Floor Statements

Mr. President, 1 year ago this week, Dr. George Tiller, a provider of critical reproductive health services, was shot to death while at church in Wichita, KS. The anniversary of his death serves as a solemn reminder of the violence that reproductive health professionals face today.

Unfortunately, like so many of his colleagues who treat women across this country, Dr. Tiller faced years of constant harassment, intimidation and death threats. These acts of violence eventually culminated in his murder.

We know, however, that Dr. Tiller's murder is not an isolated incident. A pattern of intimidation, threats and violence against reproductive health providers exists in this country and must end.

Since 1993, eight clinic workers have been murdered in the United States. During that time period there have been thousands of reported acts of violence against providers of reproductive health care including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings and assaults. As the Tiller murder demonstrates, we simply cannot tolerate any form of harassment and threats to health care providers and their patients.

I remember clearly 10 years ago tomorrow--May 28, 2000--when the Concord Feminist Health Center in my home State of New Hampshire was the victim of an arson attack. The facility suffered extensive damage, costing tens of thousands of dollars to repair. Thankfully, no one was injured in the attack. It was not merely the cost of the repairs that was so troubling--what was troubling was that this act of hate and intimidation left the community feeling fearful and uncertain. No one should live with that fear and certainly not because they provide critical health care services to women.

I recently heard the story about a reproductive health center director in Colorado who reports that he often wears a bulletproof vest in public. He said: ``I walk out of my office and the first thing I do is look at the parking garage that the hospital built two

doors away and see if there is a sniper on the roof. I basically expect to be shot any day. . . . It's a war zone. . . . It's very frightening and it ruins your life''.

Now, I recognize that there is a deep divide on the issue of reproductive freedom. And I recognize that there are many heartfelt feelings on both sides of the aisle and even within my own caucus. But, no matter which side of this debate you are on, we should all be able to agree that violence is never the answer.

So today I urge all my colleagues to join me in condemning the kind of senseless violence that led to the death of Dr. George Tiller.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Causes and Lessons of the May 6th market plunge.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on May 20, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Clean Technology Manufacturing Competitiveness: The Role of Tax Incentives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``NATO: Report of the Group of Experts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 20, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Counternarcotics Contracts in Latin America.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Balancing Act: Efforts to Right-Size the Federal Employee-to- Contractor Mix.''

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Medicare Diabetes Self-Management Training Act, a bill I have recently introduced along with Senators Stabenow, Hagan, Franken and Landrieu. This bill will improve the lives of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes by improving their access to high quality information and care from certified diabetes educators.

Diabetes affects many individuals and families in New Hampshire and across the country. My own family was touched by the disease in 2007 when my eldest granddaughter Elle was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. We have experienced firsthand the challenges that diabetics and their families confront in having to continuously monitor and manage blood sugar levels, administer daily injections, and face a lifetime of worrying about the possibility of serious complications arising from the disease. Diabetes can be managed effectively but it requires a sustained coordinated team effort among patients and their health care providers. Certified diabetes educators, as defined by the American Association of Diabetes Educators, ``are licensed healthcare professionals who specialize in educating people with diabetes about their condition. The training, counseling and support that diabetes educators provide to patients is known as diabetes education or diabetes self-management training.'' This education teaches patients how to stay healthy, and the diabetes educator is an important part of the health care team.

Take for example a case from Raymond, NH. The patient, Rachel, is 45 years old and has type 2 diabetes. For years she struggled, trying to understand how her eating habits and lack of physical activity negatively impacted her diabetes and general health. Her medical provider followed all the appropriate American Diabetes Association guidelines, tried several oral medications and insulin, but in spite of this, Rachel's diabetes remained poorly controlled. In fact, not only were her blood sugar levels elevated, but she was already starting to suffer from complications related to diabetes.

However, once Rachel began working with a certified diabetes educator, CDE, things started turning around. The CDE was able to assess and accommodate Rachel's individual learning style and barriers to change. Through ongoing support and positive reinforcement, Rachel began to recognize her ability to control her diabetes with a few lifestyle changes. Successful, long-

term behavior change is difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances. One only has to look at the current obesity epidemic in the U.S. to appreciate the difficulty in learning how to eat healthily. Rachel's success in eating less and healthier and walking daily was due in large part to the relationship that developed between her and her diabetes educator. Rachel now understood the lifestyle changes necessary to achieve success and was able to bring her blood sugar into a safe range. She reported having more energy and was able to cut her insulin dose in half.

Over the years Congress has made strong efforts to improve the care of individuals with diabetes. This includes authorizing the diabetes self-management training, DSMT, as a Medicare benefit in 1997, with the goal of providing a more comprehensive level of support to educate beneficiaries about diabetes and self-management techniques, reduce the known risks and complications of diabetes, and improve overall health outcomes.

However, there is a significant gap in the 1997 DSMT benefit that holds it back from achieving its full potential. Under the DSMT, Medicare covers the critical types of health care services necessary for diabetes control, but does not recognize the health care professionals who deliver those services. Certified diabetes educators are the primary group of health care professionals who work most closely with the patient to provide essential training and education in diabetes self-management. My legislation is designed to address this gap by ensuring that certified diabetes educators are designated providers under Medicare for these vitally important services.

