Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2011. This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that every State has either a full-service veterans hospital or, in the alternative, that veterans in every State have access to comparable in-state hospital care and medical services. I am pleased that my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this measure.

New Hampshire is currently the only State that does not have either a full-service veterans medical center or a military hospital providing comparable services to veterans. While the staff of the Manchester VA Medical Center does an excellent job of caring for our State's veterans, this facility does not provide inpatient surgical care, emergency services or care in a number of critical specialties. This imposes a great burden on many New Hampshire veterans who are forced to travel out of state for a range of medical services.

New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this number continues to grow as our troops return from major deployments in the Middle East. It is unconscionable that our veterans must board shuttles to larger VA facilities in Massachusetts or Vermont to get the medical care they have been promised in exchange for their service. Often, especially during the winter months, travel is difficult in New England, and our veterans should not be forced to drive long distances in order to receive the medical care they have earned and deserve.

Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans get the care they need as close to home as possible. This legislation provides the Department of Veterans Affairs with the flexibility to achieve this end in the most cost-effective manner. If it is not feasible for the VA to construct a new full-service hospital in New Hampshire or to provide the full panoply of hospital services at its existing medical center in Manchester, the legislation simply requires the VA to contract with other health providers to offer comparable in-state care.

I introduced similar legislation in the 111th Congress with our former colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. Since that time, the VA has established an effective contractual relationship with one hospital in New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, to expand in-state care for our veterans. I believe this type of partnership could be readily expanded. I have begun working with officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs to

find innovative ways to enhance public-private health care partnerships in New Hampshire and look forward to furthering that dialogue.

Our veterans deserve access to first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize this inequity and support this effort to provide New Hampshire veterans with the same access to quality local health care that veterans in every other State enjoy.

I look forward to working with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation, with my Senate colleagues and with the Obama administration to end this injustice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I took the opportunity yesterday in an Armed Services Committee subcommittee to ask Department of Defense officials who have been responsible for maintaining our military technological edge what the impact would be on DOD's research if Congress does not reauthorize the SBIR Program. Assistant Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is ``something we absolutely need.'' He spoke of what it is like talking to small innovative companies he works with through SBIR, and he told me:

There are small companies willing to take some risk in

areas where larger companies just, for whatever reason, just

don't. You spend a day with a small business like that, and

your mind explodes with new ideas.

That is the kind of innovative spirit we need to stay competitive. We need this for America's national security, and as the Senator from Louisiana points out, this is a program that creates jobs.

We need to get this reauthorization done. We need to talk about regulatory reform, but we need to do this first.

In a few minutes we will be voting on whether to move forward with a bill reauthorizing a program that is critically important to my home State of New Hampshire and the entire country--the Small Business Innovation Research program, or SBIR.

As Chair Landrieu has pointed out, the Senate has been debating this bill for 5 weeks now. My colleagues and I from the Small Business Committee have come to the floor several times to talk about the importance of this program for the future of our economy. The bottom line is that SBIR promotes innovation among the entrepreneurs that will keep the American economy competitive in the 21st century.

But as we decide whether to move forward with this bill--which has broad bipartisan support--I wanted to talk about the importance of SBIR--not just for our small businesses, but also for our national defense.

Many agencies have come to rely on small, innovative companies to help them think outside the box and solve important problems. This is especially true for agencies that are charged with protecting our national security. Agencies like the Department of Defense rely on small companies to perform R&D that often leads to technologies that help our troops in the battlefield and help secure our country.

I took the opportunity yesterday at an Armed Services Committee hearing to ask the Department of Defense officials responsible for maintaining our military's technological edge what the impact would be on DOD's research if Congress did not reauthorize SBIR. Assistant Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is ``something we absolutely need.'' He discussed what it is like talking to the small, innovative entrepreneurs that he works with through the SBIR program. He told me, ``there are small companies willing to take some risk in areas where larger companies just, for whatever reason, just don't. You spend a day with a small business like that, and your mind explodes with new ideas.''

That is the kind of innovative spirit that we need to stay competitive. And it is the same spirit that agencies like the Department of Defense need to keep America secure. In 2010, the Department of Defense issued nearly 3,000 awards through the SBIR program.

Let me give just one example of a company in my State that has benefitted from the SBIR program and has helped the Department of Defense develop a product that is currently helping our troops carry out their missions.

Earlier this year, I visited a firm called Active Shock in Manchester, NH. Active Shock showed me the suspension technologies that it developed with funding from a competitive SBIR award. These technologies are now used by the Department of Defense to help our troops in the field. They help stabilize our war vehicles in rough terrain.

This is exactly the kind of high-tech product that is developed as a result of SBIR. And SBIR awards are absolutely critical for these small companies. Bill Larkins, the CEO of Active Shock, told me that Active Shock would simply not be here today were it not for the SBIR program. The products that Active Shock developed also have commercial applications, so the SBIR awards have helped them grow and create jobs. Active Shock started with only a few employees; now, it has grown to over 30 employees.

