill. The Senate's Transportation bill is about strong bridges, good jobs, and dependable roads that businesses count on to move goods and reach customers.

The Senate bill reauthorizes transportation programs for 2 years, it maintains current funding levels, and it does not increase gas taxes. Repeating that, it doesn't increase gas taxes, and it is fully funded. Cutting funding for transportation right now would be a very dangerous choice.

We are seeing emerging economies, such as China and India, spending roughly 9 percent of their gross domestic product per year on roads, bridges, public transportation, and infrastructure. At the same time, in the United States, we are spending about 2 percent. That is half of what we were spending in the sixties. At this rate, we will not be able to stay competitive with the rest of the world. That is a macro reason why we need to pass the Transportation bill. The bill is fully paid for, it doesn't increase the deficit, and most of the funding comes, as usual, from the gas tax.

To make up the gap in funding, we came up with bipartisan ways, including stiffer penalties on tax delinquents and by shifting unused funds designated to clean up underground storage tanks.

The Senate's Transportation bill is about making our investments more efficient so that we spend less on overhead and more on roads and bridges. I think several people have talked about the fact that this is a good time for States to be able to borrow. There are low interest rates. We can get a lot for our money. That is what I heard in New Hampshire when I talked to our transportation officials, that interest rates are very low right now.

This bipartisan bill streamlines the number of Federal transportation programs from over 90 to 30. For the first time it requires States to collect data so we can measure what kind of bang we are getting for our buck. Not only is it a reform bill that is more efficient, but it is more accountable. I think that is why groups from the AFL CIO to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this bill. They have come together to support a bill that is truly bipartisan and that would support nearly 2 million jobs nationwide and, in my State of New Hampshire, about 6,600.

There have been a lot of reports about the difficulties facing the House in finding an agreement on a transportation bill. I think the Senate has provided a very good model that maintains current funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes.

What we need now is for the House to join the Senate and produce a reasonable, bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that can give local governments and businesses some certainty before the height of the construction season. State and local transportation projects budget and plan based on the idea that the Federal Government will provide a consistent level of long-term funding. When you are planning a multimillion dollar project that employs hundreds of people, it is critical to know what your budget is going to be more than just a couple months in advance. We would not run a business that way, and we should not expect the government to run that way.

If the House doesn't pass a bipartisan, long-term, transportation bill, States and towns won't have the certainty they need from us in Washington to plan their projects and improve their systems.

According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. This is no time to stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate that our businesses need to succeed.

In New Hampshire, we have seen firsthand the real-world consequences of uncertainty in Federal transportation funding. Our Interstate 93 corridor runs from the capital in Concord down to the Massachusetts border. It runs pretty much the length of the State. Right now we have a project underway that would spur economic development in the southern half of that highway. It has been underway for several years, but the pace of the project has lagged because there has been no certainty around our highway bill.

It has been impossible for businesses and developers around the I 93 corridor to predict the future of the project. At a time when the number of people working in the construction industry in New Hampshire is the lowest in a decade, it is unacceptable that we cannot provide certainty for this project. We know highway projects like Interstate 93 produce good jobs. New Hampshire's Department of Transportation has said that just one section of Interstate 93, between exits 2 and 3 close to the Massachusetts border, created 369 construction jobs.

All around the country, there are projects just like Interstate 93 that are stalled while we wait for the House to pass a bipartisan long- term transportation bill. We need to come together and make the Federal investments that are necessary to get these projects moving and get people back to work. Investing in transportation creates jobs and the conditions that our companies need to succeed. It is, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says, a core function of government. It should not be an issue for politics or partisanship.

I urge the House to take up the Senate bill. Congress needs to work together to pass a transportation reauthorization bill before the March 31 deadline.

Madam President, I am proud to be able to join my colleagues on the floor this afternoon in honoring Senator Barbara Mikulski for her service to Maryland and for the endless contributions she has made to the people of this country.

It is very hard to adequately describe a political icon such as Barbara Mikulski. For all of us women in politics, she is a model of what we can aspire to or what we would hope to aspire to. I just want to tell a simple story about Barb that I think reflects her ability to get along with people, her zest for life, as so many of my colleagues have described, and the connection she makes that makes a difference for people.

She and I were on a flight with four other Senators to the security forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a couple of years ago, and the weather was bad, so our flight was diverted to Bangor, ME. It was winter in New England, and of course, when there is bad weather in New England in the winter, it sticks around for a while, so we were trapped overnight in Bangor. Most of us just sort of sat there waiting to figure out what was going to be done while we waited for a flight the next day, but not Barbara because she doesn't sit still. She is never afraid to pick up the phone and take action, and that is exactly what she did. Barbara dialed up her old friend and colleague--the colleague of all of us-- Senator Susan Collins, and said: Guess where I am. And that is how those of us who were on that flight--the six Senators and the Secretary of Homeland Security--wound up joining Senator Collins and the legendary Troop Greeters of Bangor, ME, in welcoming troops at the airport as they returned home from overseas. So what had earlier seemed like an inconvenience turned into a fabulous opportunity to thank our brave men and women in uniform and to have a good time while we were doing it.

