Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues Senator Cardin and, earlier, Senator Murray this morning in commemorating International Women's Day. It is a day observed around the world, and it celebrates the economic, political, and social achievement of women--past, present, and future. It is a day that recognizes the obstacles women still face in the struggle for equal rights and equal opportunities.

One year ago today, I, along with a group of bipartisan Senators, introduced and passed a resolution in the Senate recognizing the significance of the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day. Today is the 101st anniversary and, as is the centennial milestone before it, it is a testament to the dedication and determination of women and men around the world to address gender inequality for the good of all people.

There are more than 3.3 billion women in the world today. Across the globe, women are participating in the political, social, and economic life of their communities in an unprecedented fashion, playing a critical role in providing and caring for their families, contributing substantially to the growth of economies, and advancing food security for their communities.

Yesterday I had the wonderful, humbling, and inspiring opportunity to recognize and celebrate the 10 recipients of the 2012 State Department International Women of Courage Award. This prestigious award, which is the only award in the State Department given only to women, annually recognizes women who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women's rights and empowerment around the globe, often at significant risk to themselves. These award winners, including activists in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia, politicians in Turkey and Afghanistan, and representatives from six other countries, are truly remarkable and inspirational women.

I ask unanimous consent to have all of their names and brief bios printed in the Record so that they are properly recognized by the Senate.

This morning I wish to pick just one of these amazing women and tell her story.

Shad Begum is the executive director of the Union of Women's Welfare in one of the most extremely conservative districts in all of Pakistan. As the founder and executive director of the program the Union of Women's Welfare, she provides political training, microcredit, primary education, and health services to women throughout her community. She not only encouraged others to run for office, she herself ran for a district counselor seat in 2001 and 2005, winning the seat against local conservatives who tried to ban

women from participating. Despite numerous threats to her life and her family, including calls for suicide attacks against her by local extremists, she continues to work to improve the lives of women throughout Pakistan.

Ms. Shad is one of 10 remarkable women the State Department honored this year. Every one of these 10 stories is inspirational, but they also represent literally millions of women around the globe who are out there fighting and suffering to be heard. There are countless women who don't receive the recognition they deserve and who continue to be silenced by persecution and harassment. Today we recognize, honor, and celebrate all of those nameless, faceless women around the world who are continuing the fight.

Far too many women remain excluded from full participation in society, to the detriment of their communities, their countries, and the world. Although strides have been made in recent decades, women across the globe continue to face significant obstacles in all aspects of their lives, including the denial of basic human rights, discrimination, and gender-based violence. According to the World Bank, women make up 70 percent of all individuals living in poverty. Women account for 64 percent of the adults worldwide who lack basic literacy skills. Women continue to remain vastly underrepresented in national and local governments around the world.

So there is no doubt that we have a lot of work to do, but all of society benefits when women are more fully integrated into their communities and their villages around the world. In the words of President Obama, ``Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity--men and women--to reach their full potential.''

As we reflect on the past, present, and future achievements of women, I believe it is important to recognize the vital and untapped resource that women represent for our world. The ability of women to realize their full potential is critical to the ability of a nation to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, political and social stability, and enhanced security for all its people.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing the Housing Crisis in Indian Country: Leveraging Resources and Coordinating Efforts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Key to America's Global Competitiveness: A Quality Educaiton'' on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Merkley, the Presiding Officer, and the others of my colleagues who will come to the floor this afternoon to speak out against the Blunt amendment.

Over the past year, we have come to the floor many times to speak out against the attacks on women's health. Since this Congress began, we have seen assaults on Planned Parenthood, on Federal funding for family planning and on contraception. But now we are facing the Blunt amendment which is even more extreme and far reaching than we have seen in all those other attempts to politicize women's health.

This proposal would affect health care not just for women but for all Americans. It will affect the care of our children, of our husbands, and our wives. In short, the Blunt amendment would let your boss make your health care decisions instead of you and your doctor. The amendment would empower corporations or any other employer to deny virtually any preventive or essential health service to any American based on any religious or moral objection. I would point out that in the bill, religious and moral objections are not defined. So it can be whatever anybody interprets it to mean.