Active Shock is just one of many small firms in New Hampshire that have successfully competed for funding through SBIR in the 28 years it has been in existence. All across New Hampshire, small businesses that otherwise would not be able to compete for federal R&D funding have won competitive SBIR grants that advance technology and science and create good jobs. In just the last 2 years, New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR awards.

And many of these companies are helping the Department of Defense meet its R&D needs--in fact, despite its small size, New Hampshire is ranked 22nd in the Nation for total grants awarded from the Department of Defense since SBIR began.

We need to focus on smart ways to create jobs and stay competitive. This

program is critical for meeting that goal. But we also need to remember that SBIR also enhances our national security.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important program.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Murray and Mikulski for gathering with us today and all of my colleagues who are here. I am proud to join them.

Tomorrow we expect to vote on House proposals to defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. These resolutions have been offered not because anyone argues they create jobs or improve health care but

because House Republicans were willing to shut down the Federal Government if they did not receive a vote on Planned Parenthood and health care. That is right. Even though shutting down the government would have meant furloughing 800,000 people, including members of the military, they were willing to shut down the government.

This kind of a threat, especially in a recession, is irresponsible. Planned Parenthood is a critical provider of women's health care, especially to low-income individuals. Mr. President, 1.4 million Medicaid patients around the country--mostly women but not all--depend on Planned Parenthood as their main source of primary and preventive health care. They depend on Planned Parenthood for contraceptives, screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, and for screenings for breast and cervical cancer. In some parts of New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of preventative services for low-income women. It serves almost 16,000 patients annually. In a time of economic hardship, we should not be taking steps to reduce access to health care.

Let's be clear. This vote has nothing to do with abortion. By law, Planned Parenthood cannot use Federal funds for abortions. Moreover, Planned Parenthood provides family planning services that greatly reduce the occurrence of unplanned pregnancies. It is ironic that many of the most ardent opponents of abortion are the very people who want to shut down the family planning services that prevent unplanned pregnancies.

This vote is also not about deficit reduction. Despite what some Members of the Senate have claimed, 97 percent of the reproductive health services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire--and throughout most of the country--are preventive care. Over 90 percent are for preventive care. As we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and saves lives. Detecting cancer early through regular screenings greatly increases a patient's quality of life and chances of survival. In the long run it is vastly cheaper for patients in the health care system, and the Federal Government, for diseases to be prevented or treated early.

One of my constituents from Rochester, a mother of two, told me about her oldest daughter who works for a small restaurant. Her daughter can't afford health insurance, and it is not provided where she works. For her regular checkups and preventive care, she relies on Planned Parenthood. Because of the history of cervical cancer in her family, her daughter was regularly screened, and it was Planned Parenthood that first diagnosed her daughter with cervical cancer. Because of that early diagnosis, her daughter was able to obtain successful lifesaving treatment. There are countless stories such as this. We heard some of them this afternoon.

I also wish to address the other House proposal we have been discussing this afternoon. It is a proposal that would also hurt women's health care. That is the pending resolution to deny funding for health care reform. Already the Affordable Care Act is working for women across the country. As of last year, it is illegal for insurance companies to require women to obtain preauthorizations or referrals to access OB/GYN care. But there is a lot of work that still has to be done.

Currently, women in the individual health care market pay up to 48 percent more in premiums than men. Beginning in 2014, this kind of discrimination, because of the new health care law, will be outlawed. Issuers will be banned from issuing discriminatory gender ratings to charge women and small businesses with predominantly female workforces more for the same coverage.

In the same year, 2014, health care reform also makes it illegal for insurers to deny health care coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, designations which have often been used to discriminate against women. Many women across the country today are denied coverage for preexisting conditions such as breast or cervical cancer, having had a C-section, or even just being pregnant. Some women have even been denied coverage for having sought out medical care for domestic or sexual violence. It is critical that we ensure low-income women have access to health care in these difficult times and that we ensure that all women have access to health care.

I urge my colleagues to vote against these two provisions tomorrow, these ideological attacks on women's health care. Let's get back to the business of creating jobs and dealing with this country's debt and deficit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Captain David Lang for his outstanding service to the people of Hampton, NH.

For the past 30 years, Dave has worked to protect his community through his faithful service with the Hampton Fire Department. As he retires from the department, I applaud him for his longstanding service and dedication to the people of Hampton.

Captain Lang first joined the Hampton Fire Department in December 1979 as an on-call firefighter. Due to his eagerness, hard work, and reliability, Dave rose through the ranks from permanent firefighter, to EMT, to lieutenant, and for the last 4 years has served as captain.