You find those kinds of things happening if you spend time with Barbara Mikulski. It is a byproduct of her relentless energy, her drive to better her community and our Nation as a whole, her deep commitment to fighting for women's health, and her unfailing grace and gumption as a legislator, a colleague, and a friend.

As has been said, she got her start as a social worker trying to make the lives of men and women in her native Baltimore a little easier to bear. She was working in the service of values that were taught to her by her family, who owned the neighborhood grocery store. And as so many have commented, she often tells the story of her father opening the store early so that steelworkers coming in for the early-morning shift would have time to buy their lunch. Barb has carried that spirit, those values she learned from her family in that grocery store here to the Senate, and often those values are sorely needed here.

As dean of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, she has built a sense of community within the caucus. Her bipartisan women's dinners are legendary. And, of course, what happens at those dinners stays at those dinners. Those are Mikulski's rules. But we really don't need to look any further than that wintry night in Maine to know how effective she has been in making things happen for people.

I look forward to more of her dinners, to more conversations with the Senator, to more chances to work with her as she fights on behalf of women and seniors and veterans and all those who don't have a voice in government and at the table. I thank the Senator for her friendship, for her leadership, and for her many years of service.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It provides essential services to women and families across the United States.

I have seen in my home State of New Hampshire where one program I wish to talk about funds Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors. It is called STOP. It provides law enforcement the tools they need to combat domestic violence. This was a lifesaving service for a women named Kathy, who was in an abusive relationship for 6 years.

Kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving her with black eyes and bruises. Once her partner Mark threw her down the stairs. Things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed on. One day, Mark grabbed Kathy by the throat, lifted her off the floor and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of their 3-year-old child. That was the last straw.

Kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her call the local police. Kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order and Mark was charged with assault.

As is often the case, the criminal and civil procedures overwhelmed and frustrated Kathy. At times, she even considered dropping the whole thing. But, fortunately, funding from the Violence Against Women Act made it possible for Kathy to have an attorney who could help her. Thanks to this assistance from STOP and the Violence Against Women Act, Kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children, as well as support payments, and ultimately she was able to make a fresh start, free from abuse.

Some critics of this legislation have said that the Violence Against Women Act ``has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence.'' They have said that these funds ``have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives.'' I think Kathy would disagree.

This body should not be divided on this issue, and I am so pleased that Senator Murkowski has joined us today. Ending the horrific, degrading and painful cycle of domestic abuse is an effort that must transcend party affiliation.

We know these programs work, and I know that we have a strong and effective leader in Susan Carbon, who is a former judge and now the Director of the Office of Violence against Women at the U.S. Department of Justice. Susan Carbon is from New Hampshire and in my time as Governor of New Hampshire, I was privileged to have Susan as a member of the Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and she chaired our Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee.

Susan has been in the trenches. She has seen what happens when women are unable to obtain help for themselves and for their families, and she knows that VAWA helps save lives. She needs these essential programs to be reauthorized as quickly as possible in order to continue her great work.

There are too many victims who need our help. It is time to tell them, ``We hear you and we know you're out there even if you're not speaking up right now. We want to help you find your voice.'' We have the chance to make a difference, and the American people are depending on us to act.

Madam President, I urge the leaders to bring the Violence against Women Reauthorization Act to the floor, and I implore my colleagues to unite around this important effort.

This body should not be divided on this issue. As I said, I am so pleased to have Senator Murkowski join us on the Senate floor today to point out that this is a bipartisan issue.

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

Mr. President, when I talk to owners, operators, and employees of small businesses in New Hampshire, one thing I hear consistently is that access to capital is a real challenge. While our community banks have increased their lending, capital access from large banks and other entities has been very hard to come by. As a result, small businesses fighting to grow and create jobs continue to be constrained in their efforts.

I am glad the Senate is planning to move forward with this legislation that will address capital formation and will take some additional steps to help those small companies get the financing they need to grow, but as we take that step forward, it is equally important that we do not also take a step back. That is why I believe it is critical for the Senate to extend two venues of small business financing as part of this debate: the Export-Import Bank and the Small Business Administration's 504 refinancing program. These programs, which bring no cost to the taxpayers--let me say that again: these programs bring no cost to taxpayers--provide financing options for so many small businesses in New Hampshire, in West Virginia, and across our country.