Under the amendment, an employer could claim a moral or religious basis in order to deny things such as coverage for HIV/AIDS screenings or counseling, prenatal care for single mothers, mammograms, vaccinations for children, or even screenings for diabetes if the employer claims a moral objection to a perceived unhealthy lifestyle.

While this amendment could affect men, women, and children, make no mistake; at the most fundamental level, this debate is about a woman's access to contraception. Supporters of the amendment want to turn back the clock on women's health. They want to deny women access to preventive health services.

Birth control is something most women use sometime in their lifetime, and it is something that the medical community believes is essential to the health of a woman and her family. I would point out the decision that the Blunt amendment claims to be addressing is one that was made not for political reasons but for medical reasons by the Institute of Medicine, and it was made because contraception is important to women's health. It prevents unintended pregnancies. The United States has the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the developed world. Approximately one-half of all pregnancies here in America are unintended. Contraception can help women and families address this.

Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality. In fact, the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality has estimated that 10 percent of infant deaths could be prevented if all pregnancies were planned.

For some 1.5 million women, birth control pills are not used for contraception but for medical reasons. As the Presiding Officer pointed out in that poignant letter from your constituents who pointed out all of the reasons that women could take contraceptives, it could reduce the risk of some cancers, and it is linked to overall good health outcomes.

As Governor of New Hampshire, I was proud to sign a law back in 1999 that requires health care plans to cover contraception. At that time, we heard little controversy, little uproar, virtually no concerns about religious exemptions to the law. The bill in New Hampshire back in 1999 passed the Republican-led State legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, in the House, almost as many Republicans voted for the bill as Democrats. I think that was because it was understood by people on both sides of the aisle of all religious faiths that requiring contraceptive coverage was about women's health and it was about basic health care coverage.

For 12 years, that law in New Hampshire has been in place with little opposition because it has worked. And it is particularly unfortunate, as we are having this debate about women's health, thinking about what happened back in New Hampshire, to see this debate become so politicized. It is not right. It is not what is the best interest of women's health, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Blunt amendment.

The decision about a woman's health care should be between her, her doctor, her family, and her faith. Let's not turn back the clock on women's access to health care.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President I come to the floor today with a number of my women Senate colleagues to talk about what happened yesterday at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. They held a hearing on the administration's decision to

make sure that women have access to affordable contraception, but guess who was missing. The women. This is a picture of the first panel from yesterday's hearing. Not one woman was seated at this table, not one woman at the table, yet the topic was women's health.

What is more difficult to understand is that when female members of the House committee asked for a woman to testify along with the men, they were denied. Their request was simple: to allow Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law School student, to testify on this panel of all men. As a woman she could speak firsthand about how this rule would impact women. But their request was denied because the chairman said Sandra Fluke was unqualified.

How can a woman be unqualified to talk about women's health care? Yet every one of these men on the panel was deemed to be qualified to talk about women's health care. I am disappointed. I know it is a disappointment that is shared by millions of women across this country. I am saddened that here we are, in 2012, and a House committee would hold a hearing on women's health and deny women the ability to share their perspective.

Time and time again, women have been silenced in this discussion, a discussion about our own very personal health care decisions. In fact, a recent analysis of the leading cable news channels showed that almost twice as many men as women were invited to join the conversation.

I think it is critical to understand that the underlying issue here is about affordable access to contraception--something that is basic to women's health. Birth control is something that most women use at some point in their lifetime and something that the medical community believes is essential to the health of women and their families. Research shows that access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, that it can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and that it is linked to overall good health outcomes.

Some women, 14 percent of them, use birth control not as contraceptives but to treat serious medical conditions. That is about 1.5 million women.

When the administration first announced its decision to require employers to offer health insurance coverage for contraception, there was a robust conversation about religious liberty. In response to that, the President modified his decision last week, preserving the religious liberty of those religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals or universities, but also protecting the women who work for them. His decision ensured that all women have access to contraceptive coverage, and if a woman's employer has a religious objection, women can get that critical coverage directly from their health plans.