During his tenure, Captain Lang consistently prioritized the needs of the community over his own, in particular during the Old Salt fire in 1999 and the A Street block fire in 2009. He has been credited with the successful resuscitation of a patient in cardiac arrest and the rescue of several trapped civilians. For this outstanding service, Captain Lang has been recognized by the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police as Law Officer of the Year for Fire Service and has received the New Hampshire Fire Academy's prestigious Academy Award.

Dave's commitment to fire safety in Hampton did not stop with his service in the field but carried over into professional leadership roles. Throughout his career, he participated in the Professional Fire Fighters Association of New Hampshire and for the past 16 years has served as its president. I am pleased that even as Dave retires from the Hampton Fire Department, he continues to serve as President of the Professional Fire Fighters.

Dave is a native of New Hampshire and has lived in Hampton for over 30 years. I have known him personally and professionally for over 20 years and can attest to his commitment to public service, to his community, and to his family. Dave has been married to his wife Karen for 35 years and they have two beautiful daughters, Emily and Molly. His strong character and generous spirit touch upon all aspects of his work and family life, and his dedication and leadership in the community distinguishes him as an extraordinary public servant. New Hampshire is truly lucky to have him as a native son.

On a personal note, I am grateful to Dave for his support and counsel during my years in public office. I could always count on Dave's advice about issues ranging from firefighting and emergency response to collective bargaining. Whenever I needed Dave's assistance in any capacity, he was always there, willing to help.

As Captain Lang prepares for a well-deserved retirement, I wish to thank and honor him for his service to the people of Hampton.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma. I don't think there is a single Senator in this Chamber who doesn't recognize that we have to deal with the debt and the deficit this country is facing. But the reality is that we are not going to deal with that on the 12 percent of the budget that is nondefense discretionary spending. We have to look at mandatory spending and tax reform, and we need to do it in a thoughtful way that recognizes that we need to invest in our future and make the cuts where we can do it, without harming the future of this country.

Mr. President, I am really sad that we are here at the eleventh hour on the floor of the Senate looking at a probable government shutdown at midnight tonight. It didn't have to be this way. I was disappointed to read accounts of some of our colleagues in the other Chamber, on the other side of the Capitol, who were literally applauding when they were told that a government shutdown was coming. The people of my State of New Hampshire are not applauding. They don't want a shutdown because they know that a shutdown of the Federal Government is bad for the country, bad for the economy, and it is bad for the people of New Hampshire.

Let me begin by going over some of what is going to happen in New Hampshire if the government shuts down. I have spoken before about companies in my home State of New Hampshire who are affected by our inability to get a budget done--companies such as Velcro USA. I think we all know what Velcro is. I am proud to say it is produced in New Hampshire, and it was invented there. The United States military is a major customer for Velcro. It is a major customer of the company, Velcro USA, because Velcro is used in soldiers' uniforms and equipment. Normally, the government is a steady customer of Velcro USA, but now they have been waiting for months for us in Congress to pass a full- year funding bill for the government. A shutdown will mean increased uncertainty for the company and for the hundreds of employees who work there.

We heard from another company in my home State, a small, innovative, high-tech company which has said even the smallest shutdown is going to have dire effects. They said they would lose 95 percent of their revenue if we have a shutdown. This is a small business that has about 45 employees, but it is a

business that has a lot of growth potential. It is exactly the kind of innovative company that will keep America's economy competitive. They were planning to hire 16 people this year--increasing their workforce by about one-third. But that will be put on hold if we have a government shutdown.

Then there is the housing market. In New Hampshire and across the country, it is still very fragile, probably the slowest to recover sector of our economy. In New Hampshire foreclosure rates are down 12 percent from a year ago, but they are still at historic highs. FHA home loan guarantees have been critical to the recovery in the housing market.

Again, all of that is going to stop in a shutdown. No new FHA loans could be approved. If there is a closing scheduled or someone is trying to buy a foreclosed home or any home, with FHA help, the deal is off-- or at least it will be on hold.

With all of the problems that have been caused by the housing crisis, we should not be hamstringing one of the most effective programs we have for assisting homeowners; and that is what we are going to do if there is a government shutdown.

A shutdown would also close the Small Business Administration's lending programs. We all know how important working capital is for small businesses, which is still a problem.

Then, of course, there are the 7,400 Federal workers in New Hampshire. That makes the Federal Government one of our State's largest employers. They don't know when paychecks are going to start again or if they are going to get backpay. Their salary just isn't important for them and their families, but these 7,400 hard-working New Hampshire citizens are critical to their local economy. When their pay stops, they stop making their mortgage payments, they stop paying their utility bills, they stop shopping at local stores. These are just some of the effects of a shutdown on the economy in my State of New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is a small State, but if we multiply these economic impacts across our entire country, this shutdown carries the real risk of undermining our fragile economic recovery. Why is this happening? We have an agreement, pretty much, on how much we are going to cut in spending. In fact, the Senate has gone more than 50 percent toward meeting the House in the cuts they want to make in the budget.

