Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is of deep concern to our country, one of the greatest national security threats facing our country right now; that is, what is called sequestration.

To bring that down to plain terms for the American people, our Department of Defense is facing an additional $500 billion across-the- board meat ax in cuts in addition to the already planned $487 billion in reduction over the next 10 years if we do not act as a Senate, as a Congress, and if the Commander in Chief does not act to come up with more responsible ways to cut spending.

We all know we have a nearly $16 trillion debt. We all know debt threatens our country not only as a national security threat but also as a threat to the quality of life of my children--I am the mother of a 7-year-old and a 4-year-old--and future generations in this country. However, what we did last August was a kick-the-can exercise, where we left it to a supercommittee to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings, rather than sitting down and coming up with the savings we should have at the time.

So where we are left is with a meat-ax, across-the-board approach, instead of prioritizing our spending, and we are putting at risk the most fundamental constitutional responsibility we have to the American people; that is, to keep them safe.

Daniel Webster, who was born in New Hampshire, served as a Senator from Massachusetts, was a great statesman, said in 1834: ``God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.''

We know from our men and women in uniform that they have been there for us to guard and defend this great Nation--not only the current men and women who serve but generations of brave men and women have served our country. Where we are right now, we do a disservice to them not to resolve this sequestration, these across-the-board cuts, by coming up with alternative spending reductions, which we can do.

To put it in perspective, 1 year of sequestration is about $109 billion, and that also covers nondefense. If we could live within our means for 1 month with this government, we could come up with the spending reductions. We need to do that on behalf of our Department of Defense and for the American people.

Some of the things that have been said about the impact of these across-the-board cuts:

Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said we will face the potential for increased conflict. He also said: ``We are living in the most dangerous times in my lifetime, right now''--meaning, right now. ``I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive.''

We also know every leader of our military from every branch has spoken to both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. What they have said is shocking and should be a wakeup call to Members of both sides of the aisle, that we owe it to our military and to the American people to address it.

Just some of the things that have been said about sequestration:

The Chief of Naval Operations has said: We will do ``irreversible damage'' to our Navy. ``It will hollow out the military, and we will be out of balance in manpower, both military and civilian, procurement and modernization.''

The Chief of Staff of the Army has said: It ``would be catastrophic to the military . . . '' and we will ``reduce our capability and capacity to assure our partners abroad, respond to crises, and deter our potential adversaries,'' while threatening our readiness.

The Air Force Chief of Staff has said:

We will be left with a military with aging equipment,

extremely stressed human resources with less than adequate

training and ultimately declining readiness and

effectiveness.

As I said yesterday on this floor, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps has said that the Marine Corps will be unable to respond to one major conflict on behalf of this country.

There are many things we can predict. One of the things we know we can predict is what is going to happen with sequestration. We know that if we do not address our debt now, we will be facing the fate of Europe. But one thing we have been very bad at predicting is where the next conflict will come from for our country, where the next threat our country will face will come from. If our Marine Corps is unprepared to respond to one major contingency, our country is at risk. That is why we need to address this.

It is not only the impact on our men and women in uniform--from the Chief of Staff, from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, of all the branches that have spoken--but I had the chance to participate in a panel yesterday, to hear the concerns of our enlisted about this. I heard from the former head, the top enlisted person in the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major Kent. He expressed deep concern that we would be breaking faith with our troops. Our military leaders have expressed real concerns that we will not only undermine our national security, but we will fail to keep faith with those who have sacrificed so much for our country and to whom we owe everything.

In addition to the dire national security impacts of allowing this irresponsible across-the-board approach to occur in January, we also know there are nearly 1 million jobs at issue. In fact, yesterday, before the House Armed Services Committee, the CEOs of some of our major defense employers testified. In fact, the CEO of Lockheed Martin Bob Stevens said:

I have spent decades of my professional working life in the

national security arena and I have never been as concerned

over the risk to the health of our industry and our

Government [as now].

He said:

The effects of sequestration are being felt, right now,

throughout our industry. Every month that goes by without a

solution is a month of additional uncertainty, deferred

investment, lost talent and ultimately increased cost.

You see, it is not just our service men and women who keep our country safe, it is those who work to make sure we have the right equipment, that we have the best technology, that we have the best capability of gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks against our country.

Our defense industrial base is incredibly important--not to mention 1 million jobs at issue.

Yesterday, Dave Hess, president of Pratt & Whitney and chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association, said:

As an industry, we are already seeing the impact of

potential sequestration budget cuts today. Companies are

limiting hiring and halting investments--largely due to the

uncertainty about how sequestration cuts would be applied.

A small business owner, Della Williams--it is not just our large employers, a lot of small businesses make parts for our weapons systems, for our equipment for our military. They cannot take this uncertainty we have created for them in Congress, and these cuts, and many of them will be forced to go out of business.

Della Williams said:

What is being billed as a stop-gap budget fix will have

lasting effects on our defense capabilities for years to

come. The switch will not just get flipped back on to reverse

that trend.

Moreover, the deep personnel and program cuts will threaten

our national security. Indeed, the United States could lose

our technological and strategic advantage and never get it

back.

This is why this is so important.

By the way, yesterday the CEO of Lockheed Martin had to issue-- believed he had to issue a memo to his employees. In that memo his employees will receive, he said:

We believe sequestration is the single greatest challenge

facing our company and our industry. Defense Secretary Leon

Panetta has said sequestration will have catastrophic

consequences for our nation's defense. . . . With little

guidance from the government on the specifics of

sequestration, it is difficult to determine the impact . . .

on our employees.

