Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the life and service of Marine PFC Eric D. Currier of Londonderry, NH. This young soldier died from wounds inflicted by an enemy sniper in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on February 17, 2010. Private First Class Currier was just 21 years old at the time of his death. A rifleman, he was a member of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Lejeune, NC, and was deployed to Afghanistan in January.

Eric was born in Massachusetts but moved to my home State of New Hampshire when he was in the eighth grade. He continued his schooling in Londonderry and graduated from Londonderry High School in 2007. Like many in northern New England, Eric was an avid outdoorsman. He began fishing with his grandfather at the age of three. He enjoyed camping trips with his brothers and was a skilled hunter. He spent many summer days boating, fishing and swimming while staying with his grandparents on Plum Island in Massachusetts. Eric even met his future wife, Kaila Parkhurst, while canoeing on the Saco River as a teenager. He was a fine young man, friendly and

outgoing, who cared deeply for his family. Army PVT Brent Currier, Eric's brother, describes him as the hero of his seven siblings.

Eric enlisted in the Marine Corps in March 2009 with a desire to serve an important cause and make his family proud. He most certainly accomplished those goals. Private First Class Currier selflessly joined the men and women of our armed services who give of themselves each day so that we, as a nation, might enjoy freedom and security. He has earned our country's enduring gratitude and recognition. While Eric's life may have ended too soon, his legacy lives on through the people who loved him and through all of us, who are forever indebted to him.

No words of mine can diminish the pain of losing such a young soldier, but I hope Eric's family can find solace in knowing that all Americans share a deep appreciation of his service. Daniel Webster's words, first spoken during his eulogy for Presidents Adams and Jefferson in 1826, are fitting: ``Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored.'' I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring Eric's life, service and sacrifice.

Private First Class Currier is survived by his wife Kaila; his father Russell Currier; his mother Helen Boudreau and her husband Kevin; siblings Brent, Dylan, Kevin, Melana, Cassie, Jake and Alyssa; as well as grandparents, in-laws, and others. I offer my deepest sympathies to his entire family for their loss, and my sincere thanks for their loved one's service. This young marine will be dearly missed; his death while deployed far from home is another painful loss for our small State and for this Nation. It is my sad duty to enter the name of PFC Eric Currier in the Record of the U.S. Senate in recognition of his sacrifice for this country and his contribution to freedom and lasting peace.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment, and frankly bewilderment, over the blocking of a resolution to recognize International Women's Day. This week, on Monday, March 8, the world commemorated International Women's Day, a day for people around the world to celebrate the economic, political, and social achievements of women--past, present, and future.

We have made significant progress over the years in advancing women's rights and these should be celebrated. However, International Women's Day is also a day to recognize how much work there is yet to do in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities.

But last week, I, along with three of our colleagues--Senator Cardin, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Boxer--submitted a resolution to do that, to recognize and honor those women in the United States and around the world who have worked throughout history to ensure that women are guaranteed equality and basic human rights and to recognize the significant obstacles women continue to face. Our resolution garnered 15 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, so both our Republican colleagues and Democrats cosponsored this resolution.

I think it is important to note that over the last several years, Congress has unanimously passed similar statements supporting the goals of International Women's Day and encouraging people across the country to observe this important day with appropriate programs and activities.

But this year, while this day was celebrated and recognized around the world, it was not recognized by the Senate. This noncontroversial, bipartisan resolution was blocked and the blocking of this resolution, is inexplicable and indefensible. But, sadly, it is not surprising because obstruction seems to have become a way of doing business around here no matter how innocuous the issue.

Because we were not able to get agreement from the other side in passing this resolution, I would like to read into the Record some of the statements that are in the resolution so we can honor, at least in our Record, the contributions of women around the world.

Whereas women around the world participate in the

political, social, and economic life of their communities and

play the predominant role in providing and caring for their

families;

. . . Whereas although strides have been made in recent

decades, women around the world continue to face significant

obstacles in all aspects of their lives including

discrimination, gender-based violence, and denial of basic

human rights;

Whereas women are responsible for 66 percent of the work

done in the world, yet earn only 10 percent of the income

earned in the world;

Whereas women account for approximately 70 percent of

individuals living in poverty world-wide;

. . . Whereas women in developing countries are

disproportionately affected by global climate change;

. . . Whereas according to the Department of State, 56

percent of all forced labor victims are women and girls;

Whereas according to the United Nations, 1 in 3 women in

the world will be beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise

abused in her lifetime;

. . . Whereas, the United Nations theme for International

Women's Day 2010 is ``Equal rights, equal opportunities:

Progress for all'': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate . . .

recognizes and honors the women in the United States and

around the world who have worked throughout history to strive

to ensure that women are guaranteed equality and basic human

rights;

reaffirms the commitment to end gender-based discrimination

in all forms, to end violence against women and girls

worldwide; and

encourages the people of the United States to observe

International Women's Day with appropriate programs and

activities.