Under the Medicare Diabetes Self-Management Training Act, a certified diabetes educator would be a covered provider of Medicare DSMT services. This health care professional, who is State licensed or registered, is most typically a nurse, dietician, or pharmacist, who specializes in teaching people with diabetes how to stay healthy and who maintains rigorous certification and continuing education credentials. This bill also increases education and outreach to primary care physicians about the importance of DSMT for their patients with diabetes. I am proud to have introduced this bill along with my colleagues Senators Stabenow, Franken, Hagan and Landrieu.

Diabetes is an incredibly costly disease. It is among the chief contributing causes of adult blindness, lower extremity amputations, heart disease, periodontal disease, kidney disease, vascular disease and infections. There is no cure yet but with the proper tools it can be well managed and complications can be prevented. I believe this bill is an important step along that path. I urge my colleagues to support this important cause.

Mr. President, I am here tonight to join my colleagues because, like them, I am deeply disappointed that 41 Republican Senators tonight voted to stop us from even beginning to debate on legislation to rein in the reckless and risky Wall Street conduct that brought this economy to its knees. Rather than make the case out in the open on the floor of the Senate for the changes they want to the Wall Street reform bill, these 41 Senators who voted to block debate are, instead, saying they want changes worked out behind closed doors. They are actually saying they will prevent debate and hold this Wall Street reform bill hostage until they are accommodated behind closed doors.

We heard Senator Kaufman say there are amendments he wants to the bill. There are amendments I wish to see in the bill. For example, I think we need to strengthen the provisions in the bill to prevent financial institutions that are supposed to be helping American companies finance their growth plans--that are supposed to be helping families save for their retirement, that are supposed to be helping families save for their kids' college education--to prevent those institutions from making risky side bets for their own profit. But rather than block the Senate from taking up the Wall Street reform until I get what I want, I intend to cosponsor the amendment the Presiding Officer and Senator Levin are sponsoring and then debate that issue openly on the floor of the Senate.

Our amendment prohibits federally insured banks from engaging in proprietary trading and it imposes strict capital charges on large nonbank financial institutions to limit their proprietary trading.

We have all learned in recent days about the proprietary trading that Goldman Sachs was doing, betting their own money that mortgage-backed securities would fail, while getting their clients to invest in those same mortgage-backed securities. I am sure there are a lot of people who think, as I do, that a system that allows that kind of conflict does not make sense and we need to change it. So I think we need to get this bill on the floor so we can debate this issue and so many others that we need to address to change the practices on Wall Street.

We need to enact a strong Wall Street reform bill as soon as possible. While we delay, the big banks on Wall Street have returned to the same types of reckless and risky gambles that brought our economy to the brink of a complete financial meltdown. My grandmother used to say that while the cat's away, the mice will play. Today I think my grandmother would say while Wall Street reform is delayed, middle-class families are being played.

Let's be clear. A vote against opening debate on holding Wall Street accountable is a vote to protect Wall Street. We are still suffering the consequences of unregulated Wall Street greed. Millions of hard- working Americans lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they still can't find work. Too many small businesses still can't get credit. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the recent financial crisis never happens again, that taxpayers never again have to bail out Wall Street bankers for their bad bets. I hope all those Senators who tonight voted to block us from taking up Wall Street reform will reconsider that vote and that they will come to the floor of the Senate and let us do the work of the people of this country.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we have to be on the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about so many of the nominees we need to do the work of this country who are being held up, and being held up by people who are not willing to identify themselves or say what their issue is with these nominees.

I am pleased to join my colleagues. I am glad we are mounting this effort. We need to get rid of the secret holds. But it is unfortunate that we are where we are.

I understand why people are frustrated with what is happening here. People want to see things get done. They understand we have significant challenges facing the country, and they want to see action on those challenges.

It is clear that one of the areas where there is a problem is with the 80 or so people who were nominated who have been held up, some of them for months and months, because somebody has an issue, not with the person who is being held up usually, but as my colleague from Missouri said because someone wants to get the attention of a department or agency within government or because somebody wants to keep the Obama administration from doing the work of the people.

I wish to point out some of the people who have been on hold. No one has identified themselves as to why they had these people on hold. Until just a few minutes ago, we had five U.S. attorneys and five marshals. We have the Deputy Director of National Drug Policy Control. They come from States all across this country--from New York, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, Maine, Idaho, and Florida. We have a lot of big States there, a lot of States where the people's business is not getting done because those nominees have not been put in place.

The sad thing is, the people who have these folks on hold are trying to get back at somebody in government, but the people who are suffering are the constituents in those States where the work is not getting done.

I have a very personal example that I have talked about before on the floor of the Senate. A woman from New Hampshire who has now been confirmed to lead the Office of Violence Against Women, Judge Susan Carbon. This is someone who was appointed first by Senator Judd Gregg to be a judge, and I then made her a full-time judge. She got through the committee on a unanimous vote.