This is not about how much money we are going to cut from the budget; this is happening because we have a small minority in Congress who wants to use the Federal budget to prevent women from having access to family planning and other reproductive health care services.

My colleague, Senator Coons, talked very eloquently about what title X does. Title X funding provides reproductive health services to women who otherwise could not access those services. That includes contraceptives, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for breast and cervical cancer. It provides preventive care for women who, in so many cases, in New Hampshire and across the country would not be able to get access to that health care.

In New Hampshire we have 28 clinics that receive title X funds, including community health centers, health department clinics and hospitals, outpatient clinics, as well as Planned Parenthood.

This fight is not about reducing our debt. It is time now to put ideology aside, to work together in a bipartisan way, to get this budget back on track and passed so the people of this country can be confident that we are going to continue the economic recovery that has started and make sure we can put people back to work and support the small businesses and the people of this country who depend on the work we do in Washington.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I appreciate the Senator's kind remarks. Doesn't the Senator think if we had that biennial budget process in place now, we would not be on the floor debating whether we are going to have a shutdown, and that we would have a budget process that was going forward? As he points out, we have next year to provide oversight and accountability on that budget, and we would have the dependability and certainty that businesses and the people of this country are looking for; isn't that right?

I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Madam President, as Congress and the Obama administration grapples with how to responsibly address our long-term deficit, we need to remember why it is so important to get on a path to balanced budgets. We need to a dress the long-term deficit because it is a threat to America's future prosperity. It is about economic growth and jobs. That is why the deficit matters. The deficit is not just some math problem where it is solved if the numbers add up right. The choices we make, which spending programs we cut which tax expenditures we eliminate, where we continue to boost investment, matter.

The overarching challenge facing our country is how we keep our economy competitive.

We cannot compete with India and China for low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not our future.

America's future is in continuing to be the global leader in science and technology. America makes the best, most innovative products and services, and that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation.

But we are in danger of losing that edge. Science, technology, engineering and math, what we call the STEM fields, are the skills that drive innovation.

And jobs in the STEM fields are expected to be the fastest-growing occupations of the next decade. However, not enough students in our country are pursuing an education in STEM subjects to keep up with the increased demand.

For those students that do pursue education in STEM fields, they are being outperformed by international competitors. Studies show that by the end of eighth grade, students in the U.S. are 2 years behind their international peers in math. American students rank 21st in science and 25th in math among industrialized countries. In addition, the U.S. has produced a declining number of Ph.Ds in science and engineering compared to the European Union and China over the past 3 decades. It is clear that to remain competitive internationally, we must encourage and strengthen the supply of STEM-trained graduates.

That is why this week Leader Reid and Senators Klobuchar, Kerry, Begich, Coons and I introduced legislation, the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program, which will bolster our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy.

My legislation will provide new incentives for our schools to think outside the box and embrace extracurricular and nontraditional STEM education programs. It establishes a competitive grant program that will encourage schools to partner with the private sector, both for financial support and to provide mentors who can serve as guides and role models to students.

I am proud that New Hampshire is the home to the FIRST Robotics program. For over a decade, teams of students have been designing robots to compete against one another in regional, then national, competitions. On Monday we hosted FIRST teams from Maryland and Virginia who demonstrated in the Dirksen building how the robots they designed and built actually work. It is these kinds of nontraditional STEM programs that make

a difference in the students' lives and inspire them to continue in STEM careers or postsecondary education.

In fact, research shows that 99 percent of students who participate in FIRST Robotics graduate high school and almost 90 percent go on the college. And once in college, these students are nearly seven times more likely to major in engineering and twice as likely to major in computer science. They are also significantly more likely to attain a postgraduate degree. The data speaks for itself: investments in these sorts of programs matter and make a difference.

I urge colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will inspire our students to become scientists, engineers, computer programmers and mathematicians. Our country's economic future depends on it.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am here to join my colleagues who have been on the floor of the Senate today, with the leadership of Senator Boxer, to oppose amendments that would undermine the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act has been one of the greatest public health success stories we have ever had in this country. In 1970, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass this landmark legislation to address air pollution that was leading to countless deaths and lifetimes spent battling chronic illness, illnesses such as asthma and emphysema. That legislation, back in 1970, was signed into law by President Richard Nixon.

It is very clear that the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to public health is real. Two years ago the EPA found that manmade greenhouse gas emissions threaten the health and welfare of the American people. Their decision was not made in a vacuum and, despite what some of the supporters of these harmful amendments may claim, EPA's decision was based on the best peer-reviewed science. They were guided by the best science protecting the public health, not politics. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Trust for America's Health and the American Thoracic Society--some of our Nation's leading public health experts--all opposed these misguided efforts to stop EPA from protecting our clean air.