We have an important opportunity to ensure that such important avenues to capital remain available in the coming years by extending these programs as part of the small business capital package we are currently debating. So first let me begin with the Export-Import Bank, which is a vital agency that helps many small businesses secure the financing they need for export deals. This is critical because exports are such an important part of the markets that are available to businesses today. Mr. President, 95 percent of markets exist outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of small and medium-sized businesses are doing business outside of the United States. So businesses need access to these international markets.

Last August, Senator Ayotte and I held a Small Business Committee field hearing in New Hampshire, and it was on small business exporting. We heard how difficult it can be for a small company to sell its products overseas. It is particularly challenging for a small business to get financing for its foreign deals. That is where the Export-Import Bank makes such a significant impact. Mr. President, 87 percent of the Export-Import Bank's transactions support small businesses. So I think there is a misconception about whom the Ex-Im Bank really helps. Eighty-seven percent of their transactions support small businesses.

Last year alone, the bank helped finance more than $6 billion in export sales from small companies in the United States. It has set a goal of increasing this volume by an additional $3 billion in the coming years, and it has created a new Global Access for Small Business Initiative which is designed to dramatically increase the number of small companies taking advantage of its programs. In fact, I think this new initiative is terrific. The Ex-Im Bank came to New Hampshire and unveiled this initiative. Again, this bank assists small businesses at no cost to the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, right now this no-cost small business program is in jeopardy. Unless we act soon to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, it will hit its lending cap and it will be forced to cut off its support for small businesses. We just cannot afford to let that happen. Without the bank small businesses will lose a significant amount of foreign sales and the jobs they maintain. Last year the bank supported over 288,000 American jobs. As more small companies become aware of the bank's programs, more businesses will be able to access new markets and create new jobs.

So I want to give an example because, as I said, last year we had the Chair of the Export-Import Bank in Portsmouth, NH. They unveiled their new small business initiative, and they met with a number of small businesses that were interested in exporting.

One of those small businesses was a company called Skelley Medical, which is a medical equipment company that is based in Hollis, NH. Before our event, Skelley Medical was unaware of the programs the Export-Import Bank offered. Two weeks later, just 2 weeks after this event, Skelley took out a policy with the bank. That put Skelley in a position to expand its sales overseas. Right now, Skelley Medical is looking to finance deals in as many as five international markets. That is all thanks to the help of the Export-Import Bank. Without the Export-Import Bank, that kind of small business success story will not happen. It would be a real mistake for this Senate to pass a capital access bill without this critical reauthorization.

The second program I would like to talk about is another no-cost program that deserves to be extended. That is the Small Business Administration's section 504 refinancing program.

With bipartisan support, the Senate passed the Small Business Jobs Act 2 years ago--well, about a year and a half ago. That Small Business Jobs Act created this 504 program to help small businesses refinance existing loans under the SBA's 504 lending program.

Again, what we are hearing, as my colleagues know, as I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, is that this difficult real estate market we are in has made it challenging for many successful businesses to refinance their real estate deals. They cannot get access to capital right now, particularly in the real estate industry, which has been so hard hit during this recession. What this SBA program allows is for small businesses to lock in long-term, stable financing so they can free up capital to invest in their companies and hire new workers.

Although this program got off to a slow start, the Small Business Administration has made important changes to ensure that it is working better now for small businesses and for banks. As a result, we are starting to see a significant increase in volume.

In New Hampshire, lenders see this program becoming a real success in the near future. Alan Abraham, who is the president of the Granite State Development Corporation in New Hampshire, has said that ``banks and borrowers are now understanding the significant benefits of the program.'' He told me:

We are starting to field many [more] phone calls requesting

information on the policies, and we anticipate dozens of New

Hampshire small businesses could benefit from extending this

program.

We should not cut this program off at the knees just as we are beginning to see substantial returns--again, without costs to taxpayers.

This program is scheduled to sunset in September. I believe it is important for the lending community to know as soon as possible that the program will continue into 2013 so that they can devote the resources necessary to continue this initiative's budding success and also so that we can provide the certainty so many companies tell us they need.

We should extend this program. We should address the Export-Import Bank's reauthorization. That is why, as we look at the Landrieu-Reed- Levin substitute amendment, it includes these provisions. It includes reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and it includes the extension of the SBA 504 program. It also includes a number of other provisions that address some of the concerns that have been expressed by the House-passed capital formation bill.

Senators Landrieu, Reed, and Levin were on the floor earlier and very eloquently elaborated on those changes. I urge my colleagues to support that substitute amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and to extend SBA's 504 Loan Program.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to that Landrieu-Reed-Levin amendment.

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

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