I think all of us would like to see the work of the Office of Violence Against Women done, just as we want to see the work of the U.S. attorneys done and the work of the marshals done. Yet she was held up for 2 months, until I came to the floor and started asking questions about who had that secret hold on her. We never did find out. We never did find out why she was on hold or what the concern was. That is the problem with all these different holds.

Senator Bennet said he hasn't put any secret holds on anyone. Well, neither have I. If I am going to put a hold on somebody, I want the world to know about it because it is somebody whom I have a serious issue with or someone we have concerns about the job they would do. That is not the case with any of these folks.

So I would urge all my colleagues to sign on to say that they will oppose secret holds and to release those holds on the nominees who are being held up and let's let the work of the people in this country get done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to join so many of my colleagues in urging that we pass critical extensions of Federal unemployment benefits, the COBRA health insurance subsidy, flood insurance, and other vital programs that expired at the end of March.

I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, despite opposition from their leadership, have joined us in moving this legislation forward. But despite the progress we seem to be making, these extensions have been held up too frequently for too long, and the American people deserve better.

Sadly, twice this year individual Senators have blocked extensions of Federal unemployment benefits right as the programs were about to expire. Those actions have put struggling families at risk, and already this month over 200,000 Americans have lost their benefits, with another 30,000 losing their benefits every day until we pass an extension. What is of particular concern is that we continue to deal with filibusters and delays and obstruction, even though almost every Member of this body says they want to extend unemployment. After weeks of delay, when extensions finally come up for votes, they have passed overwhelmingly.

We have had three situations now where this has occurred since last fall. In November, when the vote on extending unemployment benefits finally came to the floor, that vote was 97 to 1. In December, when the extension came to the floor, the vote was 88 to 10. In March, it was 78 to 19. Given those majorities, I do not understand how the other side of the aisle can justify obstructing votes on these issues in the way they have.

As important as this short-term extension is, the Senate must do more to address the long-term challenge of joblessness. Of the 15 million Americans who are out of work today, nearly 6 million--so more than 1 in 3--have run through the 6 months of benefits provided by their States. In fact, the average period of unemployment currently stands at a record high of nearly 8 months. We need to pass a longer term extension to provide some stability for the millions of people who are going to need unemployment benefits in the months to come. I applaud Senator Baucus who has been working to try to bridge this gap.

While some people may think it is no big deal to wait a week or two, even short-term expirations have damaging results. When State workforce agencies are forced to shut down and restart complicated Federal benefits programs, they experience huge backlogs in their systems that delay getting checks out the door, even to people who are not affected by the expiration.

Phone lines at call centers are jammed with claimants holding up others from filing for benefits while lines at one-stop centers get longer and longer. In the best of circumstances, individuals who lost their benefits during this expiration will have to wait weeks before they begin receiving checks again. That is a very long time when you are supporting a family on an unemployment check.

There is also the uncertainty and the fear that comes when parents open the mail to find a notice that, although their benefits are supposed to last for months to come, this is the last check they are going to receive. Families cannot afford to make the responsible choices to budget and plan for the future when we cannot guarantee the future of their benefits and of their safety net.

The fact is, when somebody is unemployed, it is an emergency in their family. We need to treat this situation, extending benefits, as an emergency in our Federal programs as well.

I want to conclude by sharing a letter I got from one of my constituents named Jo Ellen, who is from Canterbury, NH. She wrote:

On April 3, my State unemployment benefits maxed out. I am

in my 60s, a nurse and psychotherapist who has been out of

work since the end of December 2009. Seeking work constantly,

I am getting no responses from employers, probably due to my

age. I have worked my entire life caring for others. My

husband's salary is much lower than what I brought in, but I

have never had to rely on others. Unemployment checks are

allowing us to at least pay our bills. It plays havoc with

one's body and psyche, affecting one's health and causing

monumental anxiety when a vote is taken on a monthly basis to

extend benefits. It is the never knowing for sure. Those of

us who are in this situation are hard-working citizens who

have come upon bad times. I cannot believe you won't take

care of this horrendous situation immediately.

Unfortunately, like so many in this Chamber, I have received dozens of e-mails and letters and phone calls in the last 2 weeks from Granite Staters such as Jo Ellen. Unemployment benefits allow them to take care of their families, to fill up their gas tanks so they can go out and look for work. But the obstructionism that has kept us from passing meaningful long-term extension of unemployment benefits is having real effects on the financial, physical, and mental health of our communities. Jo Ellen is right; it is horrendous.

I am hopeful we are finally going to see agreement from the other side of the aisle that we can move this legislation forward, that we can extend unemployment benefits for those thousands of people who are losing them every single day.

Madam President, I am here to join my colleagues to raise our concerns about what is undoubtedly a deliberate attempt to keep President Obama's nominees from getting through the Senate and taking over their jobs, regardless of whether it is a court justice or whether it is the Director of the Office of Violence Against Women. I was on the floor a couple months ago because the Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, from New Hampshire, had been held up 2 months after unanimously being approved in the committee. She was held up not because it had anything to do with her qualifications but because somebody objected to something else--who knows what. The person who objected never had to tell why they were objecting.