That is a brief version of the full resolution, but I think you can tell by what I read, this is a resolution that recognizes the challenges that still face too many women, not only in this country but especially in developing countries around the world. I hope next year when International Women's Day comes around, this body, the Senate, will be willing to recognize that day and recognize what is happening with women across the country and around the world.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the athletes from New Hampshire who represented our country at the Olympic games in Vancouver.

As I watched the games over those 2 exciting weeks in February, I know I joined all Granite Staters in celebrating New Hampshire's enduring tradition of excellence in winter sports.

More than 125 years ago, in 1882, residents of Berlin, NH, formed the first modern ski club in America.

In 1927, the Dartmouth Outing Club organized the first downhill race in the United States at Mount Moosilauke in New Hampshire's White Mountains, where the Outing Club still hikes to this day. The next year, a Dartmouth professor organized the country's first slalom race.

In the 1930s and 1940s, as skiing grew in popularity, J-bars and chairlifts were added at mountains in Europe, in the West and across New England, but none could rival Cannon Mountain's Aerial Tramway in Franconia, which was built by the New Hampshire State Legislature and continues to be the platform from which millions of visitors first see our White Mountain range.

At the 1960 winter games in Squaw Valley, CA, 37 years after that first race in the White Mountains, a 22-year-old from Center Harbor named Penny Pitou became the first American to win an Olympic medal in downhill. The great ``Skiing Cochrans'' have roots on both sides of the Connecticut River, including Barbara Ann, who won a gold medal in 1972, her brother Bob, and Bob's son Jimmy, who competed in the slalom in Vancouver and grew up in Keene.

There were 12 athletes on the U.S. team in Vancouver who have strong New Hampshire ties. On the Alpine team, Jimmy Cochran was joined by Leanne Smith from Conway and Bode Miller from Franconia, along with Andrew Weibrecht, an environmental studies major at Dartmouth.

Hillary Knight from Hanover competed in her first Olympics as the youngest member of the U.S. Women's ice hockey team. And from just down the road in Lebanon, Nick Alexander competed in three ski jumping events including the normal hill event, known in the sport as the ``NH Individual.''

Kris Freeman from Andover competed in his third Olympic games in Nordic skiing. Kris trains at Waterville Valley, alongside Michelle Gorgone and Hannah Kearney, members of the famous Waterville Valley Black & Blue Trail Smashers Club. Snowboarder Scotty Lago from Seabrook went to his first Olympics in Vancouver after years of practice at Waterville and Loon. My husband Billy would want me to mention that he went to Dover High School with Jim Westcott, father of snowboarder Seth Westcott, who won back-to-back golds in snowboard cross.

The New Hampshire medalists at these Vancouver Games were really spectacular. Scotty Lago spoke with such pride about representing

Seabrook and all of New Hampshire when he won a bronze medal in the men's halfpipe competition. We are all very proud of Andrew Weibrecht, who won bronze in the Super-G, and Hillary Knight, who took silver with her team.

Of course, the State is still celebrating Bode Miller, who, by winning a gold, silver, and bronze medal on the Whistler slopes, became the most decorated American alpine skier in history.

But I am proud of every Granite Stater who represented our country in these Games. As someone in elected office, I can tell you that not every race goes exactly how you would like. What is important is that each of you has achieved so much through focus and hard work, far away from the spotlight. You represent the best of our State.

Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize Tyler Walker of Franconia and Chris Devlin-Young of Campton, who will be skiing for Team USA later this week at the Vancouver Paralympic games. The Paralymic games continue to shine as an example to the world of what each of us can achieve. Thank you for representing our State and our country. Good luck.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate National Peace Corps Week and to honor the thousands of Americans who serve as Peace Corps volunteers throughout the world.

