Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to echo the comments and concerns we have heard in the last few minutes from my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee regarding this House-inserted language on our Nation's military depots, arsenals, and shipyards.

I wish to begin by saying to Chairman Levin how much I appreciate his assurances, as well as those of Ranking Member McCain, and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith in the House, that there are no intended changes to the current law under this language. I think that is very important for us to say to our constituents so they are reassured.

I also appreciate Chairman Levin's commitment to examine this issue closely in the coming year to prevent any unintended consequences that this language might have on our Nation's industrial repair facilities, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which my home State of New Hampshire shares with Maine and which is very important to us in the Northeast and I think to our military capabilities.

With that said, I have to say I share the concern that has been expressed about the manner in which this language was inserted. While I understand that the House has been working on this issue for some time, including holding roundtable discussions at the National Defense University, I believe there is much more that should have been done.

On Friday, December 9, my staff was made aware that this language from the House could be included in the final NDAA report--a measure we have all been working on for the past 11 months. So along with six other members of the committee, I signed a letter that very day--so 1 week ago tomorrow--indicating our concerns and frustration over including such language without adequate Senate review or input. Despite the concerns expressed in our letter, the language was included.

On such an important issue as this, usually we have had a very collaborative, transparent process in our committee, on the Senate side anyway, and I appreciate that. I think that has been one of the reasons for the great success of Senator Levin and Ranking Member McCain in being able to get a bill out year after year on which there has been consensus agreement.

Unfortunately, that did not happen with respect to this language. As such, we now face a situation where the committee will need to spend a significant amount of time examining the language and its implementation over the next year to ensure no changes result.

The reason we as a nation maintain the 50-50 rule--where all maintenance work is split between the public and private sectors--is to ensure that in times of conflict, the Federal Government will have the critical capabilities necessary to repair our Nation's combat equipment.

Advanced technical repair work, such as the work done on nuclear submarines at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, requires highly skilled and specialized technicians. Any changes to the way we structure workload for these facilities has to be closely examined and should include input from the individual stakeholders who understand this issue best.

Generations of Americans have invested significant resources in our Nation's military to ensure our men and women in uniform have the most advanced equipment in the world to keep us safe.

I say to the chairman of the committee, I very much appreciate your assurance that we will continue to take a close look at this issue, including holding a hearing next year, if necessary. So I thank the Senator very much for his cooperation to work with us.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his very thoughtful comments.

Senator Isakson has been working on a biennial budget for a very long time. I was pleased to join him in this session of Congress. And I agree with him. I believe this is one of the ways we can encourage more oversight of our spending and hopefully address some of the budget issues we face. So I appreciate and share his beliefs that this is an important change we should make.

I am actually on the floor not to speak on the balanced budget amendment, however, but to talk about what I believe is very important for us to do before the end of this year; that is, address the extension of the payroll tax cut.

In November, the private sector added 140,000 new jobs to our workforce. In fact, businesses have now created 100,000 jobs in each of the last 5 months. This is a positive trend we haven't seen in the past 5 years. While this is encouraging, we still have a long way to go because more than 13 million Americans remain unemployed and millions more are underemployed. These individuals and their families are struggling to make ends meet during this holiday season.

At this time last year, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to put more money into the pockets of working Americans. We cut payroll taxes for workers--an effort that increased take-home pay for the average household by almost $1,000 in 2011. This tax cut isn't just good for families on a tight budget, it is good for our fragile economy. In New Hampshire, the payroll tax cut has meant an extra $600 million in our communities.

There are some who want to allow this tax cut to expire at the end of the year. But let's be clear. If the tax cut expires, this would mean the average family would see their taxes increase by $1,000 next year. This would mean taking $120 billion out of our Nation's economy, money that would no longer be spent at our supermarkets, at our retailers, and at our gas stations. That doesn't make sense.

Independent economists have predicted that allowing this tax cut to expire could cost our economy 400,000 jobs next year. Some have even predicted that the United States could face another recession if we don't take action.

Members of this body have also suggested that this tax cut would starve Social Security of needed revenue and endanger this bedrock program's solvency. With Americans relying so heavily on Social Security to meet basic needs, this is a serious charge and one we should take seriously. However, the program's Chief Actuary has written that this tax cut does not hurt Social Security's finances. Instead, this proposal contains provisions to require that the Social Security trust fund be made whole.

I recently supported Senator Casey's proposal to not only extend payroll tax cuts for employees but also to expand them to increase the average family's take-home pay by an additional $500 next year. This proposal would have cut employer payroll taxes, making it easier for small businesses to keep current workers and hire new ones. That proposal was fully paid for with a 3-percent tax on people earning more than $1 million in a year. Because of the way it was paid for, the legislation was blocked. My friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, also introduced a compromise plan that I supported. But again, unfortunately, it did not pass.

I think that particularly now, at this time of the year, at this critical stage for our economy, everyone should agree on preventing tax increases for working families. There are some competing ideas about the best way to accomplish this, and I welcome that debate, but Congress simply cannot afford to saddle middle-class families with a $1,000 tax increase in the midst of an uneven recovery. It isn't right for our small businesses, it isn't right for our communities, and it isn't right for the economy.

Time is running out to extend the payroll tax cut. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the critical piece of legislation we are now working on that will strengthen our national security, provide for our troops and their families, and improve oversight of American taxpayer dollars.

Over the last half century, the Senate has successfully passed a defense authorization bill without fail every year. This strong tradition of bipartisanship continues today under the joint leadership of Senators Levin and McCain.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I thank the chairman and ranking member, as well as the majority and minority staff, for their dedicated and tireless effort as we work to bring this important legislation to the floor.

Throughout this yearlong process, our committee takes on extremely difficult and contentious security issues, and at times we have our differences. However, we take on these disagreements in a respectful and openminded fashion, driven by a strong commitment to cooperation and compromise. Bipartisanship has never been easy, but it works, as the Armed Services Committee has proven year in and year out. I hope all of our committees in the Senate can work in this kind of cooperative fashion, especially these days when budget constraints are so difficult.