That is the situation we are in now. We have 94 nominees being held up by the other side of the aisle, and they are not telling us why they are holding up these nominees. They have to come forward and allow a vote. It is time for us to move forward on the judiciary nominees--on all of those 94 nominees--and get a vote and keep government moving.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help grow the U.S. manufacturing base in alternative energy technologies, create jobs and help get our country running on clean energy.

We have known for decades that our Nation's dependence on foreign oil undermines our economic and national security.

According to the Department of Energy, New Hampshire households are some of the most petroleum dependent in the country due to our reliance on heating oil to provide heat. Almost 60 percent of homes in New Hampshire use oil for heating purposes. Many New Hampshire businesses-- large and small--are also dependent on heating oil.

In fact, thermal energy, or heat, accounts for roughly 30 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. Thermal energy is used every day by homes, businesses and industrial facilities across the country for a variety of needs--most commonly for space heating, heating water and industrial processes that require heat.

We need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and I am convinced that biomass, used effectively and sustainably, can help to do that by, in part, meeting our country's thermal energy needs.

Forests are one of our Nation's greatest assets. In my home State of New Hampshire, the second most forested State in the country, forestry is an important part of our economy. Forestland supports a thriving forest products industry and provides many outdoor recreational opportunities that play a key role in attracting tourists to the State. But I think greater potential exists for our forests in New Hampshire and across the country to help meet our energy challenges--using biomass to meet the heating needs of our homes, businesses and communities.

New Hampshire and a number of other States are already leading the way to address how high efficiency biomass systems can cut our energy dependence on foreign oil and support our forest industry. Communities and businesses across New Hampshire are putting our State's immense biomass resources--from forestry and agricultural residues--to use for creating electricity and thermal energy. These investments in clean, renewable biomass energy are supporting our forest industry and also creating new industries and jobs across New Hampshire.

There is so much untapped potential for biomass energy, and that is what my legislation is about.

The American Renewable Biomass Heating Act would provide an investment tax credit, ITC, of 30 percent of the cost of installing a high efficiency biomass system in commercial and industrial buildings. The tax credit would be available for biomass heating systems placed in service on or before December 31, 2013.

By incentivizing high efficiency biomass boilers and furnaces, we can help to replace our reliance on fossil fuel with clean, domestically produced renewable energy.

This bill would also put biomass on an even playing field with other alternative energy technologies and fuel sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Thus far, Federal policies to promote the development and use of alternative energy have focused largely on transportation fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, and electricity from hydro, wind, and solar. My legislation puts high efficiency biomass on an even playing field with other alternative energy technologies.

Most importantly, my legislation will help jumpstart the domestic manufacturing base. For years, European countries have invested in and incentivized the development of these technologies. There is no reason why we cannot build this equipment right here in the U.S.

The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich and Mike Crapo will provide the incentives businesses are looking for to invest in clean energy. Our legislation is about American power--clean energy technologies and equipment that are made right here in America and create jobs for American workers.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this important, job-creating legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the American Renewable Biomass Heating Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help grow the U.S. manufacturing base in alternative energy technologies, create jobs and help get our country running on clean energy.

We have known for decades that our Nation's dependence on foreign oil undermines our economic and national security.

According to the Department of Energy, New Hampshire households are some of the most petroleum dependent in the country due to our reliance on heating oil to provide heat. Almost 60 percent of homes in New Hampshire use oil for heating purposes. Many New Hampshire businesses-- large and small--are also dependent on heating oil.

In fact, thermal energy, or heat, accounts for roughly 30 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. Thermal energy is used every day by homes, businesses and industrial facilities across the country for a variety of needs--most commonly for space heating, heating water and industrial processes that require heat.

We need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and I am convinced that biomass, used effectively and sustainably, can help to do that by, in part, meeting our country's thermal energy needs.

Forests are one of our Nation's greatest assets. In my home State of New Hampshire, the second most forested State in the country, forestry is an important part of our economy. Forestland supports a thriving forest products industry and provides many outdoor recreational opportunities that play a key role in attracting tourists to the State. But I think greater potential exists for our forests in New Hampshire and across the country to help meet our energy challenges--using biomass to meet the heating needs of our homes, businesses and communities.

New Hampshire and a number of other States are already leading the way to address how high efficiency biomass systems can cut our energy dependence on foreign oil and support our forest industry. Communities and businesses across New Hampshire are putting our State's immense biomass resources--from forestry and agricultural residues--to use for creating electricity and thermal energy. These investments in clean, renewable biomass energy are supporting our forest industry and also creating new industries and jobs across New Hampshire.

There is so much untapped potential for biomass energy, and that is what my legislation is about.

The American Renewable Biomass Heating Act would provide an investment tax credit, ITC, of 30 percent of the cost of installing a high efficiency biomass system in commercial and industrial buildings. The tax credit would be available for biomass heating systems placed in service on or before December 31, 2013.

By incentivizing high efficiency biomass boilers and furnaces, we can help to replace our reliance on fossil fuel with clean, domestically produced renewable energy.