The Peace Corps was founded on the ideal that each of us has the responsibility to serve our country and leave our world in a better place than we found it. Peace Corps volunteers provide innovation, creativity, determination, and compassion in an ever-changing world, advancing U.S. interests and the global good. These volunteers exemplify the true meaning of service to a greater cause and contributing to the well-being of those in need around the world.

Since the Peace Corps' founding in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, nearly 200,000 U.S. citizens have chosen to serve their country as Peace Corps volunteers in 139 countries around the world. Today, nearly 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers serve abroad in 76 different countries, providing critical education, expertise, and development assistance to the poor and impoverished across the globe. Their willingness to dedicate themselves toward the laudable goal of assisting those in need and strengthening the image of America makes them deserving of our respect and admiration.

In my own home State of New Hampshire, 48 volunteers have heard the call and are currently devoting their time, energy, and lives to fulfilling the vision of President Kennedy and serving abroad in the cause of peace. They are placed throughout the developing world--from Cambodia to Guatemala to Kazakhstan--making significant and lasting contributions toward the health, education, and development in the places where these things are often needed most.

I seek recognition of each of these citizen ambassadors and the many Peace Corps volunteers from New Hampshire that have served since 1961. In honor of their efforts, I will ask consent that the attached list of current New Hampshire volunteers be printed in the Congressional Record. New Hampshire is proud of your service, and we will continue to stand behind you and express thanks for your assistance.

In today's interdependent world, American security and prosperity are inextricably linked to the security and prosperity of people in the developing world. Peace Corps volunteers work on the front lines in our battle for hearts and minds around the globe. They serve as teachers, business professionals, health educators, agricultural and environmental specialists, management and information technology advisors, and mentors and friends to citizens across the globe. As the administration plans to double the size of the Peace Corps in the years to come, it is critical to remember that these unofficial ambassadors have become enduring symbols of our nation's commitment to progress, opportunity, and grass-roots development in the far corners of the world.

Upon the completion of their service abroad, these volunteers then return home to promote a better understanding here in America of the culture, language and viewpoint of those they have served. In our 21st century world, where the threats and challenges that confront America and the global community cannot be overcome by the might of our military alone, Peace Corps volunteers are laying the foundation for a more secure, prosperous, and compassionate world. In honor of National Peace Corps Week and in celebration of the Peace Corps' 49th anniversary, I would like to recognize those volunteers from New Hampshire, as well as all past and current Peace Corps volunteers, for their commitment to fostering a better world for future generations.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, I will work with our allies and friends throughout the world in the development of an American foreign policy that matches the passion and commitment to service of our Peace Corps volunteers abroad.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the list of current New Hampshire volunteers to which I referred printed in the Record.

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

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

Madam President, last week Senate leadership reached agreement on a short-term extension of Federal unemployment benefits and other critical programs that were set to expire. But when we tried to pass the bill, sadly, one single Senator objected. Because of that one Senator and his filibuster, Federal unemployment benefits and health care subsidies for people who have lost their jobs have now expired. This Senator also single-handedly halted highway projects across the country and put workers' futures in jeopardy. The obstruction of this bill has brought to a standstill small business lending programs that have been successful at boosting the number of SBA-guaranteed loans since the Recovery Act was passed. Because of the Senator's actions, physicians will see their immediate care reimbursements slashed by over 21 percent, threatening the health care of too many seniors in New Hampshire and across this country.

There may be some people who don't realize the damage caused by these lapses, so I am here, as so many people have been here on the floor over the last several days, to talk about what is happening to too many people because of this filibuster.

First, this is about the struggles faced by individual workers and their families. Right now, with a record number of unemployed workers competing for each job, it has become harder than ever for people who lose a job to get back to work. Of the 16 million Americans who are out of work today, nearly 6 million--more than 1 in 3--have run through the benefits provided by their States. These 6 million people are the ones served by Federal unemployment, which is a critical safety net that helps families buy gas and groceries and helps them heat their homes and pay their mortgages and their rents while they look for the next job. Because of the actions of just one Member of this body--actions that I believe are irresponsible--more than 1.2 million people will get their last check during the month of March.

My office has heard from hundreds of constituents in the last week who are on the verge of losing their benefits, and their stories are heartbreaking. I wish to tell my colleagues about just one.