He said: We do know that we have a responsibility to tell you that you could potentially be laid off and that we have a duty to issue what are called Warn Act notices now.

Under Federal law, these defense employers are going to have to, 60 days before January 1, issue potential layoff notices to their employees. Of course, that will also create lots of uncertainty and consternation in many American families, which is unnecessary if we would come to the table right now and address this issue.

We can find spending reductions that do not threaten our national security. Just to put a couple of numbers in perspective, some States just had in job losses on this: Virginia, according to AIA--there was a new report issued this week done by George Mason University--Virginia: 136,000 defense industrial base jobs; Florida, 41,000; Pennsylvania, 39,000; my home State of New Hampshire, just on the defense end, 3,600 jobs.

We owe it to the American people to act now. This is too important to be used as a bargaining chip in December because people want to use it to put our national security at risk because of other issues they want addressed. We have always treated national security as a bipartisan issue in this Chamber. I hope we will not use our Department of Defense and put our men and women in uniform in this uncertain position. We need to let them know we have their back. As Members of Congress, we should be together right now, sitting at the table, resolving this, coming up with alternative spending reductions.

I also call on the President as Commander in Chief of this country to lead that effort, to stop sitting on the sidelines. This is too important to the security of the United States of America.

I see my colleague from South Dakota here today, John Thune, who is a leader in our conference, someone who I know has been very focused on this issue.

I ask Senator Thune, yesterday the House was focusing on this issue. We know there were hearings before the House Armed Services Committee. In fact, we should point out that the House, through reconciliation, has already passed a bill to address sequestration, to make sure our national security is protected. They have done that. It has not been taken up in the Senate yet, unfortunately. I call on the majority leader of the Senate to act now because the House has passed something.

Yesterday, they also held a hearing. The House passed another measure by 414 to 2 that is called the Sequestration Transparency Act. It is a companion bill to one Senator Thune introduced in this Chamber. I know how focused he has been on this issue. The Senate passed a similar amendment to the farm bill.

One of the issues we saw from the CEOs who testified yesterday, from our defense industrial bases, the Department of Defense, OMB--they have gotten no guidance on where these cuts will be implemented. Therefore, I know that yesterday the House actually passed this act to address that piece of it.

I ask, does the Senator from South Dakota agree that the Senate should immediately pass the legislation he introduced, this bipartisan House bill that is coming over, a version, so that we, the American people, can know right away--have the agencies tell them specifically what the impacts of sequestration are? Of course, most important, we need to address this before the elections because we should not play political football with this.

With that, I ask the Senator from South Dakota what he thinks we should do here in the Senate right now.

I would say my colleague from South Dakota is absolutely right. If we had done a budget for this country and the Senate Budget Committee functioned in the way it was intended to function, then we would not be in this situation in the first place. If we did regular budgeting and if we did the responsible thing for our country--as every business does, as every family does; on an annual basis we are supposed to do it as opposed to it being over 3 years since we have had a budget--then we would not be in this situation right now where our Department of Defense is at risk. I know the Senator from South Dakota voted for a budget the House passed, and I did as well. Had that budget passed, then the House did its job. Had we done that, we wouldn't be here with sequestration today. We are doing what we owe to the American people. If we can't do a budget for this country, how are we going to get the trillion dollar deficit in check?

Unfortunately, we know why we don't have a budget. The majority leader of the Senate has not shown the

leadership he should because he said it would be foolish for us to pass a budget and has not allowed the Senate Budget Committee--the Senator is right, I am not sure why we have that committee. I have been on there for a year and half. We have not marked up a budget. We have not done it, and that is because the majority leader of the Senate has said it would be foolish for us to do a budget. Why? Because when we do a budget, we do have to make choices, as families and businesses do, and prioritize where we are going to spend the money and the taxpayer dollars that are sent to Washington by our constituents, the American people. Where we are today is unfortunate. Had we done that, then I don't think we would be in the position we are with sequestration.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership on this issue, and I too hope we will get that passed immediately in the Senate, and that we have clarity from our Department of Defense as well as the nondefense agencies so the American people can know what the real impact is; also, so we can act immediately. I can't emphasize enough that this needs to be done before the elections. We need to do it before the elections because we have already--I talked about some of the testimony from the CEOs from our defense industrial base, and there will be, unfortunately, layoff notices which will have to be issued because of responsibilities they have under Federal law. Let's face it, we should not have this cloud of uncertainty for our men and women in uniform, many of whom have served multiple tours for us and defended our country so admirably and so courageously. That is why I think this is an issue that deserves action now and should not be used as a bargaining chip for other issues. This is an area we have always, on a bipartisan basis, been able to do. For example, I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We voted out the Defense authorization bill unanimously. Well, this is an issue I hope we would be unanimous on and that we are not

going to break faith with our men and women in uniform, we are not going to put our country in jeopardy, and I am hopeful we will also see leadership.

I call upon the President again to be a leader here, to be the Commander in Chief of this country and to call us to action to resolve this before the election.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Sessions. I appreciate his leadership as the ranking member on the Budget Committee and also as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee.

This is so troubling, where we are right now with respect to our Department of Defense, our military--the most important constitutional function we have as a government to make sure the American people are safe.