We have heard the same story from polluters over and over. Today they tell us that reducing carbon pollution through the EPA will wreck our economy. Back in 1970, and then again in 1990, they said the Clean Air Act would wreck our economy. Time and again we have heard the same arguments, and they have not been true. It reminds me of Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf.

Since we passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, we have dramatically reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants. We have improved air quality, and we have improved the public health. The EPA estimates that last year alone the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits.

This is particularly important to us in New Hampshire and in New England because we are effectively the tailpipe of this country. In New Hampshire we have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country because we are still phasing out some of the coal-fired plants in the Midwest that are causing these air emissions.

During the same period--since the Clean Air Act saved all of those illnesses and deaths last year--we have been able to grow our economy. Our gross domestic product has more than tripled, and the average household income has grown more than 45 percent. So we know we can protect public health, we can save our environment, and we can grow our economy.

I recognize that as Governor of New Hampshire when, back in 2001, we passed the first legislation in the country to deal with four pollutants because we understood that we needed to clean up our air and that we could do that and protect public health and keep a strong economy all at the same time. I wish that same can-do spirit and bipartisanship that led to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 and then later the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990--I wish that same can- do spirit existed today to address carbon pollution. Instead of debating amendments to undercut the Clean Air Act, we should be working together to enact commonsense legislation to reduce carbon pollution and to continue to grow our economy.

I have no doubt that the American people have the ingenuity and the competitive spirit to solve our energy challenges. What they need from us in Washington is leadership.

I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments and then to work together to craft energy policies that can help move us away from a carbon economy and transition to a clean energy economy.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, if I could begin in the spirit of morning business, I am here to talk about the importance of passing the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. I think it is important because our future economic prosperity depends on whether this country can continue to be a leader in science and innovation. We can't compete with India and China for those low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not the future of America. Our future is to be the global leader in science and technology. America makes the best, most innovative products and services, and that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation.

As a former small business owner, I know it is business and not government that creates jobs, but I also know government has a critical role to play in fostering a positive business climate. I believe there are a few things we need to do to unleash the innovative spirit that is so alive and well throughout this country, and particularly in my home State of New Hampshire.

To maintain the creative dominance that has allowed us to lead the world in innovation, we do need to enact a long-term reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, or the SBIR Program.

SBIR is not just a typical grant program. Under the SBIR Program a small business is able to compete for research that Federal agencies need to accomplish their missions--agencies such as the Department of Defense. Small businesses employ about one-third of America's scientists and engineers and produce more patents than large businesses and universities. Yet small business receives only about 4 percent of Federal research and development dollars. SBIR ensures that small business gets a tiny fraction of existing Federal research dollars.

In the last few months, as we have been talking about the SBIR Program in the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on which I serve, I have had the chance to visit a number of New Hampshire companies that are doing cutting-edge research and are growing their businesses because of the SBIR Program. This research has allowed them to develop new products and customers and to hire new workers. I wish to talk specifically about one of those companies because they have such a great story. It is a company called Airex, and it is in Somersworth, NH. Their story shows just how the SBIR Program encourages innovation and creates jobs.

When I visited Airex, I had a chance to see some of the impressive technologies the company has developed. Airex specializes in electromagnetic motors and components. As they explained to me, their motors don't go round and round, they go back and forth. Its employees design and produce everything from motors used to make Apple's iPad, to gyroscopic coils that are used to stabilize the artillery system on Abrams tanks. So they produce a wide divergence of products.

In the past decade Airex has more than doubled its revenues and its workforce largely because of the products it developed with the support of the SBIR Program. Jim Sedgewick, who is the President of Airex, told me SBIR was critically important for the development of the products that enabled the company to add several good-paying jobs in New Hampshire.

For example, Airex was able to compete for and win a grant to do research for the Air Force on materials needed for strategic missile defense. In order to conduct the research Airex had to develop a new electromagnetic motor. Since the motor that Airex developed had tremendous commercial potential, Airex secured a patent. Now that motor is used in the production process for the Apple iPad and, as my colleagues can imagine, sales for that motor have increased dramatically in recent years as the iPad has become so popular.

The same is true for several other products Airex developed with the help of SBIR. Airex products continue to be in high demand not just in America but across the world. Exports now account for 30 percent of Airex's revenues, so they are a great story on the export front too. Airex told me its biggest export products are the ones that were developed with the support of the SBIR Program.

If we are going to out-compete and out-innovate the rest of the world, we need to encourage the kind of innovation that has made Airex so successful. SBIR was integral to making Airex's success a reality. That is why SBIR must continue to be an important part of our strategy for staying competitive in the 21st century.