This bill would also put biomass on an even playing field with other alternative energy technologies and fuel sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Thus far, Federal policies to promote the development and use of alternative energy have focused largely on transportation fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, and electricity from hydro, wind, and solar. My legislation puts high efficiency biomass on an even playing field with other alternative energy technologies.

Most importantly, my legislation will help jumpstart the domestic manufacturing base. For years, European countries have invested in and incentivized the development of these technologies. There is no reason why we cannot build this equipment right here in the U.S.

The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich and Mike Crapo will provide the incentives businesses are looking for to invest in clean energy. Our legislation is about American power--clean energy technologies and equipment that are made right here in America and create jobs for American workers.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this important, job-creating legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the American Renewable Biomass Heating Act.

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

Madam President, I thank Senator Baucus.

I am pleased to be here to join in this effort to talk about the importance of what we are doing with health care reform. We have waited so long for health care reform, and yesterday it became a reality. Today, we celebrate a reformed health care system that President Obama has signed into law. With this historic step, we have ensured that more Americans have the health care security and stability they need. We have ensured that families will have choices for coverage even if their jobs do not provide it. We have ended denials for preexisting conditions, and we have a guarantee that no one has to pay more for health insurance if they get sick and that the insurance coverage cannot be taken away. We no longer allow insurance companies to put lifetime limits on the amounts of benefits they will cover.

But insurance reforms are not the only thing we have done. We have made health care more affordable for those who need it most and made it easier for small businesses to provide coverage for their employees. We made important steps to encourage everyone to take advantage of preventive care, and we have created incentives for people to enroll in wellness programs and encourage communities to address the public health of their citizens. Finally, we are changing the way doctors provide care, making it better coordinated and more patient-centered.

I am pleased we are here building on the success of the health care reform legislation that was just signed into law. Our resolve is strong, make no mistake about that. We must continue our work in making a good bill even better.

The legislation we are now considering makes great strides to strengthen the new law. It will provide more tax relief to families to help them afford health care and more help for seniors to pay for prescription drugs.

I have talked with seniors throughout New Hampshire who struggle with the high cost of prescription drugs. The Medicare doughnut hole, as it is known, causes great stress in family budgets when seniors have to pay full price for the drugs they need, people such as Sue Quinlan from Portsmouth, who recently wrote me about her experience with the doughnut hole. She wrote:

This year, because of my illness, my drug costs have

doubled, and in September I experienced the ``donut hole.''

This meant that when my Total Drug Cost reached $2,400 for

the year, I was on my own.

She went on to say:

You know you are in the donut hole when a drug you have

been paying $90 for is now $364.47. You know you are in the

donut hole when the mail order prescription company calls to

warn you that your order is going to cost $720.82 and wants

to confirm that you really do want them to send it, and you

have no choice except to send it unless you want to stop

taking the medications. You know you are in the donut hole

when the pharmacist gives you a sympathetic smile when they

hand you your order.

Under this bill, seniors such as Sue no longer need to worry. They will get a discount on medicine critical to their health, and we will begin to close the doughnut hole. Seniors will now have access to affordable drugs on which they depend. We have all heard the

story of seniors breaking their pills in half or skipping their daily doses because of the cost. Under this bill, a senior with high cholesterol and heart disease who relies on Lipitor and antihypertension medication to stay healthy now can take these drugs with peace of mind and less financial stress.

This bill will expand affordable coverage to 32 million Americans. The bill will provide the same Medicaid deals for every State so that the Federal Government will help share in the burden the States face in providing coverage for new populations. The bill also builds on the previous bill to attack waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care system.

This is a historic time. Today, we build on that historic legislation with improvements to make it stronger and even better for American families and seniors.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mortgage Modification Reform Act, which is designed to protect homeowners and communities from big banks who fail to modify mortgages in a timely fashion.

In the past year I have heard from hundreds of families in New Hampshire who have fallen behind on their mortgages. Often, they tell me that they can no longer afford their payments because of circumstances beyond their control. A family member has been laid off or had her hours reduced. Medical bills have started piling up. Higher interest payments kicked in at just the wrong time. And since value of the average home has declined over 15 percent in New Hampshire, they now owe more on their home than it's worth.

But these families want to make it work, so they reach out to their bank or ``mortgage servicer'' to figure out a way to make payments they can afford. Often, when a homeowner comes to a servicer, they can work together to bring the homeowner's payments down to an affordable level. When a servicer modifies a mortgage, everybody wins: the homeowner can stay in their home; the servicer avoids the costly foreclosure process; and communities are spared from the devastating effects that foreclosures have on home values and communities.

That is why these families in New Hampshire and others across the country breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that a new program, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, would provide powerful incentives to servicers to work with borrowers to keep them in their homes.

We were told that HAMP would help 3-4 million homeowners stay in their homes by reducing the amount a family owes each month to 31 percent of its monthly income. The big, national servicer banks who signed up for the program would avoid the foreclosure process and receive incentive payments. Most importantly, communities would have benefitted by stemming the tide of foreclosures, which have so drastically lowered home values and the equity of millions of homeowners.