The Catholic Health Association has supported this policy, and yet, as we saw yesterday, some attempt to continue to politicize this issue. We cannot lose sight that this is at the most fundamental level of debate about women's preventive health.

Women deserve a voice in this debate because, after all, in the end this is about our health and it is about a health care decision that is between women, their families, their doctors, and their own faith.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Wicker for their efforts today coming down to the floor to raise this important human rights issue.

As you say, if we didn't see the facts, we would believe this was fiction, what is going on in Russia today. But I think these efforts are particularly important given what is happening today in Russia.

We have seen historic demonstrations on the streets of Moscow over the last several months. Ordinary Russian citizens, fed up with nearly a decade of corruption, have courageously taken to the streets to demand their voices be heard. The fraudulent Duma elections and the cynical and manipulative decision by Prime Minister Putin to return to the Presidency have reawakened civil society throughout Russia.

As a leading Russian social activist Alexei Navalny wrote from his jail cell following the peaceful December demonstrations:

We all have the only weapon we need and the most powerful.

That is the sense of self-respect.

Today, as we call for justice for human rights abuses in Russia, we also stand with those brave Russian citizens who have risked so much in calling for their rights to be respected, just as Sergei Magnitsky did.

As we have seen throughout this last year of upheaval around the globe, the rising voice of a public driven to peaceful protest can be deafening. Prime Minister Putin and his regime would be wise to listen to the people of Russia.

I also want to echo what Senators Wicker and Cardin have said about the importance of passing the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. There are now 28 Senate cosponsors. I am one of those cosponsors and am proud to be, and I want to associate myself with what Senators have said on the floor of the Senate today.

The case of Mr. Magnitsky is a tragic one. He was falsely imprisoned, beaten, denied medical care, and ultimately killed, as you all have so eloquently explained. And to this day, no one has been held accountable for his tragic and unnecessary killing. We stand here today to press for accountability in Mr. Magnitsky's death. However, I think it

is important for us to reiterate that this is more than simply a question of one man's tragic case.

The State Department's human rights report for this year described numerous violations, as Senator Cardin said so well: attacks on journalists, physical abuse of citizens, harsh prison conditions, politically motivated imprisonments, and other government harassments and violence.

The European Court of Human Rights has issued more than 210 judgments, holding Russia responsible for grave human rights violations, including abductions, killings, and torture in Chechnya and throughout the northern Caucasus.

There are many more cases like Magnitsky, which is why the bill is so important. It seeks to ensure that no human rights abusers, in Russia or elsewhere in the world, are granted the privilege of traveling to this country or utilizing our American financial system.

As chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, I was pleased to preside over a hearing on the Magnitsky bill and on the state of human rights in Russia. I thank Chairman Kerry for helping to make that hearing possible.

During the hearing we had a very constructive conversation with State Department officials, and we heard unanimous support for the legislation from an impressive panel of human rights activists and Russian experts. We have also received letters that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from leading human rights and civil society leaders in Russia calling on the Senate to pass the Magnitsky bill.

Around the world, governments are also taking up this

important call. The European Parliament, Canada, and The Netherlands are considering similar pieces of legislation. This summer, the U.S. State Department barred dozens of Russian officials from traveling to the United States over their involvement in the death of Magnitsky.

I want to commend the administration, and particularly Secretary Clinton for her strong words condemning the recent fraudulent elections in Russia. But despite all these efforts, there is more we can do to support human rights in civil society, freedom of expression in Russia.

Passing the Magnitsky bill this year is one of them. In the midst of an election year, at a time of difficult partisanship, I believe this is one effort--as we have seen so well from Senator Cardin and Senator Wicker today--this is one effort on which both sides of the aisle can agree. We stand today unambiguously in support of the rule of law, democracy, and respect for human rights in Russia. I hope our colleagues in the Congress and at the State Department will work constructively in the months ahead to pass this critical legislation.