Essentially, where we are is the Budget Control Act, as described, initially has cut $487 billion from our military over the next 10 years. But on top of that, there are across-the-board cuts coming in January. I think the No. 1 lesson we learned from the Budget Control Act is when we kick the can down the road and we don't make the decisions right away or when we delegate it to some other committee to make the decisions, when we don't do a budget in 3 years, here is where we are. So we owe it to the American people to make the decisions that need to be made now.

It is irresponsible to put our Department of Defense and our military--our men and women who have fought so bravely for this country--at risk because somehow there are Members who think it is important to play roulette and to play chicken with our national security.

This isn't just from the Senator from New Hampshire. Just listen to our own Secretary of Defense. He describes what is coming with these across-the-board cuts in January as:

Devastating. Catastrophic. Would lead to a hollow force

incapable of sustaining the missions of the Department of

Defense.

He has compared sequestration or these across-the-board cuts to ``shooting ourselves in the head, inflicting severe damage to our national security.''

To the point the Senator from Alabama made as well as the Senator from South Dakota, which is the President who is the Commander in Chief of this country, I would call upon him: Mr. President, lead an effort to resolve this. We can come up with alternative spending reductions. Yes, we need to cut spending, and I will be the first to stand in line to say we need to make sure we make those spending cuts. But let's not do it at the sake of our military.

If the Presiding Officer doesn't want to listen to me, the Senator from New Hampshire, please listen to your own Secretary of Defense and make sure we do not undermine our national security.

I serve as the ranking Republican on the Readiness Subcommittee. I asked the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps: What is the impact on the Marine Corps from these across-the-board meat axe cuts that are coming in January to our military?

Already the Marine Corps, under the initial reductions, is going to be reduced 20,000. If this goes forward, this irresponsible way of treating our military and our Department of Defense, the Marine Corps will take another 18,000 reduction. The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps said: The most shocking thing to me is actually something that keeps me up at night; that is, he said, the Marine Corps will be incapable of responding to one single major contingency.

Think about it. Think about it in terms of protecting our country. That is why it is so important that we resolve this now. It is my hope Members from the other side of the aisle will come to the table now.

To put it in perspective, we could resolve and find spending reductions to deal with not only the defense but the nondefense part of these across-the-board cuts by living within our means for 1 month within this government. It is $109 billion. We need to do this for the American people.

Our men and women in our forces of every branch of this service are so astounding in their courage. Just one example. There was a sergeant in the Marine Corps who lost his leg in Afghanistan and he took 1 year to recover. With a prosthetic leg, he reenlisted. He actually redeployed in the Marine Corps. Those are the types of men and women to whom we owe that they don't just get pink slips because we aren't showing the courage that needs to be shown right here in the Senate to come up with the spending reductions that don't put our country at risk.

Our Commander in Chief should be leading that effort. Unfortunately, all we have seen so far from the President is punting this issue. I would call upon him and Members of both sides of the aisle to come together to resolve this.

We should resolve this before the election. If we wait until after the election, then our Department of Defense

is going to be under this cloud of uncertainty. Our men and women in uniform need to know we will not break faith with them, that we will stand with them, that we are not going to use them as a political football for other issues because, on a bipartisan basis, we should stand with them, with our national security.

In addition, one of the reasons we should resolve this before the elections is it is not just about the safety of our country, which should come first and foremost, but we are also talking about nearly 1 million jobs in the private sector in our defense industrial base, based on a report from AIA and George Mason University--just looking at defense, 1 million jobs.

Those jobs are the manufacturers, both large and small, that build the equipment, the protection, the weapons systems our men and women in uniform need to fight the wars we ask them to do to keep them safe and protected. If we lose that capacity, not only do we lose the jobs that are good jobs in this country, but we also lose capacity, which is very much a part of the defense of this Nation. Under Federal law, these companies will be required to issue, under the Warren Act, notices of layoff, potential layoff 60 days before it happens, which brings us to November.

That is why we need to address this issue before the election as well. We should not put all those Americans who work for those companies and those companies at risk.

Yesterday, AIA also issued a report looking at the nondefense implications of sequestration. If we put it all together, it is over 2 million jobs in this country that are at issue.

We should get to the table right now, resolve this, cut the spending in a responsible way that doesn't add a national security crisis to our fiscal crisis. We can do it, but we aren't going to do it if we continue to put off the difficult decisions, if we kick this can down the road again, if we use this as roulette or chicken or in some other debate in December.

This needs to be resolved right now for our men and women in uniform who have shown the courage, the tenacity, and the love of country. They have done so much for us and they deserve better from us than to use them as a political football in some other debate.

I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to come to the table now. I urge the President to come and lead this effort so we can resolve this issue on behalf of the American people.

I yield my time to the Senator from Alabama.

I join with my colleagues over the concern, deep concern that keeps me up at night about sequestration, because we cannot do this to our national security. Both sides of the aisle have to come together. We need leadership from our Commander in Chief on this issue.

To put it in perspective, I asked the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps what the impact of sequestration would be on the Marines. Do you know what he told me? That the Marine Corps of the United States of America would be unable to respond to one major contingency. Talk about putting our country at risk and putting ourselves in a situation where unfortunately there are still so many risks around the world that our country needs to be protected from. To think that our Marine Corps would not be able to respond to one major contingency. It is outrageous. It cries for bipartisan leadership on this issue, particularly leadership from our Commander in Chief.

To put it in perspective, it is not just an issue of our national security. You would think that would be enough to bring people to the table. But we are talking about jobs across this country. The National Association of Manufacturers has estimated it would be nearly 1 million jobs; George Mason University, the same.