But a year into the program, it is clear that many of these big banks are unwilling or uninterested in helping people in our communities. The banks routinely lose documents and ask the borrower to send them in again, delaying the process for months at a time. They don't respond to calls and voice messages that are only returned weeks or months later-- if they are returned at all. And as homeowners wait for a decision, the banks charge them late fees, which puts them even further behind. When homeowners finally receive modification offers, they often come at the last minute--just days before the borrower's home is set to be auctioned.

As a result of these abuses, instead of helping the millions of homeowners that they promised would be able to stay in their homes, servicers have offered trial modifications to less than 30 percent of eligible homeowners. The banks participating in HAMP have only provided permanent relief to only 116,000 homeowners.

We know that the servicers are capable of success in this program because some servicers have been better than others. According to the latest Servicer Performance Report from the Treasury, some servicers have helped as little as 2 percent of their eligible

borrowers, while others have helped over 50 percent. And it's not surprising that some of the servicers with the worst numbers are the same big banks that were happy to be bailed out by TARP not too long ago.

It is time to tell these big banks that enough's enough. We need protections for homeowners, and we need to penalize the servicers who have failed to offer the help they promised.

That is why I am introducing legislation today, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act, to stop the big banks from abusing homeowners and to start penalizing those who do not live up to their promise to provide homeowners with the relief they need.

The Mortgage Modification Reform Act would charge banks ``late fees'' for every month that they fail to evaluate a homeowner for this program. After 3 months, if a homeowner has not received an answer on whether their mortgage will be modified, the banks' payments will be reduced 10 percent for each month that it fails to evaluate the homeowner. By reducing payments to the banks over time, the bank will be encouraged to evaluate these borrowers earlier and more frequently. This also protects the taxpayer by only rewarding those banks that respond quickly and punishing those that fail to act. Banks will have to perform to get paid, and if they don't, their compensation will stay with to the taxpayer.

This legislation would also require banks to stop the foreclosure process until it determines whether a borrower qualifies. This would also give much-needed peace of mind to homeowners who aren't sure which will come first: the modification they need, or the sale of their home.

In addition, the legislation would prevent banks from imposing fees while they wait for a decision. There is no reason that a bank should charge a homeowner for being delinquent while waiting for evaluation in the program. There is no reason for a homeowner to pay fees for an unnecessary foreclosure process. This legislation would put an end to these abusive practices.

Finally, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act provides a protection for borrowers that has been missing from day one of this program: a way for homeowners to request a review of the bank's decision. Right now, the banks make all the decisions whether a homeowner qualifies for the program or not. There is no way for the homeowner to appeal that decision. But we know that those decisions aren't always right. Many homeowners were originally told that they didn't qualify, but ask their Senator or get legal assistance to ask the servicer to take another look. Often, they did qualify for the program, but the servicer did not evaluate the borrower properly.

But not every homeowner should have to involve their Senator or a lawyer to get their bank to respond. They should be able to make their case on their own to an independent arbiter. This legislation requires the Treasury Department to create a separate, independent review process to allow homeowners who feel they have been wrongly denied the chance to stay in their home. In addition, to ensure transparency, this legislation would require the servicer to submit documentation to the Treasury for each denial that it makes.

Making this program work isn't just important for these homeowners, it's also critical to our economic recovery. With million homeowners across the nation behind on their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure, we need this program achieve its potential of stopping millions of homes from flooding the housing market and further depressing home values.

I urge my colleagues to join me to prevent banks from continuing to abuse this program, and to get it on track to provide help to the millions of homeowners who need it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mortgage Modification Reform Act, which is designed to protect homeowners and communities from big banks who fail to modify mortgages in a timely fashion.

In the past year I have heard from hundreds of families in New Hampshire who have fallen behind on their mortgages. Often, they tell me that they can no longer afford their payments because of circumstances beyond their control. A family member has been laid off or had her hours reduced. Medical bills have started piling up. Higher interest payments kicked in at just the wrong time. And since value of the average home has declined over 15 percent in New Hampshire, they now owe more on their home than it's worth.

But these families want to make it work, so they reach out to their bank or ``mortgage servicer'' to figure out a way to make payments they can afford. Often, when a homeowner comes to a servicer, they can work together to bring the homeowner's payments down to an affordable level. When a servicer modifies a mortgage, everybody wins: the homeowner can stay in their home; the servicer avoids the costly foreclosure process; and communities are spared from the devastating effects that foreclosures have on home values and communities.

That is why these families in New Hampshire and others across the country breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that a new program, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, would provide powerful incentives to servicers to work with borrowers to keep them in their homes.

We were told that HAMP would help 3-4 million homeowners stay in their homes by reducing the amount a family owes each month to 31 percent of its monthly income. The big, national servicer banks who signed up for the program would avoid the foreclosure process and receive incentive payments. Most importantly, communities would have benefitted by stemming the tide of foreclosures, which have so drastically lowered home values and the equity of millions of homeowners.

But a year into the program, it is clear that many of these big banks are unwilling or uninterested in helping people in our communities. The banks routinely lose documents and ask the borrower to send them in again, delaying the process for months at a time. They don't respond to calls and voice messages that are only returned weeks or months later-- if they are returned at all. And as homeowners wait for a decision, the banks charge them late fees, which puts them even further behind. When homeowners finally receive modification offers, they often come at the last minute--just days before the borrower's home is set to be auctioned.