Airex is just one of many New Hampshire small businesses that have successfully competed for SBIR funding in the 28 years the program has been in existence. All across New Hampshire small businesses that otherwise wouldn't be able to compete for Federal R&D funding have won competitive grants to advance technology and science and create good jobs. In just the last 2 years New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR awards. In fact, despite its small size, although it is a little bigger than Delaware, as the Presiding Officer knows, New Hampshire is ranked 22nd in the Nation for total grants awarded through the Department of Defense since SBIR began.

So I know the Presiding Officer knows we need to focus on smart ways to create jobs and stay competitive. We all know small firms are where the jobs are created in the United States, and we know the future of the American economy rests with innovation. The SBIR Program must be one important part of our overall strategy to encourage the innovation that will keep the American economy strong through the 21st century.

So I am pleased to be here to support SBIR, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this important program.

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

Madam President, I know we are about to recess, but I wish to take a minute or two to add my voice to all the women in the Senate who have been here today and thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership for encouraging us to honor Geraldine Ferraro.

I remember being on the floor of the 1984 Democratic Convention when she gave her acceptance speech for the Vice President of the United States, and it was electric listening to her. It epitomized for me, and I am sure every woman there, the fact that women could do anything.

Geraldine Ferraro worked tirelessly on behalf of human rights and women's rights around the globe. She dedicated her public service to the ideals of respect and equality and she lived a career that called on all women to challenge the glass ceilings of the world. I think it is particularly important because just because one woman breaks the glass ceiling doesn't mean opportunities are open to every woman, and she understood that and continued to encourage all the ceilings across the world to be broken for women.

Gerry's life was a powerful example for all of us who are honoring her today and for our daughters and granddaughters. We thank her for leading the way. She will be missed.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for those nice words and also for her leadership. We are all indebted to Senator Landrieu and Ranking Member Snowe for their leadership of the Small Business Committee and in bringing forward this legislation before us, the small business innovation research program.

They worked very hard in the last session of Congress to get this bill through the Senate, and it would have passed then except the House adjourned before taking it up. I am thrilled that we are getting back to it this early in this session.

I think most of us recognize that our future economic prosperity depends on whether this country continues to be a leader in science and innovation. We can't compete with India, China, and other Third World countries for low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not our future. America's future is to be the global leader in science and technology. America makes the best, most innovative products and services. That ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation.

As a former small business owner, I understand it is the private sector and business, and not government, that is responsible for most of the job creation in this country. But I also understand that government has a critical role to play in fostering the positive business climate that we need in this country to remain competitive. I believe there are a few things we can do through policy to unleash the innovative spirit that is so alive and well throughout this country, and particularly in my State of New Hampshire.

One of those policy initiatives that we can do that is essential in maintaining the creative dominance that has allowed us to lead the world in innovation is to enact a long-term reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program or the SBIR Program.

SBIR is not just a typical grant program. Under the SBIR Program, a small business is able to compete for research that Federal agencies need to accomplish their mission--agencies such as the Department of Defense. Small businesses employ about one-third of America's scientists and engineers and produce more patents than large businesses and universities. Yet small business receives only about 4 percent of Federal research and development dollars.

SBIR ensures that small business gets a tiny fraction of the existing Federal research dollars. Just in the last few weeks, I visited three New Hampshire companies that are doing cutting edge research because of the SBIR Program. Those three are Airex in Somersworth, Spire Semiconductor in Hudson, and Active Shock in Manchester. The research they have done under the SBIR Program has allowed them to develop new products, to add customers, and hire new workers--in other words, create jobs. All three have done essential research for the Department of Defense.

Airex, for example, has developed a state-of-the-art program to manufacture critical components for our Nation's strategic missiles. This SBIR award positioned them perfectly to compete and win a contract to manufacture motors for use in military programs and to commercialize their research. They have been able to expand from a workforce of 10 to, currently, 25 workers since they got that SBIR award, and they are continuing to grow.

In Hanover, we have a company called Creare that is a poster child for the economic benefit that can be reaped through the SBIR Program. Senator Landrieu has talked on the floor about Qualcomm in San Diego. We should put Creare in Hanover, NH, in the same category as Qualcomm.

Creare can trace more than $670 million of revenues they have earned because of the SBIR Program, its spinoffs, and technology licensees for the commercialization of its SBIR projects.

Many New Hampshire small businesses have successfully competed for SBIR funding in the 28 years since the program has been in existence. All across New Hampshire, small businesses that otherwise would not be able to compete for Federal R&D funding have won competitive SBIR grants that advance technology and science and create good jobs--what we all want to happen right now in this economy.

In just the last 2 years, New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR awards, and, in fact, despite its small size, New Hampshire is ranked 22nd in the country for the total grants awarded through the Department of Defense under the SBIR Program.