To my colleagues, looking around here, polling some States in terms of the estimate of job losses: 24,000 for Alabama. When we look at a State like Missouri, 31,000, when we look at a State, for example, like Florida, 39,000 for Florida. This is an issue that will hit every State in this Nation.

But, most importantly, what I am concerned about is it is going to hit our military in a way that we break faith with our troops. In fact, General Odienero of our Army has said he would have to cut an additional 100,000 troops from our Army on top of the reductions we are making right now, approximately 72,000, and 50 percent of it would have to come from the Guard and Reserve.

You think about the important function not only of protecting our country, we could not have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq without our Guard and Reserve. I am the proud wife of someone who served in the Iraq war. I can tell you, it is not only the function that our Guard and Reserve play in terms of protecting us overseas, but they also perform a very important homeland function. Every Governor in this country will be deeply concerned if we are going to diminish our Guard and Reserve. So this is an issue that cries out for leadership from both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this now. It cannot wait until a lameduck session. We cannot put our national security in the balance, and nearly 1 million jobs at issue, to a lameduck session. This is something we should resolve right now.

I appreciate that my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about this issue today. We must get this done on behalf of the American people and our men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up Ayotte amendment No. 2192.

Mr. President, my amendment seeks to reform the value- added grant program. The USDA has awarded $240 million in grants over the lifetime of this program, but the USDA has not been transparent and has failed to adequately account for the grants and how they are awarded.

The last assessment of this program was in 2006 and indicated that more than 40 percent of the grant recipients went out of business just 3 years after having completed their grant project. My amendment would allow the program to go forward, but it would reform this program to be more accountable to taxpayers.

The program has awarded 62 grants totaling $12.1 million to ethanol facilities. It does eliminate grants to ethanol facilities. We should not be wasting further taxpayer dollars to give to ethanol producers when we have already given them so many taxpayer opportunities here.

At least 105 wine industry groups and wineries have received $10.5 million.

Mr. President, I would just say this is a good amendment for taxpayers to reform this program and make it accountable.

I thank Senator McCain for his leadership as the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee. No one knows these issues better in the Senate than John McCain. So it is an honor be here with him, and also my colleague Senator Thune, with whom I serve on the Budget Committee. Senator Thune has been very concerned about the impacts of sequestration on our national security. I call sequestration the biggest national security threat you have never heard of. The American people need to know this threat to their national security, to the protection of our country, which is our fundamental responsibility under the Constitution.

I fully support the amendment Senator McCain has brought forward on the farm bill that he championed, along with Senator Levin, on the Defense authorization, because we can't afford to keep hiding the details of what will happen to our Department of Defense and our military if sequestration goes forward.

To be clear, as Senator Thune has already identified, the Department of Defense is taking significant reductions. In the proposed 2013 budget from the President, the Department will take approximately $487 billion in reductions over the next 9 years. That already means a reduction of approximately 72,000 of our Army and a reduction of 20,000 of our Marine Corps. But what we are here talking about today

is an additional $500 billion to $600 billion in reductions coming in January of 2013 that the American people need to know about, and our Department of Defense should clearly identify what is going to happen with those reductions.

But here is what we do know. As Senator McCain and Senator Thune have already talked about, our Secretary of Defense has warned that these cuts will be devastating; that they will be catastrophic; that we will be shooting ourselves in the head if we did this for our national security; that we would be undermining our national security for generations.

This is what it means, and what our service chiefs have told us so far about the preliminary assessments of sequestration:

For our Army, what they have said is an additional 100,000 reduction in our Army, 50 percent coming from the Guard and Reserve, on top of the 72,000 coming in the proposed 2013 budget. That would result in our ground forces being reduced to the smallest size since before World War

I would say to my colleague from South Dakota, you are absolutely right. It is outrageous that it has been over 1,100 days that we have not had a budget in the Senate. In the Budget Committee that we both serve on, the Senator and I are anxious to resolve the big fiscal issues facing our country.

I agree with the Senator from South Dakota, if we did that function of budgeting, we wouldn't be in this position where we have put our national security at risk because we are not taking on the big-picture fiscal issue to get our fiscal house in order in Washington and make sure we reform mandatory spending so those programs are sustainable and available for future generations. So here we are.

Not only do I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I am the wife of a veteran. It is astounding to me that we would put our national security at risk rather than doing our jobs, putting together a budget that is

responsible and proportional. That is one of the underlying reasons why we find ourselves in the position we are right now.

I ask my colleague from South Dakota, as Commander in Chief, the President has a responsibility on this very important issue. It is such an important and weighty responsibility as President of the United States to be Commander in Chief. Where is the President on these issues?

I ask Senator Thune, is this not so important when we think about the impact on our national security that now we hear from the President that Members on both sides of the aisle should sit down instead of kicking this can beyond the elections?

What I have heard from our employers is that they will have to make decisions now that could impact our defense industrial base. We are talking about shipbuilders, we are talking about experts, small businesses that work in this area. Once those jobs go away in terms of a small business, such as a sole supplier on one of our major procurement programs, which happens quite often, that expertise goes away. We don't immediately pull that back. So we are talking about an estimate of 1 million jobs, and the private sector can't wait for us to resolve this until after the election. They need us to resolve this now. In my view, our military can't wait until after the election, nor should our military be put in that position. They should know that we are going to resolve this because we want to keep faith with them. We do not want to hollow out our force. We do not want to put them at risk. So, on a bipartisan basis, this is a critical issue to resolve before the election. I wondered what my colleague's view was on that.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, in introducing the Small Business Export Growth Act, which would help small businesses better navigate the complex process of promoting and selling their goods abroad.