Before I yield the floor, I also think it is important to call attention to the particularly egregious act that Russia committed in recent days before the United Nations, when they vetoed the Security Council resolution aimed at halting the ongoing violence in Syria. Today, more than 25,000 people have fled Syria; more than 7,000 innocent Syrians have died at the hands of President Assad. Despite Syria's growing isolation, Russia continues to harbor and arm the Syrian regime. This is unacceptable. I think our passage of the Magnitsky bill will send a very strong sign to Russia that not only in the Magnitsky case and other human abuses in-country are they going to be held accountable, but their actions internationally will also make them accountable to the international community.

Again, I say thank you to Senators Cardin and Wicker for their leadership on this issue. I am pleased and honored to be able to join them in making this fight.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

One of the things the Senator talked about so eloquently, as we talked about the ability of our financial systems to impact what is happening in Russia--one of the things we heard about at the hearing on the Magnitsky bill was from the head of the American Chamber in Russia who talked about what the impact of this kind of case is on American companies trying to do business and the concern it raises about issues of corruption and the ability to operate freely in Russia. Does my colleague not agree that we can also urge those companies that are operating in Russia to speak out when cases such as this happen and they have concerns about what it does to their business in the country?

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

Mr. President, we voted 85 to 11 to start work on the highway bill, which is an essential piece of legislation to reauthorize our highway and transit programs.

Eight hundred sixty-eight days have passed since our last Federal Transportation bill expired. If you cannot do the math very fast, just to put a little more emphasis on that, that is 2 years, 4 months, and 18 days since the last Federal Transportation bill expired.

We need new legislation to help streamline Federal programs, spur job creation, and move our transportation system into the 21st century.

This Transportation bill before us is about infrastructure. We call it infrastructure because ``infra'' means ``below.'' So it is the foundation beneath everything else on which our civilized country is built. As we think about the buildings and operating our municipalities and our States and our Federal Government, our country, it is about making sure we have a sound infrastructure.

Our businesses, our workers, our innovators, all of them rely on a system of quality infrastructure to succeed. More funding for transportation in this bill means we can do critical roads and bridges, and we can do repairs to the existing roads and bridges. It means we have more transit for buses and railroads, and it means we can put people back to work. More jobs for construction and manufacturing workers, more jobs for workers means more consumer spending and a stronger overall economy.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 we spend on highways, that spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. Economists at Moody's estimate that for every $1 we invest in infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. That is because of the ripple effect those investments have on our economy.

The bill before us would help create about 1 million American jobs, many of them in the construction industry, which has been one of the hardest hit by the recession. In New Hampshire, the number of people who were working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest it had been in a decade--25 percent lower than it was in 2006, 5 years ago. We need to pass this bill to help put those people back to work.

One of the most important efforts we have in New Hampshire right now is the long overdue and badly needed widening of Interstate 93, which is in the southern part of New Hampshire. I 93 is our State's most important highway. It connects New Hampshire citizens to their jobs, businesses to global markets, and communities to each other.

Right now this vital artery is badly clogged. Every day 100,000 cars travel on a road designed for 60,000. This congestion wastes time and wastes money. Crowding so many vehicles on Interstate 93 is not only an inconvenience to the thousands who use it every day, but it also compromises the safety of drivers traveling at regular highway speed in heavy traffic.

The Interstate 93 project was budgeted and planned based on the idea that the Federal Government would provide a consistent level of funding. But the uncertainty created by the lack of a long-term highway bill has made the project difficult to finance. Right now New Hampshire transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding for this project that is sitting on the sidelines until the Federal Government makes good on its commitment. We need to move these Federal funds off the sidelines and get this project going.

Laura Scott, who is the economic development director for the town of Windham, near the Massachusetts border, summed it up best:

The I 93 project is critical to the future economic

vitality of Windham and all of southern New Hampshire. Our

businesses want it, our citizens want it, and we need to get

it done.