As a result of these abuses, instead of helping the millions of homeowners that they promised would be able to stay in their homes, servicers have offered trial modifications to less than 30 percent of eligible homeowners. The banks participating in HAMP have only provided permanent relief to only 116,000 homeowners.

We know that the servicers are capable of success in this program because some servicers have been better than others. According to the latest Servicer Performance Report from the Treasury, some servicers have helped as little as 2 percent of their eligible

borrowers, while others have helped over 50 percent. And it's not surprising that some of the servicers with the worst numbers are the same big banks that were happy to be bailed out by TARP not too long ago.

It is time to tell these big banks that enough's enough. We need protections for homeowners, and we need to penalize the servicers who have failed to offer the help they promised.

That is why I am introducing legislation today, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act, to stop the big banks from abusing homeowners and to start penalizing those who do not live up to their promise to provide homeowners with the relief they need.

The Mortgage Modification Reform Act would charge banks ``late fees'' for every month that they fail to evaluate a homeowner for this program. After 3 months, if a homeowner has not received an answer on whether their mortgage will be modified, the banks' payments will be reduced 10 percent for each month that it fails to evaluate the homeowner. By reducing payments to the banks over time, the bank will be encouraged to evaluate these borrowers earlier and more frequently. This also protects the taxpayer by only rewarding those banks that respond quickly and punishing those that fail to act. Banks will have to perform to get paid, and if they don't, their compensation will stay with to the taxpayer.

This legislation would also require banks to stop the foreclosure process until it determines whether a borrower qualifies. This would also give much-needed peace of mind to homeowners who aren't sure which will come first: the modification they need, or the sale of their home.

In addition, the legislation would prevent banks from imposing fees while they wait for a decision. There is no reason that a bank should charge a homeowner for being delinquent while waiting for evaluation in the program. There is no reason for a homeowner to pay fees for an unnecessary foreclosure process. This legislation would put an end to these abusive practices.

Finally, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act provides a protection for borrowers that has been missing from day one of this program: a way for homeowners to request a review of the bank's decision. Right now, the banks make all the decisions whether a homeowner qualifies for the program or not. There is no way for the homeowner to appeal that decision. But we know that those decisions aren't always right. Many homeowners were originally told that they didn't qualify, but ask their Senator or get legal assistance to ask the servicer to take another look. Often, they did qualify for the program, but the servicer did not evaluate the borrower properly.

But not every homeowner should have to involve their Senator or a lawyer to get their bank to respond. They should be able to make their case on their own to an independent arbiter. This legislation requires the Treasury Department to create a separate, independent review process to allow homeowners who feel they have been wrongly denied the chance to stay in their home. In addition, to ensure transparency, this legislation would require the servicer to submit documentation to the Treasury for each denial that it makes.

Making this program work isn't just important for these homeowners, it's also critical to our economic recovery. With million homeowners across the nation behind on their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure, we need this program achieve its potential of stopping millions of homes from flooding the housing market and further depressing home values.

I urge my colleagues to join me to prevent banks from continuing to abuse this program, and to get it on track to provide help to the millions of homeowners who need it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am so pleased to join Chairman Landrieu and my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin. Hopefully, he will be able to speak after me to talk about the importance of small businesses and what we have to do to support small business in this country.

Small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country, as Senator Landrieu has said, are struggling. Of

the jobs lost last year, almost 40 percent came from businesses with 50 or fewer employees. While we have taken important steps to bring back the economy from the brink of depression, sales and consumer demand are still too low and too many small business owners remain frozen out of credit markets.

This economy is not going to fully recover until our small businesses fully recover. In the past, it has been small businesses that have created most of the jobs coming out of a recession, and this recovery is going to be no different. If we want to see job growth in this country, we need to take action to help small businesses get back on their feet.

Now, as a former small business owner, I know it is business and not government that creates jobs and drives innovation and new ideas. But I also know government has an important role to play in helping small business create jobs, especially in these very difficult economic times.

Under the leadership of our chair, Senator Landrieu, who has done a great job, along with our ranking member, Senator Snowe, in the last several months the Small Business Committee has produced five major pieces of legislation to help small companies create jobs again, and Senator Landrieu has laid those out for people. I am proud to be a sponsor of all five of these bills.

They spur research and innovation. They ensure small businesses get their fair share of government contracts. They expand SBA lending programs so small businesses can obtain affordable credit. They strengthen the technical services the SBA can provide. And they help small businesses gain access to international markets to sell their goods and services.

These bills, as we have heard Senator Landrieu say, are bipartisan efforts that passed the committee with nearly unanimous votes from both Republican and Democratic members. I hope we are soon going to see these bills on the floor of the Senate and that they will pass unanimously.

All of the bills are important. But today I want to focus on what we can do to help open global markets to small business because I strongly believe that in order to have a sustained recovery from this recession, we need to expand exports. Domestic consumer demand in the United States simply will not rise to the level it was before the recession.