Senator Shaheen and I serve together on the Small Business Committee, and as she mentioned, we held a field hearing in Manchester, New Hampshire, last August to examine the role of exports in small business growth and job creation. We heard testimony from key national and New Hampshire-based stakeholders about ways to improve coordination among regulatory agencies, and how to ease the burdens faced by small business owners seeking to grow and export their products to foreign markets. The Small Business Export Growth Act represents a commonsense, bipartisan response to the issues identified at that hearing.

This legislation makes improvements to the operational efficiency of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, TPCC, and improves Congressional oversight of the TPCC's activities. The bill also gives the Small Business Administration a larger voice in developing export policy and facilitates more networking opportunities for small businesses.

New Hampshire companies export to 160 countries and our exports are increasing at the fourth highest rate of any State. In fact, New Hampshire is leading the ten northeastern states in exports. Since 2003, New Hampshire exports have risen three times faster than the State's economy. Small businesses comprise over 96 percent of all New Hampshire firms, and it is imperative that we empower them with the tools they need to grow and hire. Opening markets around the world for our small businesses is an area in which we can find bipartisan agreement.

During the Manchester Small Business Week Forum I attended yesterday, I heard first-hand about the challenges small business owners are facing as they try to grow and create jobs in this tough economic climate. Exporting represents an enormous opportunity, not only for New Hampshire small businesses, but for small businesses across the country. The Small Business Export Growth Act will help smaller firms to compete in the global marketplace.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, in introducing the Small Business Export Growth Act, which would help small businesses better navigate the complex process of promoting and selling their goods abroad.

Senator Shaheen and I serve together on the Small Business Committee, and as she mentioned, we held a field hearing in Manchester, New Hampshire, last August to examine the role of exports in small business growth and job creation. We heard testimony from key national and New Hampshire-based stakeholders about ways to improve coordination among regulatory agencies, and how to ease the burdens faced by small business owners seeking to grow and export their products to foreign markets. The Small Business Export Growth Act represents a commonsense, bipartisan response to the issues identified at that hearing.

This legislation makes improvements to the operational efficiency of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, TPCC, and improves Congressional oversight of the TPCC's activities. The bill also gives the Small Business Administration a larger voice in developing export policy and facilitates more networking opportunities for small businesses.

New Hampshire companies export to 160 countries and our exports are increasing at the fourth highest rate of any State. In fact, New Hampshire is leading the ten northeastern states in exports. Since 2003, New Hampshire exports have risen three times faster than the State's economy. Small businesses comprise over 96 percent of all New Hampshire firms, and it is imperative that we empower them with the tools they need to grow and hire. Opening markets around the world for our small businesses is an area in which we can find bipartisan agreement.

During the Manchester Small Business Week Forum I attended yesterday, I heard first-hand about the challenges small business owners are facing as they try to grow and create jobs in this tough economic climate. Exporting represents an enormous opportunity, not only for New Hampshire small businesses, but for small businesses across the country. The Small Business Export Growth Act will help smaller firms to compete in the global marketplace.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor my friend, Father Richard J. Kelley, a Catholic priest who has devoted decades of service in parishes across New Hampshire. It is my privilege to congratulate him as he celebrates his 40th anniversary of ordination to priesthood.

Father Kelley was born in Boston, MA, on May 10, 1943. He was raised in Needham and West Roxbury and graduated from Catholic Memorial High School in 1961. His seminary studies took place at the Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT, and Catholic University in Washington, DC.

In addition to his commitment to the Catholic Church, Father Kelley has always reached out to help those in need. Before his ordination to priesthood, he spent time performing inner-city social work in Kansas City, MO. Shortly thereafter, Father Kelley was ordained to priesthood on May 20, 1972, at the St. Joseph Cathedral in Manchester, NH.

Since offering his first Mass at St. Joseph Church in his hometown of Needham, Father Kelley has spent many years serving parish churches in cities and towns across New Hampshire. As an associate pastor, he led Seacoast parishioners at Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Parish in Hampton and St. Michael Parish in Exeter. He also served at St. Joseph Cathedral in Manchester.

On October 7, 1985, Father Kelley was appointed to his first pastorate at St. Catherine Parish in Charlestown, followed by over a decade of service at St. Patrick Parish in Jaffrey. So many New Hampshire parishes have been blessed to have Father Kelley's guidance, and his message of faith and devotion has touched many lives.

Since 2000, Father Kelley has served as the Pastor of St. Christopher Parish in my hometown of Nashua. In addition to his role as leader of the parish, Father Kelley is also a familiar face to the students at St. Christopher's Catholic School, where his patience, kindness, and humility serve as an inspiring example.

The impact of Father Kelley's 40 years of service can perhaps best be witnessed every Christmas. He receives hundreds of holiday cards from parishioners and friends he has met throughout his lifetime. He hangs up each one to decorate the walls and doors of his office, completely covering each surface and eventually spilling into the hallways. This seasonal collage reflects the many valued friendships he has cultivated throughout his career.

Father Kelley's impact continues to reach far beyond the parish walls. In addition to his responsibilities at St. Christopher's, he has assisted other community members through his service as the Nashua Police Department chaplain, as a former board member of Harbor Homes, and through his continued support of Catholic Memorial High School.