No department of the Federal Government is immune from the severe fiscal challenges facing our Nation. That includes our Department of Defense. We are cutting $27 billion from the President's budget request in this bill, nearly $43 billion from the last year's authorization. We need to find ways to maximize our investments in defense by aggressively eliminating unneeded and underperforming programs and we need to streamline our business practices and invest strategically in future technology.

The bill before us helps ensure that our troops, especially the 96,000 serving in Afghanistan as well as their families, continue to receive the care and support they deserve. It provides hard-earned pay raises for all uniformed military personnel, funding for critical equipment, and training required for our men and women to succeed on the battlefield.

The Defense authorization bill before us makes important investments in defense, science, and technology. As I know the Chair agrees, we need to do more to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers who will be so important to maintaining our Nation's superior technological edge. The current bill makes a small downpayment on this important effort, and I intend to continue to fight for more investment as we move forward.

The bill also includes a number of provisions that will enable the Defense Department to lead in the creation of a more secure energy future for our military and for our country. As the single largest consumer of energy in the world today, the U.S. military has taken some initial steps on energy efficiency, energy mitigation, and the use of renewable and clean energy alternatives. But we still have a very long way to go. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Defense to take advantage of more energy savings opportunities in the future.

This year's Defense authorization bill also includes significant resources to fight nontraditional threats, including the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the growing challenge posed by cyber warfare. In addition, I am pleased a number of provisions I have been working on are currently included in the bill.

First, we are extending the Small Business Innovation Research Program for the next 8 years. This is critical to keep our defense manufacturing base and our small business innovators strong and competitive. This is a provision I have worked on. I commend Senators Landrieu and Snowe for their leadership in the Small Business Committee for working on this effort and for working so hard to get this extension, a long-term extension, into the Defense authorization bill.

The bill also includes a version of the National Guard Citizen Soldiers Support Act, which will go far in providing our National Guard members with the unique services and support they need when they return home from the fight.

We also have a Navy shipyard modernization provision that has been introduced by Senators Snowe and Collins and Senator Ayotte and I, from New Hampshire. It also includes a $400 million cut to an unnecessary and underperforming weapons program that I have worked closely with Senators McCain and Begich to include.

In addition, I was pleased to cosponsor Senator Leahy's National Guard Empowerment Act, which gives a stronger voice to our 450,000 citizen soldiers in our National Guard.

Although we have a good bill before us, I believe it could be better, and I have introduced several additional amendments, two of which are designed to provide the nearly 214,000 women serving in our Armed Services with the reproductive health care they are currently denied under the law. Unfortunately, we were not able to get a vote on those amendments. But I hope to continue to work closely with the chairman and ranking member to address these important concerns.

In addition, I have worked closely with Senators Collins and Casey on an amendment to address unsecured and looted stockpiles of tens of thousands of shoulder-fired missiles in Libya. If these weapons fall into the wrong hands, they pose a serious threat to civil aviation worldwide and to our deployed forces abroad.

I wish to thank the committee for including this provision in the legislation. I also wish to address, briefly, some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to the detainee provisions in the bill. The underlying legislation which I supported is an attempt to provide a statutory basis for dealing with detained members of al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates.

In committee, we made some difficult choices on this extremely complex issue. But we did that in order to strike a bipartisan agreement to both protect our values and our security. I understand, similar to all the Members of this body, the concerns that have been raised on both sides of these issues.

Again, as a general principle, I believe our national security officials should have the flexibility needed to deal with the constantly evolving threat. But I also believe that clear, transparent rules of procedure are a bedrock legal principle of our constitutional system. I believe the military detention language in this bill includes a significant amount of flexibility for the executive branch, including a national security waiver and broad authorities on implementation.

Although I support the goals of the chairman and ranking member's underlying legislation, I also believe we can improve those provisions. I supported Senator Feinstein's amendment that we just voted on which would restrict required military custody to only those terrorist suspects captured abroad.

I hope that despite the disagreements, we will continue to chart a bipartisan path forward with respect to these detainee provisions in the years ahead. We need to give our national security officials at home and abroad a clearly defined but yet flexible system which protects our constitutional rights and our national security.

In conclusion, I believe the 2012 Defense authorization bill before us will strengthen our national security, maintain our military power, keep our defense businesses competitive, help cancel and roll back wasteful spending, and support the men and women who defend our Nation every day. I hope the full Senate will quickly come to an agreement on the pending amendments and pass this important piece of legislation so it can go to the President's desk as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Senate was not able to reach agreement to consider an important amendment on the Defense authorization bill that would allow women in the military access to the same health care coverage as civilian women.

There are almost 214,000 women currently serving in our Armed Forces. Many of these brave women are risking their lives for our national security. Despite the sacrifices these women make to protect our freedom, they are not given the same rights as civilian women when it comes to their reproductive health care.

If a service woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, her insurance will not cover an abortion if she decides to seek one; the law as currently written expressly prohibits it. This is unconscionable. To correct this injustice, I offered an amendment to the bill that we are currently debating that would allow a service woman the ability to receive insurance coverage for an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Unfortunately, because there are some in this body who do not want this unfair law changed, we were not able to bring this amendment to the floor for a vote.

Women currently serving in the armed services are victims of discrimination. They do not have access to the same critical--and legal--reproductive health care as the civilians they protect.

Bans on abortion coverage exist for millions of women who receive their health care through government programs, but in most cases these bans allow for coverage of such care if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Women receiving their health care through Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Indian Health Services all have access to the care they need if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Even women serving time in our Federal prisons can get abortions covered in the case of rape. Sadly, this is not the case for our Nation's women in uniform.

I believe that every woman should have the reproductive health care coverage she needs wherever she is and whenever she needs it. I do not think that any ban on abortion is appropriate. However if Federal bans do exist, they should at least be consistent.

My amendment is simple. It would permit a service woman to have an abortion covered by her military health insurance if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Repealing the current ban on such coverage will simply bring the Department of Defense in line with most other federal policies.

I recently met a woman who was a victim of rape during her military service. She was stationed in Korea and was unable to receive the health care she needed and deserved. Her story was heartbreaking. Because of her unwanted pregnancy, she had to leave the service and return home.