As a Senator from New Hampshire, I take particular pride in the SBIR Program because it was New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman who, back in 1982, sponsored the Small Business Innovation Development Act which established the SBIR Program.

SBIR has a proven track record and its cost, as Chair Landrieu has said so often on the floor, is minimal. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost only $150 million over the next 5 years, and most of that minimal cost would have zero impact on the budget. That is because what this bill does is establish a 3-year pilot program that authorizes participating agencies to use the same dollars they set aside anyway for SBIR research to pay for administrative costs. That means we will not be using general operating funds to pay for administrative costs, and this bill imposes no mandates on business and imposes no costs on State and local governments.

We need to address the long-term deficit and debt in this country. Our colleague from Oklahoma just spoke very eloquently to the need to do that and what it is going to take. We all know that. But the best way we can start dealing with the debt and deficit is through more robust economic growth. Objecting to the SBIR Program, as some have done, on the grounds that we should be focusing on the deficit alone makes no sense at all because the jobs created by the SBIR Program will lower the deficit.

Just like stopgap budgeting is bad for business, so are stopgap extensions of the SBIR Program. Unfortunately, SBIR has been operating under short-term extensions--10 of them--since 2008. Short-term extensions are a problem because, as I hear and I know we all hear regularly from businesses--they need certainty in planning. This bill reauthorizes the SBIR Program for 8 years. It is a reasonable period of time, and it will allow small businesses and Federal agencies to effectively plan their research.

I know we have heard from some quarters and it has become fashionable on the part of some people to say that this country's best days are behind us. But I do not believe that for one moment. As I have traveled around New Hampshire, I see cutting-edge innovators who are creating jobs. We in the Senate know what needs to be done. We just need the will to do it.

I urge all our colleagues to join Senator Landrieu, Ranking Member Snowe, and the Small Business Committee in voting to reauthorize and strengthen the SBIR Program.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business until 5:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, we have now almost a 9-percent unemployment rate in this country. I think the good news is that unemployment dropped to 8.9 percent, but it is still way too high. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit. Yet, despite these enormous challenges, Congress still has not passed a Federal budget for this year. Our deadline to pass a 2011 appropriations bill was September 30 of last year, but Congress still has failed to meet that deadline. Last week, we passed our fifth short-term continuing resolution to keep the Government open.

At some point soon, I think maybe this evening, we are going to be voting on the House Republicans' package of budget cuts that I believe threaten our economic recovery. After moving on from that, we will still need to pass another continuing resolution by the end of next week in order to avoid a Government shutdown.

While we are debating these short-term continuing resolutions, in China and India and Germany, they are debating long-term investments in education, energy, technology, and research. Those are the decisions with the potential to shape the global economy for many decades to come. Meanwhile, here at home, we are fighting about whether we are going to keep the Government open for 2 weeks. This kind of short-term budgeting is not just hurting our future, it is hurting our economy today.

Just last week, I heard from a company in New Hampshire about the effects of Congress's failure to pass a full-year budget. The company is called Nitro Security and it is located in Portsmouth, NH. It is a company that is at the forefront of the emerging cyber security industry. Even in a difficult economy over the last couple years, they were named one of the 600 fastest growing private companies in the Nation. Yet, despite most of their business coming from the private sector, Nitro Security also has significant contracts protecting data systems at the Department of Defense, NASA, and even the Food and Drug Administration. They should be creating jobs and helping to get our economy moving again, but because Congress cannot conduct its business on time, their stalled contracts mean they have not been able to hire new workers. We are missing out on these jobs because Washington's budget process is broken.

Congress needs to do better. In the last 30 years, Congress has only completed the annual budget process on time twice--just two times in the last 30 years. That is a 7-percent success rate. Solving our long- term deficit problems and reinvigorating our economy is going to require tough choices, but we are never going to be able to make these choices until we change the way Washington does business. That is why I joined Senator Isakson in proposing the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, to bring sorely needed oversight and long-term planning to the Federal budget process. Our legislation would dedicate the first year of a Congress to appropriating Federal dollars and devote the second year to scrutinizing Federal programs to determine if they are working and deserve continued funding.

Because of annual budgeting, Members of Congress do not have the time we need to conduct careful, thorough reviews of Federal programs, and Federal agency staff are required to dedicate countless hours every year to preparing the budget and to explaining what they do, rather than accomplishing critical missions. As a result, we continue to spend money on projects that are duplicative, sometimes failing, and often no longer useful.

In fact, just last week, the Government Accountability Office released a landmark report on Government duplication and overlap. The report reveals that in as many as 34 different areas across the Federal Government, agencies are offering overlapping services to similar populations.

As we think about how we need to address our debt and deficit, we should begin by eliminating these kinds of duplicative programs. That is the type of reform we should be considering. We should be eliminating duplication and making targeted cuts and investments in our future. We should be making investments in projects such as the Memorial Bridge, which connects New Hampshire and Maine and is a critical economic engine for the seacoast region of New Hampshire and Maine and the shipyard that is so vital to making sure we can upgrade the ships in our Navy.