The bill before us today can help complete this vital project and others like it. We need to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion just as it has come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. There was strong bipartisan support coming out of that committee. We need to set aside the partisanship now, the election year comments, and come together to do what is right for our economy and our country. I hope in the end all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know this comes as no surprise to you, but today is Valentine's Day. Today millions of Americans are buying flowers and candy for their loved ones to celebrate Valentine's Day. This is an important day for American businesses, especially candy manufacturers. Consumers will purchase over 36 million heart-shaped boxes of chocolates for Valentine's Day.

Unfortunately, the price American candy manufacturers must pay for this sugar leaves a very bitter taste in their mouths. Why, you ask. Well, because these companies face artificially high prices for sugar, about twice the world average. That is because there is an outdated and unnecessary government program that keeps sugar prices significantly higher than they should be.

It is programs such as these sugar subsidies that reflect people's frustration with what is going on here in Washington because the sugar program, like too many other subsidies, protects special interests at the expense of regular businesses and consumers. That is why I joined with Senator Mark Kirk on Valentine's Day last year to encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting our bipartisan SUGAR Act.

The SUGAR Act would phase out the U.S. sugar program, which costs businesses and consumers about $4 billion a year. This is a big concern for us in New Hampshire as we are the American home of Lindt chocolate as well as a number of other smaller candy companies that use a lot of sugar. I know it is a concern for the President, who has Hershey's chocolate in his home State of Pennsylvania, and it is a big concern for Illinois, where Senator Kirk is from, because they have so many candy companies.

This legislation isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This legislation is about ending a bad deal for businesses and consumers. Senator Kirk and I sponsored this legislation because we need to end the sweetheart deal for the sugar industry. There is simply no reason to continue a program that makes candy makers, bakers, and other food manufacturers in our States pay double the world average price for sugar.

One of the other fallouts from these high sugar prices is that it costs jobs. For every one job we save in the sugar industry because of these subsidies, we are losing three manufacturing jobs.

Today, as we celebrate Valentine's Day, my thoughts are with Senator Kirk, who continues to recover from a serious illness. While Senator Kirk couldn't be with us this Valentine's Day, I do wish him well, and I look forward to his speedy return to the Senate. I know he is focused on getting better so that he will be able to get back here to work for his constituents from Illinois.

It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Kirk on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to our continued work in the future on the SUGAR Act and on other matters that help our constituents in New Hampshire and Illinois.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join my colleague from Maryland to try and point out how this issue is being manipulated.

Almost 2 years ago, Congress--this institution--voted to end discrimination against women by health insurance plans. We voted to make it easier for women to seek referrals to see the health specialists they need, and we voted to give women greater access to affordable preventive health care services, including contraception.

These are important historic advances for women's health, and they should not fall victim to ideological policies.

Over the last several weeks, we have seen women all across this country stand in huge numbers to support women's health. That grassroots support will be needed again and again to stave off ideological attacks on women's health care.

Over the past year, House Republicans have repeatedly attempted to both eliminate funding for title X family planning and Planned Parenthood. Thankfully, we have been able to block these attempts in the Senate.

Ninety-seven percent of the reproductive health services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire and across the country is preventive care. As we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and saves lives.

We were reminded of the important role Planned Parenthood plays in preventive health when the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to end its contracts with the provider. It is unfair to politicize women's health in the way we saw played out in the media last week. Women from across the country let their voices be heard. The 750,000 women who received breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics with support from the Komen Foundation deserve better. They did not ask to be thrown into the political fire. They merely sought detection and treatment against a life-threatening disease.

I am pleased Komen reversed that decision.

I also commend the President for standing for women's health and reaffirming the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to protect access to affordable birth control for all women. The decision requiring health care plans to cover contraception with no copays or deductibles will improve the lives of millions of women and their families.

Birth control pills can cost up to $600 a year. It can be a serious economic issue for some women. Studies have shown it costs employers as much as 17 percent more to exclude contraceptive coverage in employee health care plans than to provide such coverage.