The reality is that women in the military, especially those posted overseas, have few safe or legal reproductive health care options when they cannot rely on the military. Without access to these services, some women will be forced to resort to unsafe care or delay the health services they need. Women who give their lives for our country deserve better.

While the bill we are considering today will move forward without this important change, I pledge to all the women in our military who are victims of this law that I will continue my fight to bring the Department of Defense in line with other Federal agencies to allow coverage for critical reproductive health care.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 1120.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to join my colleague from Rhode Island and those who have come to the floor throughout the day today, to join them in strong opposition to the efforts by Senator Paul to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's cross-State air pollution rule.

As we have heard on the floor, his resolution would strip the EPA of its authority to protect our air from certain kinds of air pollution emitted by powerplants. That rule was put in place specifically to protect downwind States, such as New Hampshire and those of us in the Northeast and on the east coast, from air pollution that originates from outside our borders. I am particularly concerned by the attempts to stop these protections because in New Hampshire we have been fighting for them for over a decade, and they are long overdue.

Clean air is a bipartisan matter for us in New Hampshire. As my friend and colleague Senator Ayotte noted on the floor last night:

In New Hampshire, we have a long, bipartisan tradition of

working to advance commonsense, balanced environmental

protections.

I couldn't agree with her more. She and I know that even if we eliminated all local sources of air pollution from within New Hampshire's borders, we would still have counties in the State with unacceptably high levels of pollution. That is because of the overwhelming pollution that comes into New Hampshire and the Northeast on air currents from the Midwest.

In the Northeast, we are considered the tailpipe for the rest of the country. That is why, in 1997, when I was Governor, New Hampshire joined with seven other Northeast States to demand that the EPA begin cracking down on this transported air pollution. When New Hampshire joined that effort in 1997, this is what I said about it:

When you climb Mount Washington in New Hampshire and see

smog that is blown in from the Midwest, it's clearly time for

a national crackdown on air pollution . . . it's time to

address the major sources of a pollution that is fouling our

air and affecting the health of our people. We've done our

part in New Hampshire to cut down on emissions, and it's time

for the EPA to get tough on major polluters upwind.

I have here a picture of the White Mountains, which is where Mount Washington is. That is the highest point in New Hampshire and, actually, in the whole Northeast. What this picture shows very clearly is the impact of this air pollution that is coming in from upwind.

We can see these are the White Mountains. On a clear day, you can see a beautiful blue sky, green trees, beautiful landscape. On a hazy day, this is the impact of that smog. It looks as if somebody took a gray paintbrush and painted over the White Mountains in New Hampshire.

It is really unbelievable to me that we are here, 14 years after this action was brought in 1997, still debating transported air pollution. The time for debate is over. The air quality improvements from this rule will benefit over 289,000 children who are at risk for asthma in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. In my State alone, air pollution is estimated to cost businesses more than 17,000 lost days of work annually due to health problems. Yet we are still hearing the same old arguments that forcing polluters to clean up will hurt the economy, will hurt our businesses. No. In fact, we have lots of research that shows that is not true.

Talking points about job-killing regulations ignore the fact that a recent economic analysis by the Political Economy Research Institute found that the EPA's cross-State air pollution rule and the proposed mercury rule will create 290,000 jobs per year over the next 5 years in important sectors of our economy such as construction, craft labor, and industrial manufacturing. Companies such as ThermoFischer Scientific, which has a plant in Newington, NH, is a leading manufacturer of environmental monitoring equipment and a great example that good policy creates jobs right here in the United States.

By reducing air pollution, these protections are estimated to provide about $640 million in benefits to the New Hampshire economy alone. Nationwide, the health and environmental benefits are estimated at $120 billion to $280 billion each year. That is because when air pollution comes across our State borders, it is our New Hampshire companies that are forced to make up the difference. Without these rules, we have an unfair system where the burden of keeping our air clean falls disproportionately on downwind States such as New Hampshire.

Higher air pollution costs our businesses through the loss of worker productivity and greater medical expenses, and it also affects our critical tourism industry in New Hampshire which depends on the clean air of the White Mountains and the health of our beautiful lakes and forests and streams. In New Hampshire, this tourism industry and the outdoor recreation economy, much like in Colorado where the Presiding Officer is from, supports 53,000 jobs, generates $260 million per year in sales taxes, and accounts for 8 percent of our State's gross domestic product. Transported air pollution has a direct impact on this industry, as we can see so clearly in this photograph, and on the quality of life of New Hampshire's 1.3 million citizens. It is time for the EPA to move forward with their cross-State air pollution rules.

I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to reject this resolution by Senator Paul and to protect the health and welfare of all of the citizens in this country.

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.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak to the legislation that is pending before us, S. 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act. This legislation, in fact, would put literally millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our Nation's roads, our bridges, our airports, and our railways.

The bill that is before us has two components. The first is a direct $50 billion Federal investment in our infrastructure, and it would be split between roads, rail, transit, and airport projects. More than half of that would go to our well-established, formula-driven highway and transit programs, and that would include about $132 million for New Hampshire.

The second piece of this proposal would create an infrastructure bank. That is legislation I cosponsored, and it has had bipartisan cosponsorship in the Senate. The bank, as it is structured, would be able to leverage public dollars to attract private capital, and that would, if it is successful, lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure over the next 10 years. It is a bipartisan idea, as I said, and it has attracted support from both the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Clearly, it is a good idea if it has both of those organizations onboard. Together, this legislation that is pending before us would mean immediate jobs for our construction industry. It has been one of the hardest hit by this recession.

In New Hampshire the number of people working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest it had been in a decade. It was 25 percent lower than it was just in 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Christian Zimmerman, who is the head of one of our biggest contractors in New Hampshire, Pike Industries in Belmont, told me he has had to lay off 150 workers in the last couple of years as Federal funding to build New Hampshire's roads has run out.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that every $1 billion in highway spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. Economists at Moody's estimate that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. That is because of the ripple effect this spending has in economic activity. There are a number of good reasons to support the legislation that is before us.

In the short term, this proposal would help put those who are unemployed in the construction industry back to work. That is something that would be critical as we are thinking about how to help the millions in this country who are unemployed and who have been unemployed, many of them for more than a year.