A woman named Linda wrote me. She said:

I've been unemployed for the first time in my life since

August. I will be 60 on March 14, and I have not been able to

find another full-time job. I own an older mobile home in

Epping and don't have a retirement plan, a nest egg, or

anything of that nature. The prospect of my unemployment

benefits going away very soon (I may only have two to three

weeks left) because of one Senator digging in his heels makes

me feel sick. Please, please do everything you can to get an

extension for unemployment benefits passed. God has a plan

for us all; I just pray that I don't lose everything, as many

others have, and that one Senator isn't playing the partisan

card just because he can. I'm not sure that America is the

land of opportunity that it used to be.

That is the end of her quote.

While some may think it is no big deal to make people such as Linda wait a week or 2 weeks to get another unemployment check, 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. Phone lines at call centers are jammed with claimants, holding up others from filing for benefits, and lines at one-stop centers get longer and longer. In the best of circumstances, individuals who see their benefits lapse while this filibuster continues will have to wait weeks before they begin receiving checks again. That is a long time when you are living on unemployment.

Then there is the uncertainty and the fear that comes when someone opens the mail to find a notice that this check is the last one they will receive. Families can't make responsible budget choices when we abruptly interrupt safety net programs.

So this filibuster isn't just holding up benefits to those who are already out of work; it is causing more Americans to lose their jobs. By cutting off highway funding, one Senator has put thousands more Americans at risk of losing their jobs. For the first time in 20 years, construction projects across the country have halted. Without an extension of highway programs, construction companies in New Hampshire can't plan ahead. Workers in New Hampshire don't know whether there will be a job for them when construction season starts back up in the spring. Due to the actions of just one Senator, the future of these workers is uncertain.

This filibuster is especially egregious because it abuses the Senate rules, but, unfortunately, abusing the rules in order to prevent us from addressing the needs of families and small businesses has sadly become too routine. That is why I believe we need to take a very hard look at changing the Senate rules. It is time to stop playing political games with the lives of the American people. I hope that at least on this bill, every Member of the Senate can come together to support the millions of people who are counting on our leadership.

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

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life and service of Army SPC Marc P. Decoteau of Waterville Valley, NH. Tragically, this young soldier, just 19 years old, died while serving as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Wardak Province, Afghanistan on January 29, 2010. Specialist Decoteau was a member of the 6th Psychological Operations Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group based at Fort Bragg, NC. He had been deployed in Afghanistan less than 1 month at the time of his death.

Specialist Decoteau enlisted in the Army shortly after his graduation from Plymouth Regional High School in 2008. He made this honorable decision without reservation, having long declared his desire to serve. Marc followed in the footsteps of his father, an Army veteran and West Point graduate. His decorations include the National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Army Service Ribbon, and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Marc was posthumously awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal and NATO Medal.

Despite his young age, Specialist Decoteau left an indelible mark on those who knew him. Marc was an upstanding young man with an infectious sense of humor and warm smile. His hometown of Waterville Valley is an exceptionally tight-knit community of just 340 residents, and he was an integral member of it. While at Plymouth Regional, he was also an outstanding student-athlete who played lacrosse and football and was known for his work ethic. He was a member of two State champion football teams.

Each day, the men and women of our Armed Forces offer their service so that we might enjoy freedom and security. Specialist Decoteau selflessly gave his life to that cause. No words can diminish the pain of losing such a young soldier, but I hope Marc's family--and the town of Waterville Valley, his extended family--can find solace in knowing that all Americans share a deep appreciation of Marc's service. Daniel Webster's words, first spoken during his eulogy for Presidents Adams and Jefferson in 1826, are fitting: ``Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored.'' Specialist Decoteau has earned our country's enduring gratitude and recognition.

Specialist Decoteau is survived by his parents Nancy and Mark, his sister Medora and brother Andrew, as well as grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. This young patriot will be dearly missed by all; his death while deployed far from home is a true loss for New Hampshire and for our nation. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life, service and sacrifice of SPC Marc P. Decoteau.

Captain Daniel Whitten

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

Mr. President, I came to speak because there are Senators--anonymous Senators--who are blocking the confirmation of Susan Carbon, who has been nominated to be the new Director of the Office of Violence Against Women. Susan is from my home State of New Hampshire. For 2 months, the Office of Violence Against Women was denied leadership and direction, not because there are Senators who think Susan Carbon is unqualified for this position but because they believed that blocking her confirmation somehow gains them leverage on completely unrelated pet issues. I understand that, hopefully, finally today, after the issue had been raised in the press, that hold has been lifted.

Blocking the confirmation of Susan Carbon as Director of the Office of Violence Against Women is a perfect example of what people see as what is wrong with Washington.