I am honored to recognize Father Richard Kelley as his many friends help him mark his 40th anniversary of ordination to priesthood. His loyalty and dedication to the Catholic Church and to his parishioners is unwavering--St. Christopher's is blessed and fortunate to have his guidance. I am grateful for Father Kelley's leadership and his many years of service to the Catholic Church in communities across New Hampshire.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Robert Walk who is retiring from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel. Robert dedicated more than 30 years of his life to serving our Nation as both an Active and Reserve officer. New Hampshire has been very fortunate to have a man such as Robert serving in the Army, and I am privileged to recognize his accomplishments today.

Robert comes from a patriotic family with a long history of honorable service. He chose to follow in the footsteps of his father, the late COL James Frederick Walk of Hanover, and his grandfathers, BG Arthur Richard Walk, U.S. Army, and LTC and Dartmouth College professor--Ralph Arthur Burns, Army Air Force. His brothers, LTC William Arthur Walk and LTC James Bradford Walk, all answered the same call to service.

After receiving a degree in chemical engineering from the University of New Hampshire, he served for 11 years on active duty in the Army, where he met his wife, LTC M. Angela S. Walk. Following his active-duty service, he continued his career in the Army Reserve, serving as a traditional reserve officer while pursuing a master's degree in environmental engineering. As a traditional Reserve officer, Robert held a variety of positions, working in the Army Reserve's Homeland Security Office, and in the congressionally directed Domestic Preparedness Program, before transitioning to active Guard Reserve status. His final position was serving as the chief of staff of the U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction at Fort Belvoir.

Even in retirement, I am confident that Robert will continue to serve his Nation. On behalf of all New Hampshire residents and all Americans, I am proud to thank Robert and his entire family for their service to our great Nation.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor my dear friend, Raymond J. Wieczorek--a distinguished New Hampshire citizen who has devoted a lifetime of service to his city, State, and Nation. After providing decades of community and civic leadership in and around Manchester, he will retire from public office at the end of this year.

Ray is a father and a grandfather who has also been a loving husband. He has served as a soldier, a volunteer, a small businessman, a mayor, and as a member of New Hampshire's executive

council. But to me, Ray is a model public servant whose commitment to improving the lives of others sets the standard for elected officials.

Not long after graduating from high school, Ray answered the call to serve his country. During the Korean war, he was a soldier with the Army's 40th Infantry Division. An advocate for veterans, he remains a proud member of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

In 1958, Ray's career brought him to his adopted hometown of Manchester. Six years later, he founded the insurance agency that bears his name--now a second generation family business carried on by his sons.

It didn't take long for Ray to realize that a city is only as strong as its citizenry. He once said that the heart and soul of any community is formed by the people who are willing to give their heart and soul to their community. And that is exactly what Ray has done.

To say that he has given generously of his time and expertise over the past several decades would be an understatement. Ray served as a trustee of the Manchester Boys and Girls Club; director and president of the Manchester Scholarship Foundation; chairman of the Greater Manchester United Way Board of Directors; and as commissioner, and later chairman, of the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority.

In 1989, Ray was elected to his first of five terms as the mayor of Manchester--New Hampshire's largest city. In the midst of an economic downturn, the Queen City faced significant challenges. A once bustling mill town, the city was struggling to reinvent itself. Ray's enormous energy, vision, and optimism made him a perfect fit for the mayor's office--and at just the right time.

While others may have had doubts about the city's future, Ray thought big. To help drive economic activity, he successfully pushed for the approval of a civic center. Today, visitors from across New Hampshire descend on the Verizon Wireless arena--located in the well-named ``Raymond J. Wieczorek Square''--for sporting events and concerts. This facility has literally changed the face of Manchester, enlivening downtown and proving that the Queen City is open for business.

Under Ray's leadership, Manchester made a major comeback. The city's iconic Millyard started to flourish once again. The groundwork was laid for a now-thriving Manchester Airport, which today serves as the gateway to northern New England and Boston's northern suburbs. Fittingly enough, the access road to the airport is named in Ray's honor. Also during his mayoralty, a new city charter was adopted. The FIRST program got underway, and city hall was renovated and restored; it is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Ray once said, ``I wasn't born in this city. I'm here [be]cause I want to be here.'' His efforts to improve Manchester were driven by an unwavering devotion to the city he loves. The turnaround Ray led was confirmed in 1998, when Money magazine named Manchester as the Number One Small City in the East.

And after nearly a decade of service as mayor, Ray was honored by the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce as the 1999 Citizen of the Year.

It would have been understandable for Ray to enjoy a quiet retirement. Fortunately for the people of New Hampshire, he instead chose to bring his wisdom to the statehouse in Concord.

Serving with Ray in State government, I had a firsthand opportunity to see his strong commitment to fighting for his constituents. And as New Hampshire has faced challenges during a difficult economic period, there is no question that Ray's experience as a successful mayor and businessman has contributed conspicuously to the work of the executive council. Just as he helped Manchester navigate a challenging chapter in its history, Ray has provided steady and strong leadership at a critical time for our State. Having served on the council for a decade, Ray's voice will be sorely missed after his retirement.

Today, in the Senate, I am honored to recognize Ray Wieczorek for his tireless work to improve the lives of Manchester residents and citizens from across New Hampshire. I am grateful for his leadership, for his good humor, and most of all for his kind friendship. By raising the bar for excellence in public service, Ray Wieczorek has earned his rightful place as one of New Hampshire's great statesmen.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 28, I voted aye. It was my intention to vote nay; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

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

I thank the Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to rise in support of the pending amendment that is based upon, as Senator Blunt mentioned, a piece of legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis earlier in the year called the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which I was proud to cosponsor.