In the long term, the benefits of this investment in our infrastructure are equally important. A quality infrastructure is critical to our businesses. It is critical to our future economic growth, and it is critical to our future competitiveness in the world.

According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. There is very good evidence to show that our lack of investment in recent years is making itself felt in the condition of our roads and our bridges. This past June, the New Hampshire Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on the condition of our State's roads and bridges, our dams, our wastewater facilities, our airports, and our waterways, those major projects we all consider part of our infrastructure. Sadly, the engineers' report card gave New Hampshire's infrastructure a grade of C. That is better than the grade the national organization has given the United States as a whole; that was a D. It is not as good as we want it to be, and it is not as good as we need for New Hampshire or this country if we are going to continue to be competitive.

Mr. President, 15 percent of New Hampshire's bridges are rated structurally deficient by the Federal Highway Administration, and 148 of them are red-listed. When I was first elected to the State senate, we had a controversy in New Hampshire because we had a highway commissioner who said because of the number of red-listed bridges, when we all drove around New Hampshire and went over a bridge we should drive fast and not look back.

Well, fortunately, we are not in that position right now, but we have a lot of bridges that need investment, and this bill before us would provide New Hampshire with additional Federal highway funding that would help us address these bridges that are red-listed and address our other transportation needs.

The most important project that should be addressed by this legislation in New Hampshire is a project that has been under way for years in the southern part of our State that has been threatened by the uncertainty surrounding Federal funding. It is the widening of Interstate 93 between southern New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This project is long overdue. It is badly needed by commuters and businesses in the area. The I-93 project was budgeted and planned based on the idea that the Federal Government would provide a consistent level of funding, but, unfortunately, the Republican budget the House has called for would produce a 35-percent cut in our highway program. Unfortunately, Congress has not yet been able to reach an agreement on a long-term reauthorization of our highway program. The uncertainty around this and the prospect of such a drastic cut has made this project, I-93, very difficult to finance.

Right now New Hampshire transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding authority for this project that is just sitting on the sidelines because the Federal Government has not made good on its funding commitments. The bill before us would help complete this critical project for New Hampshire and so many others like it across the country.

If we want to see the benefits that investment and infrastructure can provide in New Hampshire, we only need to look at the new airport access road that goes to our largest airport and our largest city of Manchester. It is going to open to traffic a full 2 years ahead of schedule. The project was accelerated because of the funding it received from the Recovery Act.

I remember the winter after we passed the Recovery Act and looking at the bridge that was being constructed and talking about how we were going to be able to speed up this project because of those Recovery Act dollars. In fact, it has happened. It is going to open 2 years early. Local planning boards along the Manchester Airport access road are already seeing increased interest from commercial developers for the land that is along that road, that has been opened because of this new highway. Of course, Manchester's airport is also going to benefit from the investment in our airport access road.

Another piece that is in this legislation that is critical to our infrastructure investment in New Hampshire and across the country is the funding for a next-generation system of air traffic control which would transfer our system from a ground-based radar system to a GPS- based system--something most of us have in our cars these days. That would allow the entire airline industry to plan more efficient, point- to-point routes, and it would allow everybody to save on fuel costs.

I had the opportunity to meet with Southwest Airlines a couple weeks ago. It is the largest air carrier at the Manchester Airport. They talked to me about the challenges they are facing and the entire airline industry is facing because we haven't invested in this next generation system of air traffic control. They said it will save us money because it will be more economical in terms of fuel usage because they can go point to point, and it will save time because we can provide for more efficient routes.

This is a no-brainer. Right now, our system of air traffic control is behind even the country of Mongolia. It is time for us to make this investment, to make it easier for airlines to fly into a small hub airport such as Manchester. It would save us all money. It would be safer. It is an investment that is long overdue.

A couple weeks ago, I also had a chance to speak at an infrastructure summit that the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce supports for the Greater Manchester region. There was a whole day of talking about why investment in our infrastructure is important, because without reliable power, without reliable bridges and public transportation and roads, businesses can't thrive. The Manchester Chamber believes investment in infrastructure is critical to growing our economy and creating jobs, and I share that belief. It is a belief that I came to as a State senator way back over 20 years ago, when I served in the New Hampshire State Senate. It is something I continued to support as Governor. In those days, we worked together on a bipartisan basis because we all understood, Republicans and Democrats, investing in infrastructure produces returns.

New Hampshire and the rest of our country need this investment that this legislation pending before us would provide. Our unemployed need the work. Our businesses need to know we are going to make these investments so they can depend on this certainty for their long-term growth and competitiveness.

So I hope, as we come to this vote today on the motion to proceed to this legislation, my colleagues, particularly those across the aisle, will give up their opposition to this legislation. I know they know how critical it is to invest in our infrastructure. So this is something we all ought to come together around. Just because this is a proposal that has been put forward by the President is not a reason not to support it.

I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Let's make these investments. Let's put people back to work. Let's make sure we are going to be competitive in the future. Thank you very much.

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.

I am here to speak in favor of the entire appropriations legislation that is before us, but particularly the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. I thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership, and all of the members of that subcommittee who have worked on this portion of the appropriations legislation before us.

Given the current financial constraints we are facing, I know this has been an especially difficult time to be trying to address the needs in the critical areas of our Federal budget, particularly with respect to Commerce, Science, and Justice, but I am here to speak to the section of the bill that deals with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

I am here on behalf of New Hampshire, because we have a particular interest in this section of the legislation because it directs the Bureau of Prisons to activate three Federal prisons which are currently built but are not yet opened. One of those prisons is in Berlin, NH, in the northernmost part of our State.

I came to the floor last spring when we were debating the 2011 continuing resolution to talk about this issue of opening the Berlin prison because it was completed and not yet opened. The prison is a medium-security prison. It was completed last November at a cost of $276 million. Since November, when the project was completed, it has been costing us $4 million to maintain security at the prison to make sure that damage is not done to this new facility. We have had a warden on board since about that time, but she has not been able to hire any of the staff she needs to activate this prison.