Every 2 minutes, someone in this country is a victim of sexual violence. Every 52 seconds, a woman is victimized by a spouse or a partner. These crimes devastate victims' lives. They shatter families. They often create fear in whole communities. The Office of Violence Against Women leads our Nation's efforts to prevent these deadly crimes and to identify, capture, and punish the perpetrators.

The Office of Violence Against Women works with law enforcement, with victim advocates, with the health care community, and so many others. It provides financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are working to end domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

I am sure every Senator in this body personally knows someone who has been the victim of domestic violence or sexual assault. I am sure all Senators know how hard their local police and victim advocates work to stop domestic and sexual violence. They know how much the communities in their States appreciate the assistance they get from the Office of Violence Against Women. I would bet almost every Senator, at one time or another, has taken credit for the funding that the Office brings back to organizations within their home States.

Yet despite a unanimous vote by the Judiciary Committee back on December 3 of last year that recommended Susan Carbon's confirmation, unnamed Senators have blocked her confirmation for 2 months.

President Obama's choice to lead our country's efforts against domestic and sexual violence happens to be a State court judge from New Hampshire. It might interest some of the Republican Senators in this body to know--those who are blocking her confirmation--that it was Judd Gregg, the senior Republican Senator from New Hampshire, who first recognized Susan's capabilities and potential. In 1991, then-Governor Gregg appointed Susan Carbon to be a part-time district court judge. After I became Governor, I appointed Susan to be a full-time judge. Because of her commitment to ending domestic violence and her expertise in family law, she was named the supervisory judge of the family division in New Hampshire, a position she still holds.

Susan Carbon is exceptionally qualified to serve as the Director of the Office of Violence Against Women. She is the leading voice in New Hampshire on domestic violence and family law, and she has been the driving force behind so many of New Hampshire's efforts to strengthen legal protections for victims of domestic violence.

Susan also has become a national leader on domestic violence. She frequently serves as a faculty member for the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, and she chaired the project which produced the guidebook for professionals and their work around domestic violence court orders.

I do not know what political party Susan Carbon belongs to and it does not matter because she is a good and decent person who is anxious to take on the responsibility of leading the Office of Violence Against Women.

I ask Senators who think about blocking such nominations in the future to imagine what it is like to explain to a nonpartisan, earnest public servant, eager to assume a new position of national leadership, that her confirmation is being blocked because one or two anonymous Senators want a new Federal building or some other project in their States or want a defense contract awarded to a certain company or because they are mad at Attorney General Eric Holder for some unrelated issue.

These Senators, cloaked in anonymity, were not punishing Attorney General Holder by blocking Susan Carbon's confirmation. These Senators were punishing the victims of domestic and sexual violence in States across this country. They were punishing the police officers who put their lives at risk every time they enter homes plagued by domestic violence. They were punishing community groups that are working to prevent domestic and sexual violence. What these Senators did by blocking the confirmation of the Director of the Office of Violence Against Women for 2 months was, simply and plainly, wrong.

I hope the news that her confirmation is moving forward is a correct one. I hope that for the 70 or so other good public servants who are just trying to serve this country who have been nominated, that their nominations will also go forward so we can make sure people are in the positions they should be to run this government on behalf of the citizens of this country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining Democratic time be divided equally between myself, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by congratulating Senator Landrieu and thanking her for all the hard work she has done on this bill--first of all for small business. I think we have significantly, with her leadership, improved this legislation for small business so that many of the small businesses in this country--many in my home State of New Hampshire--will now be able to get help as they try to cover their employees for health care. I also wish to congratulate her for all her good work to help children in the foster system. It is significant they will be able to get health insurance once they age out of the foster system and, of course, to help those, as she has pointed out, who have children who are in their early twenties and who are still trying to get settled in a profession.

My daughter was fortunate enough to have health insurance last year in her first job out of college. But now she is going to a new job that doesn't have health insurance, and so she will be able to be covered once this legislation is passed under our plan. As Senator Landrieu points out, it is going to make a real difference for families and for small business.

I am very pleased to be here today to support this legislation and also to try to dispel some of the myths we have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about what is actually in this legislation. Despite what many of our colleagues may want us to believe, passing this bill is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Our current health care system is a threat to the security of our families, our small businesses, and the entire economy of this Nation. The costs of health care in America make up almost 18 percent of our economy--our gross domestic product. That is more than any other industrialized country. Health care costs are rising three times faster than wages. The leading cause of about two-thirds of the bankruptcies in America is medical bills. Our current health care system is simply not sustainable.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act moves us in a new direction--a direction that is fiscally responsible because this bill is fully paid for. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would reduce our Federal deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years. In fact, this legislation represents one of the largest deficit-reduction measures we have seen certainly in many years and possibly ever.