Birth control is also a fundamental health care issue. Doctors and public health experts agree that increased access to birth control prevents unintended pregnancies. It is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality and a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to overall good health outcomes.

Permanent and temporary contraception is critical for family planning purposes, but many women--a full 14 percent--use birth control for medical and health reasons, including helping to reduce the risk of some cancers, treatment for endometriosis, serious infections, and cysts.

Let's be clear. In talking about the health benefits of birth control, I am not telling women they must use it. The decision on whether to pursue contraception is an individual choice that each woman must make for herself with her family. No part of the affordable care act or the President's ruling regarding insurance coverage forces any woman to use contraception.

However, birth control will now be affordable and accessible for any woman who, in consultation with her doctor, decides she needs or wants to use it. The policy represents one of the greatest advances for women's health in decades.

Sadly, there is an aggressive and misleading campaign to deny this benefit to women. A conscience clause exists that exempts religious institutions such as churches from having to carry insurance that covers contraception. Mr. President, 335,000 churches and their employees in this country are exempt. Many have argued that conscience clause should be expanded to include religiously affiliated hospitals and universities in the name of religious liberty.

The millions of women who work in a Catholic hospital or university-- from the overnight nurse to the classroom aide or cafeteria worker--who choose to use birth control should have the same access as their counterparts at other institutions. That is their decision. It is not their employer's.

There are religions that believe divorce is a sin. Should these institutions be exempt from our labor laws and be allowed to discriminate based on marital status? Of course not, and this is no different.

A recent survey showed that 71 percent of American voters, including 77 percent of Catholic women voters, support the requirement to make birth

control available to all. They understand that religious freedom means that all women--Catholic or non-Catholic--should have the opportunity to make their own decisions when it comes to birth control.

I applaud the President for his decision and for putting women's health above politics.

We know ideological attacks on women's health care will continue. But I thank my colleagues who are here today for speaking out against those who want to turn the clock back on women, who want to limit access and availability of women's health services. We are watching, and we are going to continue to be watching.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to all of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to talk about the critical nature of spending in our campaigns, I say I am pleased to join them to talk about the importance of preserving our representative democracy by restoring some commonsense restrictions to our Nation's campaign finance system.

As we have heard, Saturday was the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. The Federal Election Committee. Already we have seen how that decision has altered the landscape of politics in this country.

When the Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate financing of elections, it ushered in the age of the super PAC. These so-called super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money during political campaigns with very limited disclosure requirements.

This election cycle the floodgates have opened. Super PACs have already spent over $30 million in the 2012 cycle, and the election is still 10 months away. That amount of money is staggering.

When I was home over the holidays in New Hampshire, before our Presidential primary, I witnessed firsthand that influx of corporate cash and what

it does to the Presidential election. Negative ads paid for by the super PACs contributed to disaffecting our voters and drowning out the voices of the people, those ordinary, everyday citizens of New Hampshire who aren't able to put in tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases millions, to affect the outcome of an election.

This has to stop. This is not a partisan issue. The commonsense restrictions that were struck down in the Citizens United decision were part of legislation like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. That thoughtful legislation which had broad, bipartisan support limited soft money and corporate funding of political ads and campaign spending in a way that made sense.

Our campaign finance system has gotten way off course. It is time for us in the Congress to help put it back on track. The unchecked influence of money in our elections compromises the very future of our representative democracy.

The monied special interests and corporations have been given free rein to spend unlimited amounts of money during campaigns, and they do not need our help being heard. It is homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages, parents who want to send their children to college but aren't sure how they can afford it, and unemployed workers who are looking for jobs and hoping tomorrow will be better than today--those are the voices that are being drowned out in a sea of corporate and special interest cash, and those are the voices of the American people who need to be heard in Washington.

So on the second anniversary of this decision, as we think about what we need to do to address this and to change the negative direction it is taking this country, I urge all of my colleagues to turn their attention to this important work and to reach across the aisle to build consensus on this issue. Let's all tell the American people that we hear their voices calling for change.