Since that time, when I last came to the floor, our Federal prison system has gotten even more overcrowded. Last spring, I talked about the fact that our prison system was 35 percent overcrowded, and that for medium-security facilities it was 39 percent overcrowded. Since that time, we have had a net increase of 7,541 Federal prisoners in our system, so now our entire prison system is 39 percent overcrowded and medium-security prisons are 51 percent over capacity. If we are going to ensure safety, we need to begin to open some of these new facilities, and I am very pleased that we have language in the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill that would address opening these new facilities, including the Berlin prison.

This is a project that has bipartisan support. The new prison in Berlin was started under President Bush. It was continued under President Obama. The congressional delegation in New Hampshire supports the facility. It will create about 340 jobs in a region of the State that is very much in need of new jobs because it has lost a lot of its manufacturing base because the paper industry has moved offshore. It would have an impact of about $40 million to the region of the State where it is located which is, again, very important for a region that economically is in need of jobs and economic activity.

The community of Berlin has already spent $3 million for water and sewer upgrades. Since 2008, the residents of Berlin, local businesses, and State workforce development officers have been preparing for the prison to open. The community and local government officials have partnered with the business community to coordinate their resources. They have been waiting for these jobs.

When the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security first began reaching out to people in the North Country about the opportunities in the prison, the workshops were full of job seekers. We have been talking a lot about job creation here in this Congress, and now we have an opportunity to act on this bill to get people back to work in northern New Hampshire.

Families in New Hampshire and across the country are struggling. We need the jobs this legislation is going to create. At a time when we should be focused on reining in wasteful spending, we can't continue to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to maintain an empty building. So this funding is good economic policy, it is good fiscal policy, and I certainly intend to support this piece of the appropriations legislation before us, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. President, today I honor Families in Transition President and Founder Maureen Beauregard for her outstanding service to New Hampshire families over the last two decades.

Twenty years ago, Maureen Beauregard made a commitment to help homeless and at-risk families find safe,

affordable housing. Thanks to Ms. Beauregard's leadership and vision, Families in Transition has grown from serving just a handful of families to supporting over 300 adults and children every night. Today Families in Transition provides essential services including substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, childcare services, and is spread out over ten housing units, two retail outlets, and 53 employees.

A leader and role model to others in the non-profit field, it is no surprise that earlier this year Maureen Beauregard was honored for her hard work and dedication by New Hampshire Business Review as an Outstanding Woman in Business. Her accomplishments over the years have truly been remarkable, and she will continue to have a positive impact on countless at-risk families in New Hampshire.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of Families in Transition, I would like to recognize Maureen Beauregard and thank her for all that she has done to make New Hampshire a better place to live and raise a family.

Mr. President, today I honor educator and principal John Rist for his outstanding service to the Manchester School District for the last 29 years.

Throughout his years with the Manchester School of Technology and Central High School, John has always been committed to improving the lives of our young people. As he retires as principal of Central High School, I thank him for his service to the people of Manchester and the State of New Hampshire.

John first came to Central High School in 1999 as interim principal. With his strong personality and generous nature, he successfully led Central through challenging times. He was named principal of the school in 2002 and during his tenure John helped Central gain full accreditation, established the Central Pride Foundation to support school activities, and oversaw major renovations. Under John's leadership, Central's standardized test scores increased and the dropout rate decreased.

John's commitment to our young people extended well beyond the principal's office. He was a constant presence in the band room, cafeteria, and at Central's many sporting events. He will truly be missed.

I am pleased that even as John retires from Central High School, he will continue to serve on the New Hampshire State Board of Education.

I thank John, a model educator, mentor, and public servant, for his service. He truly embodies what it means to have Central pride.

I thank my colleague. I agree with both of my colleagues, who have spoken, that we live in a globalized economy, and it is important for us to make sure we have the benefits of that globalized economy in America. It has offered us incredible new opportunities. But there are opportunities that have not been shared equally across our economy and our workforce.

I believe that when given a level playing field, the American workforce has shown it can outcompete and outinnovate any economy in the world. That is the way we will get our economy moving again, by unleashing the power of American entrepreneurship.

I have spoken before about ending the false debate between so-called free trade and fair trade. I think we need competitive trade, a policy that focuses on growing U.S. exports, opening new markets for U.S. companies, job training for our workforce, and tough enforcement of trade rules.

We can help our workforce compete by giving them access to foreign markets. Fully 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States, but only 1 percent of U.S. small businesses is doing business outside of the United States, or exporting their products. Increasing our exports is vital to the long-term health of our economy.

At the same time, we have to acknowledge that trade creates new challenges for many American companies and American workers. We have to understand no graph showing GDP growth is a comfort to a mother who suddenly cannot feed her family because her factory has shut down; and no statistic about market efficiency is going to pay a young man's rent when his company moves its engineering operations overseas. When Congress promotes international trade, it enters into a compact with all American workers that they will not be left behind. Competitive trade means making sure all of us can compete.

For nearly 50 years, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been lending a hand to workers faced with the negative consequences of international trade. It has been supported by liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Its premise is simple: If you lose your job to foreign trade, we will help you prepare for a new career and help keep you afloat while you train. Over the last 2 years, almost a half million Americans have begun a new chapter in their lives with the help of trade adjustment assistance.

In 2009, Congress enacted some commonsense reforms to the TAA Program. For years, Americans who lost their jobs to India or China were denied access to this program because the United States doesn't have a specific trade agreement with either country. Given the growing economic power of those two nations, that left an unacceptable number of Americans facing trade effects on their own. In 2009, we changed the program so that TAA supported all Americans whose jobs were sent overseas. But those reforms have, unfortunately, expired. This week, we have the opportunity to restore them, and we should.

The 2009 reforms also updated the TAA Program to protect workers in service industries, in addition to those in manufacturing. Fifty years ago, when the program was created, no one could have imagined the advances in technology that would allow foreign service workers and engineers to compete with our own domestic workers in those fields. This week, we have an opportunity to restore the 21st century perspective to the TAA Program.