During the past few weeks, we have heard certainly impassioned arguments from both sides of the aisle about this issue. Certainly, it has been a robust and important exchange of views, which I have appreciated. However, I think it is regrettable that similar to so much else that happens around here, this issue has been used as an election- year tactic to score political points, and in some cases there have been the facts of what this amendment and our bill hope to accomplish have been supplanted by mischaracterizations and distortions.

That is unfortunate because what we are here to talk about is incredibly important. This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role of our Federal Government. It is about who we are as Americans and renewing our commitment to the principles upon which this Nation was founded.

This debate comes down to the legacy left behind by our Founding Fathers and over 200 years of American history. We have a choice between being responsible stewards of their legacy, as reflected in the first amendment to the Constitution, or allowing the Federal Government to interfere in religious life in an unprecedented way. The first amendment to the Constitution starts with: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Just last month, we saw our Supreme Court unanimously uphold, under the establishment and free exercise clauses of our Constitution, a ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor case that the Federal Government may not infringe on the rights of religious institutions in their hiring practices. To do so, they ruled on a unanimous basis, would interfere with the internal governance of the church.

Protecting religious freedom and conscience rights has in the past been, as was mentioned here, a bipartisan issue. No less than Ted Kennedy himself, a liberal icon of the Senate, wrote in 2009 to the Pope: ``I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health care field and will continue to advocate for it.''

Senator Kennedy had previously pushed for the inclusion of conscience protections in legislation he proposed in 1997 as well as in his Affordable Health Care for all Americans Act proposed in 1995. These are the same protections our amendment seeks to restore.

In 1994, provisions aimed at protecting conscience rights were included in the recommendations made by the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, led by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. In 1993, when President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, he said: ``The government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion.''

Protecting religious freedoms was once an issue that bound Americans together. It certainly is a very important issue as we take the oath of office here to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I believe this effort which is so fundamental to our national character must bring us together once more on a bipartisan basis.

I would like to make one very important point about this amendment. Unfortunately, many have tried to characterize this amendment as denying women access to contraception. That is a red herring, and it is false. We are talking about government mandates that are interfering with conscience protections that have long been engrained in our law.

To be clear, women had access to these services before the President passed the Affordable Care Act, and after this amendment would be passed, they would still have access to these important services. Contrary to what some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have asserted, this measure simply allows health care providers and companies to have the same conscience rights they had before the President's health care bill took effect.

We are not breaking any new ground. In fact, we are respecting what is contained within our first amendment to the Constitution and what has long been a bipartisan effort to respect the conscience rights of all Americans, whatever their religious views are.

This vote goes to the heart of who we are. If we allow the government to dictate the coverage and plans paid for by religious institutions, that is the first step down a slippery slope. When religious liberty has been threatened in the past, Members of both sides of the aisle of Congress have taken action to preserve our country's cherished freedoms. We must do so again now or risk compromising a foundational American principle.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give this amendment careful consideration and appreciate that it is an amendment that will respect the conscience rights of all religions and will certainly not deny women access to services they need and deserve.

I appreciate the Senator having me here today. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate chief of police Donald F. Conley of the Nashua, NH, Police Department for his 32 years of dedicated service to the law enforcement profession, the City of Nashua, and the State of New Hampshire.

After serving in the U.S. Marine Corps, Chief Conley began his law enforcement career with the U.S. Capitol Police and then joined the Nashua Police Department in 1980. He was promoted to sergeant in 1988, lieutenant in 1995, captain in 1998, and deputy chief of police in 2002. He was named the chief of police in 2007.

During his long tenure as a police chief, Donald Conley has been a leader in promoting community-oriented policing, improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire, and promoting sound public policies and practices that have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Conley has worked tirelessly with his peers and with other public safety officials to better the administration of justice.

As Donald Conley celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him and his wife Tricia well in all future endeavors.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota as well as my colleague from Alabama, the ranking

member of the Budget Committee. I was deeply troubled this morning, because I asked Mr. Zients about the President's budget and my concern that under the trajectory of the President's budget we would be reaching $26 trillion of debt in the next 10 years, and I was shocked when he described the President's budget as a milestone, as leadership. This to me is not leadership. If it is a milestone for anything, this budget is a milestone for bankruptcy and what we see happening in Europe and other areas of the world that we don't want to happen to our country.

When I think about it--I am the mother of two children--how could we possibly ask our children to pay back $26 trillion in debt? It is outrageous.

I was surprised that Mr. Zients couldn't answer a basic question such as how much debt has been added under this President. As the Senator from South Dakota mentioned, it is close to $5 trillion in debt.

Also our entitlement programs. I know my grandparents are relying on Medicare and Social Security. I asked Mr. Zients--the Medicare trustees have said that Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024. We know Medicare is a huge driver of our unsustainable debt and that if we don't act to preserve these programs, then the people who are relying on them are going to be put in a horrible position very soon--2024 is coming very quickly. I asked Mr. Zients the question: What is the President's plan to preserve Medicare? What I got was a completely insufficient answer. That is because in this budget there is no plan to preserve Medicare for my grandparents and for everyone who is relying on Medicare right now.