Small businesses in my home State of New Hampshire and across this country are going to benefit from this legislation. We heard Senator Landrieu talk about many of the provisions she worked on--and many of which I cosponsored--to help improve the legislation for small business. The fact is, the steep annual increases in the cost of health insurance have been forcing more and more businesses to make the very difficult decision to either drop coverage for their workers or to increase their employees' contribution to the point that too many workers have had to decline coverage.

I have heard from a number of businesspeople in New Hampshire, and I wish to read what a couple of them have said.

A young woman named Adria Bagshaw testified this summer at a Small Business Committee field hearing we held in New Hampshire. Adria and her husband Aaron own the W.H. Bagshaw Company. It is a fifth- generation small manufacturing company in Nashua, NH. There aren't a lot of those fifth-generation companies left that are owned by the same family. They offer health insurance to their 18 employees and cover anywhere between 10 to 25 percent of their monthly premium. But now the premiums are $1,100 per month per family, and Adria is afraid she will have to cut back on the quality of their health insurance plan or the amount the company covers to make ends meet. The sad thing is that she says right now they are spending more on health insurance than they are for raw materials to make their products.

I also heard from a man named John Colony, who is a small business owner in the small, very picturesque town of Harrisville, NH. He e- mailed me saying:

The cost of health insurance is the biggest problem that

our small business faces.

He has 24 employees. He went on to say:

The present system is expensive, inefficient and broken. I

can't tell you how the 20 to 35 percent annual rate increases

depress us all and there is no end in sight. Over the past

five years, most of our employees have had to drop coverage

because they simply can't afford to pay their share of the

premium. I really believe that the time has come to put the

existing system out of its misery.

Well, I am happy to tell John we are about to do that, because under this legislation, beginning next year, we provide significant tax credits for small businesses to help them pay for the cost of coverage for their workers. This bill contains a number of significant measures to rein in runaway health care costs--measures such as creating a new pathway for biologic drugs so we can get biologic generic drugs to the market and help lower costs for people. There are measures in this bill that will eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse--something that takes too big a chunk out of our health care dollar. There are also measures in here that will get rid of the subsidies

the government pays to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans. These are all commonsense actions that will save the government and health care consumers money over time.

In addition, this bill makes significant improvements to our health care delivery system. That is the way we provide health care for people. It injects more competition into the health care marketplace. Controlling health care spending is critical to address the fiscal health of this Nation--no pun intended. This legislation takes a very important first step in slowing down the growth.

I am sure every Member of the Senate--Republican and Democratic alike--has heard heartbreaking stories from our constituents about health care--stories about being denied health insurance, about having to stay at a job they do not like because of the fear of losing coverage, about frustration over the lack of choice and who provides their health insurance or a lack of understanding about their plan's limits until it is too late and they are facing financial peril. Well, this bill will, I am happy to say, change that. Not only do we ensure coverage for an additional 31 million people----

--but we eliminate the abuses of the insurance companies.

I will be back to talk about some of these other areas.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Professor Andrew Samwick for being recognized for his dedication to and his excellence in teaching. Professor Samwick is the winner of the 2009 New Hampshire Professor of the Year Award, one of the most prestigious awards for undergraduate teaching. Honorees are recognized for their influence in the lives and careers of their students.

Mr. Samwick has taught at Dartmouth College since 1994 and is a professor of economics and the director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and Social Sciences. He is a well-known expert on the economics of retirement and social security reform, and has testified several times before Congress and has served as chief economist on the staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research where he cochairs the Social Security Working Group.

Professor Samwick graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and received a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has won numerous prizes, grants, and fellowships for his work. His articles frequently appear in prestigious economics and finance journals and he often provides commentary and opinion for national public radio and national newspapers.

The U.S. Professors of the Year program acknowledges the most exceptional undergraduate instructors in the country--those who stand out in their teaching and positive influence on the lives and careers of their students. It is important that we recognize the critical work and contribution that our talented professors make in educating the next generation of young people. I am extremely proud that Professor Samwick has been honored by this prestigious distinction.