I want to share a couple of stories about New Hampshire workers who have benefited from trade adjustment assistance. The first is a story about Joanne Sanschagrin of Gilmanton, who worked at Aavid Thermalloy for 22 years. She was a buyer for the company, but the company was threatened by competition from several nations, including China. She knew she needed to get a new job before she was laid off. Under the old TAA terms, the ones we are operating under now, she would not qualify for help under TAA. Under the 2009 reforms, Joanne sought and received training as a licensed nursing assistant. She completed training in June, and last month she began a job in her new career, and she loves it. TAA has supported her through this process and paid for her training, so instead of being unemployed, she is now a dynamic part of our economy, working in one of its fastest growing fields.

Another New Hampshire worker, Robert Arsenault, who is a veteran, had worked for 21 years making paper at the mills in Gorham and Berlin. The paper industry has been devastated by offshore competition. As the Chair knows, we have lost so many of our mills throughout northern New England. When those mills in Berlin and Gorham closed, Robert used trade adjustment assistance to get a commercial driver's license at the White Mountains Community College. He recently started a new full-time job with a paving and contracting company.

TAA doesn't just help out individual workers; it also helps small businesses that are being hurt by international trade. New England Forest Products is a hardwood manufacturing company that has been operating in Greenfield, NH, since 1993. But during the recent recession, they found themselves losing business to cheap Chinese lumber. In search of answers, they applied to the local trade adjustment assistance center for help. They worked with TAA to develop a marketing strategy and advertising materials that now help the small business sell their hardwood flooring and other products directly to consumers. In part because of this important program, New England Forest Products saw sales increase 28 percent in the following year.

This isn't just one encouraging story. Of the 18 businesses in New Hampshire that have received TAA in the last 4 years, all 18 are still operating, and many are adding employees. These are the kinds of stories the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program makes possible, but only if we sustain these critical reforms and strengthen TAA's role as both a critical safety net and a driver of the American economy for decades to come.

I urge my colleagues to support the trade adjustment assistance amendment when it comes to the floor for a vote later today.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of PFClass Arick Michael Dobson Tarr, who died at the young age of 20 on July 30, 2011, at Fort Lewis, in Tacoma, WA, where he was stationed. Private First Class Tarr was assigned to the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry at Fort Lewis and served his country with honor and distinction on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He was preparing to leave in January to return to New Hampshire.

Americans across the country gathered recently to commemorate the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, and to reflect on how the tragic events of that day changed our Nation and all Americans on a personal level. Although Arick was only 10 years old at the time, his life was forever changed by 9/11. That day sparked within him a desire to join the Army and defend the freedoms we hold dear.

Arick defended the American people with courage and distinction, receiving many awards for his service, including the National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, Marksmanship Qualification Badge, and Overseas Service Bar.

Arick is remembered by family and friends as having a larger than life personality and a contagious smile. He understood the importance of family and was a role model for his two brothers and six cousins. Although Arick spent much of his life in South Portland, ME, he was very excited to return to New Hampshire after his service, to attend college and begin a new chapter of his life with his fiancee.

Our Nation can never adequately thank this young hero for his willingness to heed the call to defend the American people and our way of life. I hope that, even in these dark days, Arick's family can find comfort in knowing that all Americans share a

deep appreciation for his brave service and sacrifice.

Arick is survived by his fiance, Stefani Greco; his parents, Richard and Jennifer; and his two brothers, Tanner and Wyatt, all of Litchfield, NH. He also leaves behind a caring extended family. This young hero will be missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to please join me in honoring the bright life and brave service of PFC Arick Tarr.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, and the others who have come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about the importance of getting help for people who have been hit by disasters.

A little more than 2 weeks ago, Tropical Storm Irene came barreling through New Hampshire just as she came barreling through Vermont and New York and New Jersey and North Carolina and so many other States along the east coast. The storm dumped as much as 8 inches of rain in parts of New Hampshire, and the damage to property and infrastructure, especially in the northern part of our State, was significant. The surging waters and high winds destroyed roads and bridges, damaged thousands of homes, left nearly 200,000 without power, devastated businesses, and ruined crops.

While the devastation was terrible, I wish to begin by commending those dedicated first responders and emergency personnel who kept our residents safe and well-informed throughout the storm. I am also grateful for the tireless work of road crews, utility workers, and volunteers from across New Hampshire who began helping families and communities rebuild just as soon as the storm passed. Their hard work and community spirit are deeply appreciated.

For many of the towns hit by Irene, this is the third major flooding event of the year. It is the 7th in the last 2 years. These have been devastating floods.

I have a picture of the town of Plymouth, a beautiful community in northern New Hampshire where Plymouth State University is. What we can barely see in this section of the picture is the new ice hockey arena for Plymouth State that was just completed about a year ago. It is a beautiful, state-of-the-art arena that, unfortunately, was flooded by these floodwaters. Of course, we can see other damage to the town.

Many of the homeowners in the community of Conway, on the other side of the State, are people who suffered some of the worst damage and are elderly and disabled. They are people who are living on fixed incomes, who are least able to recover from this kind of disaster.

Others affected by the disaster are families who are already struggling to cope with difficult economic circumstances. New Hampshire emergency response officials toured Conway today, and they talked to our office and told us about the plight of one young family of three. Sadly, the father was laid off from his job just 3 days before the storm hit, and his wife, who stays at home and takes care of their 3- year-old, doesn't have a job outside the home. So with his layoff, they have lost their entire income, and now their home is so damaged they are worried about being homeless. They have no money to rebuild. Without FEMA assistance, this family could indeed wind up homeless.

Hundreds in the West Lebanon area in the western part of the State across the river from Vermont may be out of work for months. Peg Howard, who owns a boutique gift store in the area, told the Upper Valley News, which is the newspaper that serves Lebanon, that she fears damage from Irene will put her out of business. As a small business owner, she has no parent corporation to help her recover, so assistance from FEMA and other Federal programs may be her only option as she tries to rebuild her business.

Peg and the hundreds of others in New Hampshire and the thousands across the country who have been devastated are taxpayers, and this is their government. They help pay for it. Their tax dollars help fund our government, including FEMA. They have the right to expect that FEMA will be there when they need help.

It is not only sad but it is an outrage that some Members of Congress would deny those people who have been so hard hit by Irene and so many other disasters this year--that Members of Congress would deny them help in their time of need, and for no good reason. The reason is pure partisan politics. It is plain and simple.