Even though this bridge has been recognized as a national priority and it enjoys support from the Maine and New Hampshire Senate delegations, the project to replace the bridge has been threatened by ill-considered, reckless cuts in the House of Representatives' continuing resolution. These are the consequences of short-term budgetary thinking: They are penny wise and pound foolish.

In another example we have in New Hampshire, the Bureau of Prisons has recently completed construction of a Federal prison in the north country of New Hampshire in a community called Berlin. The cost--$276 million. As the construction was wrapping up, the Bureau of Prisons requested activation funding for fiscal year 2011 to hire rank-and-file officers and begin getting this prison ready to open. But because we are operating on this short-term continuing resolution that fails to account for these types of situations, we now have a state-of-the-art, $276 million prison that is sitting vacant. We have a warden who is there who is waiting to hire staff. The Bureau of Prisons needs the 1,280 inmate beds this facility will provide. The community needs the $40 million annual economic impact from this prison and the 340 jobs this facility will provide. But none of these important objectives are being met because our budget process is not working. Instead, the Bureau of Prisons is spending $4 million a year to maintain an empty building.

As Members of Congress, we are entrusted with the responsibilities of spending taxpayer dollars wisely. Our current budget and spending process makes it all too easy for waste and inefficiency to remain hidden and, at the same time, important priorities are neglected by the whims of a chaotic annual budgeting process. Switching to biennial budgeting will not solve all our problems, but it would certainly be an important step toward greater oversight, increased accountability, and a more responsible government.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Harkin for his efforts over the years to try to move us to a biennial budget and a process that gets a budget done that makes a lot more sense and allows us to be a lot more thoughtful about how we are supporting programs in our Federal Government.

We will.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership. I thank Senator Mikulski for the work she has done to organize us this afternoon, to point out just what is being proposed by our colleagues in the other Chamber.

We need to address our long-term deficit. We all know that. We need to make some hard choices to balance the budget. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to first look at things such as eliminating the billions of dollars in duplicative programs that were identified just this week by the GAO. The wrong way is to address the deficit by doing what our colleagues in the House did when they slashed funding for services that are critical to middle- class families and our future prosperity.

The House Republican budget cuts include a $1.1 billion cut to Head Start and childcare. This is money that is critical to so many working families in New Hampshire and across the country. Let me put it into perspective. A cut this size would mean that nationally over 200,000 children would be kicked out of Head Start and an additional 360,000 children would lose childcare opportunities.

I have three daughters and seven grandchildren. So I understand, like so many mothers do, how difficult it is to juggle work and family obligations. I appreciate how important it is for working parents to understand that their children are being supervised by quality caregivers. I also understand that a working parent can be a productive member of the workforce only when they know their children are safe.

When I was Governor, we asked for a report to be done on childcare in New Hampshire. We found in that report that there is a direct result between quality childcare and the productivity of their parents in the workforce. Childcare is expensive. Quality childcare can easily top $10,000 per child per year--an amount that is out of reach for so many working families who are trying to make ends meet--especially in this economy.

The unemployment rate in this country is 9 percent. We should be putting our focus on creating jobs today and helping to build a strong workforce for the future. The proposed budget that the House Republicans have done would do the opposite.

Research shows that the quality care and early childhood development is critical to preparing our children for tomorrow's jobs. We know that the first 5 years are the most important in the development of a child's brain. During these years, children develop their cognitive, social, emotional, and language skills that form a solid foundation for their lives.

Economists point to the strong return on investment we get for intervention early in life. For every $1 we spend on quality early learning, we return up to $17. These same experts cite an increase in productivity, workforce readiness, and in graduation rates among children who are in quality early childhood programs. In addition, they have also found out that for those children there is a decrease in special education, crime rates, welfare dependency, and in other behavioral problems.

One of the things that made me aware of this direct relationship was going to my first Governors' conference after I got elected. I heard a presentation on brain development. The presenter showed that the brain scan of a child who had quality early learning looked very different than the brain scan of those children who did not. They showed a graph that demonstrated that the way a child's brain develops is inversely proportional to our investment. In other words, we are making the smallest investments in the years when it would make the most impact on how a child develops. This made such an impression on me that I went back home to New Hampshire and focused so much of my time as Governor on the importance of early learning.

When I became chair of the education commission of the State in my second term as Governor, this became the top priority for me and for ECS. There is no doubt--and we can look at all the

data--that helping working families afford quality childhood care and education programs has immediate and long-term benefits.

I urge my colleagues to reject the shortsighted, reckless cuts that have been made in the House Republican budget and, instead, invest in our future and the future of our children and families.