I look forward to speaking with all of my colleagues in the coming weeks and months about the specific approaches we can take to repair our broken campaign finance system, and I hope we will have the courage and the commitment to do something about this.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I am here to urge that my colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration provide the funding for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. As you know, in Connecticut, LIHEAP provides immediate critical heating assistance for families and seniors in need during these freezing cold winter months.

Last year, more than 45,000 New Hampshire households received LIHEAP funds. That is more than 106,000 individuals. But unfortunately this year, many of those families have been on waiting lists. Funding for the program has been in limbo at a time when temperatures are dropping.

The Department of Health and Human Services here in Washington has released $1.7 billion, but so much more is needed. Making matters worse, the Energy Information Administration projects a 10-percent increase in the price of heating oil this winter. That is the highest average winter price ever predicted.

In New Hampshire, more than half our homes rely on home heating oil. It is one of the highest percentages in the country, and the number of families who need assistance is growing every day. State offices are being forced to change eligibility levels for funding as they grapple with uncertainty over future funds.

There are two things that can be done in order to immediately address this situation before it escalates into an even more serious crisis. First, Congress needs to pass an Omnibus appropriations bill as soon as possible. I am very pleased to see the positive progress on this issue; that there has been an agreement announced on an Omnibus appropriations measure.

Hopefully, we are on track to pass that bill either today or tomorrow. The omnibus includes nearly $3.5 billion in funding for LIHEAP. But we need to get that money out the door. Once Congress has spoken, is that the administration needs to release additional LIHEAP funds as quickly as possible.

The $1.7 billion that has already been released is not enough. But the knowledge that additional LIHEAP funds are pending in the omnibus bill we are about to pass should give President Obama the assurance he needs to release more money. I hope once the budget is passed the administration will release these additional funds as soon as possible, because at this holiday season, what better gift could we provide to those families in need than to make sure they have the funds to keep their houses warm this season.

I know it is difficult to argue for more funding these days because of our deficit. Its challenges are clear. In fact, in the Senate, we have already voted, and I was one of those votes, for more than $1 trillion in cuts to Federal spending this year.

I have continued to call for a comprehensive, balanced, bipartisan plan that looks at both revenue flows and spending. I have been part of the working group, a bipartisan working group, that now has over 40 Senators calling for a $4 trillion deficit reduction proposal over the next 10 years. But when we cut our budget, we need to look at wasteful spending, at duplicative programs, and at subsidies to industries that no longer need our help.

LIHEAP energy assistance for low-income families does not fall under any of those categories. It is not a frivolous program. It is a program that ensures that vulnerable citizens in New Hampshire and across this country are not forgotten and left in the cold this winter.

I have been hearing from people across New Hampshire about the difficulties they are going to face if this funding is not available and available soon. I wish to just share one of those stories. It is the story of Kim Brandolini of Nashua. In 2010, Kim suffered a series of strokes that left her disabled and unable to work. LIHEAP funds covered nearly all her monthly fuel costs last year.

But this year, because of the cuts, she is on the waiting list. She does not know how she is going to pay to heat her home. She already owes the oil company $600, and last year she had to pay $6,000 to replace a broken boiler. Kim is only 44 years old. She is raising a son all by herself. Previously, she served for 14 years in the Army Reserve. Kim does not deserve to be in this situation.

In Nashua, which is one of the warmest parts of New Hampshire, the average nightly low is below freezing for nearly half the year.

If we don't find a way to fund LIHEAP now, Kim and thousands like her will have no way to keep their families safe and warm. We need to act, and we need to act quickly. Already, the delay in funding LIHEAP has prevented States such as New Hampshire from taking advantage of more affordable bulk purchases of home heating oil. The bottom line is, now that we have a budget agreement, we need to release additional funds so that thousands of New Hampshire families stay warm and don't have to make impossible choices between their basic needs this winter. We can't leave families such as Kim Brandolini's out in the cold this winter. I hope we can get this budget passed as soon as possible and that the Obama administration will release additional LIHEAP funds before Christmas and the end of the year.

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