Even in the best of circumstances, the costs of Irene would be a significant burden for New Hampshire to shoulder alone. Thankfully, President Obama quickly granted Governor Lynch's request for a major disaster declaration. A number of Federal agencies, including FEMA, are now on the ground providing essential assistance as we begin to restore our State's homes, businesses, roads, and utilities.

But New Hampshire is hardly alone in the need for assistance after Hurricane Irene. Other parts of the country are still rebuilding from disasters earlier this year, such as the devastating tornado in Joplin, MO. Soon FEMA's disaster relief fund, as we have already heard this afternoon, which was already running low prior to the storm, will no longer have the resources needed to continue meeting recovery needs.

In the last 2 weeks, FEMA has spent $300 million providing relief to States hit by Hurricane Irene. Less than $500 million remains, which may not be enough to see us through the end of the month. New Hampshire, and the other States still recovering from disasters would be on their own if that happens. We cannot let that happen. We must act quickly to provide FEMA with the resources it needs to help our citizens and our towns recover.

In northern New England, we have a limited window to rebuild before the onset of winter brings our construction season to a stop. What is more, in New Hampshire, fall is a critical season for

our tourism industry, as thousands of visitors come to take in the beautiful fall foliage. We need to immediately rebuild the bridges Irene destroyed, such as this one in Hart's Location, pictured here. As you can see from this picture, in another couple of weeks, this beautiful mountain, as shown in the background, with all of the green foliage will be turning all sorts of colors because of the fall foliage. If we cannot fix this road and bridges in a number of other places in New Hampshire, we will not be able to have a tourist season that can bring people to the State that can help those people whose jobs depend on that tourism industry. Any delay in FEMA assistance over the next few weeks could have a serious effect on recovery efforts and the hundreds of businesses and their employees who depend on the tourism industry.

Mr. President, I know you agree with me and with the other Senators who have come to the floor this afternoon who believe that natural disasters should be beyond politics and beyond partisanship. The people hurting all across this country are not Democrats or Republicans or Independents. They are citizens. They are taxpayers. Getting them the help they need demands bipartisan cooperation. In the past, we have always been able to come together and get people the help they need. This time should be no different.

I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to work together to address this emergency and provide FEMA the resources it needs to carry out its mission. This has an immediate, real impact on so many Americans and we cannot delay.

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

Madam President, as you know so well as the Senator from New York, across the country this weekend Americans everywhere will gather to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragic events that took place on September 11, 2001. Families from every town, from every city and State will mark this day in their own solemn way and take a moment to remember and honor the nearly 3,000 victims of those senseless attacks. More than any episode in recent American history, the events of 9/11 were experienced on a very personal level all across this country.

No one was untouched by the tragedy of that day. All of us can remember exactly where we were when we heard the news. We remember those frantic hours as we tried to call loved ones. We remember the silence in our skies as our Nation's entire air system shut down. We remember mourning the loss of family, friends, and neighbors; and we remember the fear and uncertainty as we wondered if more attacks were coming.

We remember the sight we all watched on television, again and again-- the sickening sight of the falling towers of the Trade Center. It is a vision that has been forever seared into every American's mind.

As Governor of New Hampshire at the time, I was actually in Washington for a National Governors Association event on early childhood education. I will never forget looking out of my hotel and seeing the smoke rising from the Pentagon.

The attacks of 9/11 forever changed us as a nation. Our entire notion of security was turned upside down. Our government changed, our policies changed, and our view of the world changed. For our children and grandchildren especially, this became one of the defining events of their generation and has left an indelible mark on their world view.

As we gather this weekend, all of us in our own way will take a moment to recall those feelings of sadness and anger and to honor the memories of those we lost. But that loss is not the end of the story, and grief is not the true legacy of 9/11. We are not defined by what happens to us but by how we respond when we are faced with adversity. September 11 did not cripple us as a nation. Instead, it brought out the best in all of us. Our story is really how we responded in the face of this attack--with courage, resolve, and unity. In the aftermath of September 11, we showed the world the true meaning of the American spirit.

The story of America's response to 9/11 starts on that very day with accounts of heroism that we could never have imagined. We remember the firefighters and the other first responders climbing up the stairwells of the burning World Trade Center while others fled down, and how they made the ultimate sacrifice for their selflessness. We remember the courageous passengers on American Airlines Flight 93 who took away the terrorists' greatest weapon, fear, by fighting back even though it meant their lives. And who knows how many lives they saved, whether they stopped that attack.

In the days that followed, all Americans stepped forward in any way they could. Red Cross centers were overwhelmed with volunteer blood donors. Millions of us donated money and offered up prayers. In New Hampshire in the days following the attack I remember joining a crowd of hundreds for a prayer service at St. Paul's Church in Concord. We came together to honor the victims and to comfort each other. The response was incredible. The crowd spilled out into the streets with many waving American flags, holding candles, and singing ``God Bless America.''

In New Hampshire, our State government and our employees refused to buckle under the terrorist threat. We kept the State working on September 11.

I will not forget the more than 100 fire departments across New Hampshire that called our State fire marshal's office to offer their services for

assistance in New York or the countless physicians, rescue workers, and volunteers who made themselves available to help at a moment's notice.

Of course, we cannot tell America's story without telling the story of the men and women in our military who have spent the last decade trying to make sure an attack like this never happens again. Since September 11, more than 5 million men and women have voluntarily joined the Armed Forces to protect America and defend her freedom abroad. More than 6,200 Americans, including 37 troops from New Hampshire, have given the ultimate sacrifice in our Nation's defense. Over 45,000 more have been wounded or injured and returned home with lasting scars. Millions of troops and their families have sustained the toughest, most debilitating tempo of deployments in our Nation's history, often being deployed into war five or six times, enduring constant mental and physical strains in service to our country.

The resolve our troops have demonstrated since 9/11 has yielded a string of successes on an extremely complex battlefield. Our men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice. Countless other high-level terrorist operatives, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, have been killed or captured, and the organization's bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan remain under constant pressure. Al-Qaida and its extremist affiliates' deadly ideology is being questioned around the globe, and the remnants of al-Qaida's diminishing leadership are disorganized and struggling to reestablish themselves in the face of an aggressive U.S. offensive.