The good news is that the potential for export growth is enormous. Over 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States. But as we saw so dramatically on that chart Senator Landrieu just showed, only about 1 percent of small businesses export their goods and services, and small companies that do export usually only sell to one foreign market, while larger companies typically sell to five or more foreign markets.

Emerging markets in developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil offer great opportunities for growth. By 2020, about 90 percent of the world's population will live in emerging markets. There is a huge potential for smaller companies to tap these markets to grow their businesses and to create jobs.

I have long been an advocate for exporting because international markets are very important to New Hampshire. I was the first Governor to lead a trade mission from New Hampshire overseas, and those trade missions I led brought back about $500 million in sales for New Hampshire businesses.

Small business generates almost half of New Hampshire's total exports, and we have some great success stories.

Dartware, a software developer in West Lebanon, on the western side of our State, first started exporting to Canada--which neighbors New Hampshire, for those people who are not sure on their geography. Now they sell to more than 80 countries. During this recession, exporting has made a huge difference on their bottom line. Last year, their international sales were 33 percent of their total sales. This past January, export sales represented 63 percent or almost double their total sales.

Another company, a small business called Sky-Skan, in Nashua, designs and produces state-of-the-art technologies for planetariums. You would not think there would be that many planetariums around the world, but they have exported their products and services to over 120 countries. Even in the midst of one of the most difficult economies in our Nation's history, Sky-Skan was able to bring on 10 new employees.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama set a goal of doubling American exports in the next 5 years. He recently signed an executive order creating an Export Promotion Cabinet. I strongly support those efforts. I know other members of the Small Business Committee do as well.

A recent World Bank study found that each dollar spent on export promotion and assistance brought a fortyfold return. Right now, the United States spends considerably less than the international average in helping small businesses export. Government export promotion and assistance is a smart investment that helps create jobs. One of the important actions we need to take in the Senate to help improve export promotion is to quickly enact the Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act of 2009--one of those five pieces of legislation Senator Landrieu laid out.

We need to make the SBA a more valuable resource for small businesses looking to export their goods and services, and this bill does just that. I hope as these bills come to the floor of the Senate, we will take a close look and we will recognize that if we are going to help small businesses export, then we have to give them the tools to do that. This legislation does that. It helps small companies finance their exports by increasing loan limits and guarantees in SBA export loan programs and expanding the number of SBA finance specialists who are posted around the country.

This bill directs the SBA to collaborate more with other agencies that provide services and programs for small exporters--something the SBA has begun doing under the leadership of Administrator Karen Mills.

More U.S. exports abroad mean more jobs at home. We can and must do more. We must do it smarter to help small companies compete globally. If we do not, we risk falling behind, and our economy, our businesses, and our families will lose out.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to hearing from my colleague, Senator Cardin.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues from the freshman and sophomore classes to point out the obstruction that we are seeing from the other side of the aisle in holding up these executive branch nominees. It is unfortunate, with so many challenges facing this country, that we have to be on the floor of the Senate today talking about obstructionism rather than talking about what we can do to address the real issues facing this country.

One of those important issues has to do with how we get this economy going again. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States; and for American companies to grow and expand, to create jobs, we have to increase exports of goods and services. That is the simple reality.

There are several actions we need to take to help American companies compete overseas. Tomorrow, for example, I am going to be back on the Senate floor talking about what we can do to strengthen the Small Business Administration's export lending and promotion services. Certainly another thing we need to do is to protect the interests of American companies and workers in the trade arena.

As we have already heard from Senator Whitehouse, that is why it is unconscionable that the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to be Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Michael Punke, is being held up by a single Senator.

Senator Tester came to the floor last week to ask Senator Bunning to stop blocking Mr. Punke's confirmation. Now, after reading yesterday's New York Times, I felt compelled to also speak about the hold on this confirmation. Yesterday's story in the paper reported on China's aggressive filing of complaints with the WTO. In the last 12 months, China filed more complaints with the WTO than any other country, even though it is cleaning the clock of every country on the planet, including the United States, when it comes to trade.

China racked up a nearly $200 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year. Its trade imbalance with the United States is 4 to 1. Yet the top position of the United States at the WTO--you guessed it, the position that Mr. Punke has been nominated for--is being held up, is still vacant because there is one Senator who is unhappy with Canada's tobacco law.

That is right. As Senator Whitehouse has already told us, the hold on Mr. Punke has nothing to do with whether he is qualified to be ambassador to the WTO. His confirmation was unanimously recommended by the Finance Committee 3 months ago. No, this critical post remains vacant because one Senator--Senator Bunning--is angry that Canada banned flavored cigarettes as a way to combat teen smoking.

I certainly understand the tobacco industry fears the Canadian law will be interpreted broadly to ban American-blend cigarettes. But blocking the confirmation of our WTO ambassador over this issue at this time, when expanding exports is critical to our economic recovery, is counterproductive, and it is an abuse of Senate rules. The point has now been made. So now is the time for Senator Bunning to lift this hold so we can confirm Mr. Punke and we can get this critical position filled and make sure that American businesses have a level playing field when it comes to exports.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.