When I reviewed the President's budget, it reminded me of a discussion I have had with my kids recently. In the last couple of weeks we have been talking about Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who comes out and looks at his shadow to see if we are going to have more winter. Well, Punxsutawney has already come out of his hole, but in Washington it is Groundhog Day all over again when it comes to the President's budget, because every year this President has been in office, his proposed budgets have left us with trillion-dollar deficits, increased gross debt as a percentage of the share of our economy, continued massive spending, racking up enormous debt to where we will reach $26 trillion in 10 years. There is no plan to reform Social Security and Medicare, to preserve these programs, and they are mandatory spending and, as Senator Thune mentioned, the largest driver of our debt, and massive tax increases. It is staggering when we think about a budget that offers close to the largest--if not the largest-- tax increase in the history of our country, yet still runs a $1.3 trillion deficit this year and at least a $900 billion deficit in 2013. It is the worst of all worlds. We are going to increase taxes on small businesses in this country that we are asking to generate revenue and create jobs, yet we are still going to run trillion-dollar deficits.

This is a very irresponsible budget. We cannot afford a campaign document. We need a budget for this country. Because when I think about where we are, when I think about what is happening in other countries around the world--in Europe--and the future of our country, and not only all of us here today, but what we will be passing on to my children and your children because they can't repay $26 trillion in debt--how is that going to happen? And how fair is that? They didn't incur this debt. We did. We have a responsibility to address this now.

I have been deeply disappointed by this President and his failure of leadership on this issue. Think about it: My colleague Senator Gregg served on the President's fiscal commission. The President convenes a fiscal commission and ignores his own fiscal commission. In fact, since that time, we have incurred $1.5 trillion of debt since the fiscal commission issued a report. Last year the President's budget came up for a vote in this body. It was so fiscally irresponsible that not one Member of this Chamber, from either party or the Independents, voted for the budget. That says it all. Yet, again, we have a similar budget being proposed by this President. That is why I say, unfortunately, it is Groundhog Day in Washington all over again.

It is unfortunate, because the American people have seen this over and over again, and they are very tired because they understand at home they have to balance their budgets. They understand that at home, they are making the difficult calls that need to be made to prioritize. Yet, here in Washington, with this President's budget and the trajectory our country is on because of the failure of leadership, we are in a position where we are hurting our country, and I am very concerned about what we are passing on to the next generation. I hope my colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee will actually do the work that needs to be done and put together a responsible budget for this country, because it has been over 1,000 days since the Democratic- controlled Senate has actually done the work that needs to be done for this country. If the President is not going to do it, then I hope that in this body, the Senate, we will put together a responsible budget that gets our fiscal house in order for the future of our country.

I hope this Acting Budget Director, Mr. Zients, the next time he comes before the Senate Budget Committee, will answer the questions he is asked. This is simple math. When Senator Sessions asked him whether we are spending more money, one would hope to get a straight answer. That is the least the American people deserve. I am hoping that is what they will receive going forward.

I wish to ask my colleague, Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, what his impression of the President's budget is in terms of where it leaves our country going forward and what he hopes the Senate Budget Committee will do to address this fiscal crisis.

Madam President, I certainly share the concerns of my colleague from Missouri, and I share the concerns of my constituents in New Hampshire and citizens across this Nation who see the recent rule issued by the administration for what it is, an unprecedented, unnecessary affront to religious liberty in our country.

I wish to say at the outset that this issue is not limited to the Catholic Church. The administration's new health care mandates on religious institutions impact all religions. Religious freedom is a foundational American right enshrined in our Bill of Rights. The first amendment to our Constitution makes clear that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Unfortunately, I see the administration chipping away at these bedrock freedoms as it engages in a troubling pattern here with respect to this rule, and I think we saw that the President's new mandate on religious institutions highlights the deep flaws in the health care bill.

This unconstitutional law was moved through Congress and signed by the President 2 years ago without the type of due consideration, transparency, or accountability we would all expect, and we have been suffering the consequences since. It is highlighted with what we see with these recent mandates from Health and Human Services.

I wish to share some of the concerns my constituents have raised about these mandates that were recently issued by Health and Human Services. There is a letter I received this week from William Edmund Fahey, who is the president of Thomas More College in Merrimack, NH, and he says: To condition the availability of medical benefits upon a community's willingness to violate a cardinal teaching of its faith effectively prevents the full practice of its religion; and thus, again, violates the free exercise of a constitutional liberty.

He pleaded with our delegation, the New Hampshire congressional delegation, and he said: I hope you will see that the mandate undermines the Constitution, compromises the integrity of the government and abuses the foundational principle that free associations form an essential part of the social fabric of the United States.

We are fortunate in New Hampshire to have a number of very effective Catholic institutions and organizations. We have the Catholic Medical Center in Manchester which serves so many in the Manchester community and surrounding areas. The Catholic Medical Center has also expressed concerns about the mandate, saying: It would force us to offer services that were against our ethical and religious directive or force us not to offer insurance altogether.

They added: Neither are acceptable options.

The president of one of our great colleges in New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College, President Jonathan DeFelice, said: In a country and a State that values and respects individuals' rights to exercise their religious beliefs and live according to their conscience's best light, it is simply appalling to think that this mandate is anything other than an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.

I have heard many concerns from my constituents, and I would hope that Health and Human Services would stop what it is doing right now, this mandate that places religious institutions in this impossible position, with this impossible choice of violating their core beliefs in order to comply with a mandate or dropping employee insurance coverage altogether. We should not be putting these organizations that do great work throughout this country in that position. And, again, this is not an issue that just applies to the Catholic Church; this applies to all religious institutions.

I would ask my colleague from the State of Missouri: As a result of our concerns about the actions of the administration, we have offered legislation to address this, and what does that legislation do in order to make sure that this mandate does not go forward?