As our current Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has remarked, we are ``within reach of strategically defeating al-Qaida.'' Although we can't be complacent and we must remain steadfast in our pursuit, our military should be honored for the gains our Nation has made against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11.

In New Hampshire our Air National Guard deployed almost immediately after the attacks, and every day since September 11, 2011, they have been providing persistent air refueling coverage for homeland defense and for our command issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will forever remember walking through the New Hampshire airport with the New Hampshire National Guard when flights resumed after 9/11. As we walked through, people everywhere stopped what they were doing to applaud the National Guard for their efforts to keep the people of New Hampshire safe.

In the decade since the attacks, Americans have found new appreciation for the service these citizen soldiers provide, and Americans outside the military have learned they have a role to play too. With the heroes of United Flight 93 as their inspiration, everyday Americans have stopped a number of terrorist plots from succeeding. Passengers and flight personnel stopped the December 2001 bomber, the attempt by shoe bomber Richard Reid, and they stopped the Christmas Day 2009 attempt onboard the Northwest Airlines flight. The attempted Times Square bombing last year, as you remember, was in part averted by an alert New York City street vendor.

Perhaps most importantly, as we remember America's 9/11 story this weekend, we should all reflect often the unity we demonstrated in the face of this terrible attack. On September 11 we were not Republicans or Democrats, Black or White, rich or poor. We were all Americans. The attack focused our attention on our common bonds and on the American ideals we all hold dear. We were determined to prove, despite our differences, that the United States of America would persevere and endure. While we have not always maintained that sense of unity in the years since, our memory of it has inspired us and continually reminded us of what is possible when we reach for the best within ourselves.

When the history books are written and America's 9/11 story is told to the generations to follow, I hope it will tell of how we came together to remind the entire world of what this country stands for and who we are as a people; how after our darkest day we rose up with new determination; how instead of turning inward, we chose to confront the evil that had visited our shores and to fight on; and how we continued to be the beacon of hope, liberty, and opportunity that we have always been to the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 6:00 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Minnesota being willing to stay in the chair for a few more minutes before I have to preside so I can take this time to express my concern about what has happened with the failure to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.

The authorization for that administration has expired, and it has led to a partial shutdown of that agency and to 4,000 workers being placed on unpaid furlough. A number of those workers are from New Hampshire. While I know all of us here are glad we were able to come together to reach a bipartisan agreement on raising the debt ceiling and avoiding a financial crisis, I am deeply disappointed that bipartisanship has failed us when it comes to reauthorizing the FAA.

I understand the House may head home for recess today and for the rest of August, stranding 4,000 FAA workers and as many as 70,000--that is right, 70,000--airport construction workers around the country who are out of work until we can get an agreement. So let me review for a minute how we got here.

Since the FAA's authorization expired in 2007, Congress has passed 20 short-term extensions of the FAA. All of those bills, every single one of them, were clean bills intended to keep the FAA running while Congress decided how to deal with the complicated policy issues of a long-term reauthorization. Unfortunately, the 21st time around--that is the time that we are in--the House decided it was no longer important to keep the FAA operating, and 4,000 people are out of work while the House of Representatives may head home for recess.

I appreciate that there are some significant differences between the two long-term FAA authorization bills

passed by the House and the Senate, the most controversial of which centered around the ruling by the National Mediation Board on unionization rules. But that is why Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison appointed Members to a conference committee where the House and Senate could work out our policy differences. So far, the House has refused to appoint conferees. Instead, they have decided to stop negotiating and, unfortunately, to play politics with 4,000 FAA workers and their families.

Right now the FAA has been shut down for 11 days and as long as that shutdown continues, the government will continue to lose $200 million a week, about $30 million a day, that would pay for airport maintenance and safety and for the replacement of our country's outdated air traffic control system. If the shutdown continues through the August recess, we are going to lose over $1 billion in revenue that could be used to upgrade our air transportation system. That is waste of the worst kind, and it makes our deficit problems worse at a time when everybody says they are so focused on the deficits.

Every day the shutdown continues has a very real, very painful impact on people all around the country who have been furloughed. I hope the House, in leaving for recess, has left open the opportunity to continue to address this dispute and resolve it in a way that will bring everybody back to work.

The FAA has issued stop-work orders for 241 airport construction projects worth nearly $11 billion that support 70,000 jobs. Again, these are real people who are being forced to make real sacrifices.

In my State of New Hampshire, a $16 million project to rebuild the runway of Boire Field in Nashua will be delayed if we don't pass an extension. Boire Field is the busiest general aviation airport in New England, and breaking ground this fall on the runway reconstruction project would have created 50 jobs. Instead, because of this delay, construction likely won't begin until spring and those 50 people are going to have to wait, something that shouldn't have to happen. The tragedy is they won't have jobs, not because they don't have the skills or that the project isn't needed but because the House is playing politics with the FAA. Forty-two employees at the FAA's air traffic control center in Nashua have been furloughed and this shutdown is taking a terrible toll on them. I want to tell you about one, Steve Finnerty from Bedford.

I talked to Steve earlier today. He is a civil engineer and he has worked for the FAA for the last 15 years. He is the sole breadwinner for his family of five. He has a young daughter and a pair of 1-year- old twins who are struggling with medical issues. He has already lost nearly 2 weeks of pay, and he is not sure that he is going to get that pay back even when he does go back to work. He is concerned, understandably, about how he is going to pay his mortgage and his doctor bills and the grocery bills and all the other needs his family has. Now he is facing the possibility of an entire month without pay.

There are thousands of people all across the country who are stuck in the same circumstance who want to get back to work, who we need to get back to work. We need them to get back to work so they can pay their mortgages and their children's college tuitions and their medical bills. We need them to get back to work so they can continue to build a GPS-based air traffic control system like every other industrialized country has. We need to get this economy moving again. That means we need to be serious about our responsibilities here in Washington. Let's pass a clean extension of the FAA. Let's get these people back to work, and let's go about the business of rebuilding a modern air traffic control system like we should have in the United States.

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