Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I am obviously disappointed that an objection has been rendered by my colleague from Utah, but I will say I appreciate his interest in making sure we maintain our public parks and lands, and this is certainly an interest that we all share together. It is my hope that we reauthorize this program--I know there are some very important projects that can go forward not only in New Hampshire but across the country--because you can't do anything new unless you reauthorize it. I am disappointed that there is an objection, but I am hoping this is something we can overcome and make sure we can work together and get this reauthorized.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This has been a very important program for preserving our outdoor spaces and the beauty of our country. It is particularly important to my home State of New Hampshire, where this fund actually comes from leasing revenues from oil and gas, and so these are dollars that are supposed to be designated for this purpose since the law was passed in 1965. I am very disappointed that this body has allowed the LWCS authorization to expire. We have a bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Burr, Senator Bennet, and myself--the Burr-Bennet-Ayotte bill, which is one that I will seek unanimous consent on in a moment. It has a number of cosponsors. This is a very bipartisan bill. Senator Tester, Senator Shaheen, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, and Senator King have also cosponsored this bill. This bill would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We know from a previous vote in the Senate, we have 60 votes for permanent reauthorization. People on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about preserving our great outdoors in this country. In New Hampshire, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used on 650 projects, from every aspect of our State--from Sunapee to Ossipee, to Berlin, to Seabrook, to my home city of Nashua, and the Mine Falls Park that I run in every day whenever I am home. According to travel officials, 660,000 visitors are expected to travel to New Hampshire this weekend over the Columbus Day holiday. We welcome them, but they are coming to experience the beauty and iconic fall foliage of New Hampshire, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund has given them opportunities to enjoy our great outdoors, whether it is hiking, bicycling or hunting, whatever they like to do in the great outdoors. Protecting our treasured outdoor spaces is not a partisan issue. We should work together on this issue and extend this important fund. I urge this body to immediately take up and pass the reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to continue to preserve our great outdoors, this beautiful country, and my beautiful State of New Hampshire. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to preserve our beauty not only in New Hampshire but across this country and our Nation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 10, S. 338; I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask for an extension of a very important program to my State--the Land and Water Conservation Fund--and because of that I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be discharged from and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2101; I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I am very disappointed that last night the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired, and so it has lapsed. I just offered a unanimous consent request to extend this fund for 60 days to make sure there was not a lapse in this important program. This is a fund that, in my home State of New Hampshire, has been used to ensure the public can enjoy our beautiful environment and our natural spaces, from my home city of Nashua, NH, and Mine Falls Park, which I love to run through every morning when I am in New Hampshire, to our beautiful White Mountain National Forest. I had the opportunity to come to the floor yesterday with Senators from both sides of the aisle, including my colleague from Montana, Senator Daines. The Senator from Montana had a wonderful picture of him and his wife in their public lands that have been preserved using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The picture was of him and his wife hiking. We all understand that a big part of the beauty of this country is our natural beauty, and because of that, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established in 1965. It was actually established to aid in the preservation of spaces for outdoor recreation across this Nation. In New Hampshire we have a very strong tradition of the outdoors being such a part of who we are. In fact, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has led to more than 650 individual acquisition and development projects in our State. We very much support the public use of our lands in our State, enjoying their natural beauty, whether it is hiking, fishing, hunting or any number of other wonderful uses we can have of our public lands. So this fund has been very important, and I believe we should not let it lapse. The law that created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1965 established that a portion of the revenues coming from oil and gas leasing would be designated for this purpose. So to not extend this fund really is another example, if you look at the fund itself, where portions of these dollars have actually been taken to spend for other purposes in the Treasury, not in accordance with the law. We see that happen too much in Washington. But to let this lapse is very unfortunate. I am very disappointed my colleague has rendered an objection because this is such a bipartisan issue and something that has done so much for our country--this program--and for my home State of New Hampshire. So I hope in the coming days we will be able to work together to have the Land and Water Conservation Fund program extended and that we can get beyond the partisan objections and get it done so we can work together to preserve the beautiful spaces in this country. This program has done so much for my home State of New Hampshire and for many States across this country, and that is why it has such strong bipartisan support. Madam President, I am very disappointed that my very reasonable request in asking for unanimous consent to extend this program for 60 days until we can get to the long-term permanent authorization--which I support and I have cosponsored, and I think that is what we need to do in the long term--has been objected to. To let this lapse is completely unacceptable when it has been such a strong program in allowing everyone in this country to enjoy our public lands, to enjoy the great outdoors in the greatest country on Earth. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his incredible support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I love the picture showing the Senator from Montana and his wife because, just like Montana, in my home State of New Hampshire, there are so many beautiful places to hike. We have the White Mountain National Forest and places where the Land and Water Conservation Fund has made such a difference in giving anyone an opportunity to ensure the use of our public lands. In fact, having been born in New Hampshire and having grown up there, I have so many fond memories of my childhood of hikes in our beautiful forests in New Hampshire. Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we would not have been able to do--at this point there have been 650 individual acquisition projects in the State of New Hampshire that have been supported by this incredible fund. In fact, one of my favorite things to do--as we think about the important work that the Land and Water Conservation Fund does, it is in our forests such as the White Mountain National Forest, but it is also in our cities. I live in Nashua, NH. It is our second largest city. We have Mines Falls Park, which is a real jewel right in the middle of the city. In the mornings, when I am in New Hampshire, my favorite thing to do is get up early and go for a run through these parks that are beautiful with forested areas in the middle of the city that so many people in Nashua enjoy every single day, including myself and my children. As I am running along, I see so many Granite Staters who are taking a beautiful walk in the morning in the beautiful woods in the second largest city in New Hampshire. So as Senator Daines has said, I am very disappointed that we did not include the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the continuing resolution. Within hours, the authorization for LWCF expires, so I believe we should act immediately to reauthorize this program. We should be permanently reauthorizing this program. That is what I have supported in legislation so that we are not in this position and in this situation again in the future. It is important to understand that the funds that go to LWCF under the law were supposed to be there from leasing revenues from oil and gas leasing that were supposed to be specially dedicated for this purpose of giving the American people more access to public lands and preserving our natural beauty. Yet, historically, unfortunately, this money has been diverted, and not all of it has gone to the purpose for which it was collected, which is a classic Washington move. That is why I would like to see the funds go to where they were designated. I would like to see reauthorization of this important program because there is bipartisan support for reauthorizing it and for preserving our great outdoors for everyone to enjoy. There have been thousands and thousands of acres in New Hampshire that have been preserved and protected for people to be able to use for all kinds of outdoor recreation in our State. In New Hampshire, as in Montana, the outdoor industry is important to the economy and to who we are in the ``live free or die'' State. In fact, if we look at what the outdoor recreation industry generates, it is $4.2 billion in consumer spending in our State annually, which directly supports 49,000 New Hampshire jobs. In addition to that, the Outdoor Industry Association estimates that at least 76 percent of Granite Staters participate in outdoor recreation each year, but that doesn't surprise me. Having been born in New Hampshire, having grown up there, I love our State, and the great outdoors is such an important part of our State. People in New Hampshire love to go hiking, fishing, hunting, and use all types of recreation in enjoying the beauty of our great State. Protecting our outdoor spaces is not a partisan issue. We need to work together to ensure the preservation of our environment for future generations to enjoy. As the mother of a second grader and a fifth grader, a big part of my kids' life too is enjoying the beauty of New Hampshire. I know that if we reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, not only in New Hampshire but across this country, we will continue to preserve the beauty of our country and the open spaces so that everyone can enjoy them and get the exercise and be healthy and enjoy the clean, fresh air they have an opportunity to breathe, as well as our beautiful forests and beautiful lands in this country. LWCF also has funds granted to the Forest Legacy Program, which has helped conserve New Hampshire's forests, supporting our forest products industry, and aiding wildlife preservation, to make sure we have healthy, working forests, which is so important to our forest industry. I call on my colleagues to act immediately to reauthorize this essential program, which has helped preserve the beauty of New Hampshire and our Nation. This is one that I hope, with pending legislation we bring to the floor, we will include a vote on reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Our country is beautiful, and this money was specially designated for this purpose. We should stop diverting it. We should continue to use it for this very purpose so that everyone can enjoy the great outdoors and the beauty of the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I have great respect for the senior Senator from Tennessee, but I disagree with him on his objection to extending the Perkins Loan Program for 1 year. This is why I disagree. I very much appreciate the work he has laid out and the goals he has laid out in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. Certainly, I think we all want to make sure it is easier for students to repay their loans, and I share the goal of also making college more affordable and more accessible for everyone. But as I look at this timeframe of where we are with the work that will be done by the HELP Committee, which the Senator from Tennessee chairs, by the end of the year, this is, unfortunately, what happens too often in Washington. With the Perkins Loan Program, 5,000 of our students in New Hampshire receive a loan from this program. So it is important to 5,000 Granite Staters. If we wait until the end of the year and let it lapse, and then the Committee does its work, there are so many other pressing things that need to be addressed in the Senate--this is pressing too--and if we don't get to it, we are in the position where the Perkins loans lapse. I appreciate the work done by the HELP Committee--which I hope is bipartisan--to address this important issue of making it easier for students. But I don't think we should let this program lapse in the interim. I think there is a very reasonable position here to say, let's extend this program and not leave people hanging out there. Apparently, the House of Representatives agreed unanimously to extend it a year, to give that breathing room, and send over here earlier this week the Higher Education Extension Act of 2015, to do that for the students who are including the Perkins loan as part of their student aid package and, as I understand it, for those for whom this loan makes sense--low-income students, vulnerable students, the ones we want to fight for here--to make sure they have access to the American dream. That is about $2,000 for students who are some of the most financially in need. I understand there are other loans available. But when you look at a student aid package, it is usually a combination of loans, especially if you are someone who comes from a background where you aren't able to pay for college yourself. I think the reasonable position here would be this: Let's extend this; let's provide that certainty while the HELP Committee is doing the work that I think we all agree on needs to be done to address higher costs, to make it easier for students, to give more transparency in this system for students and for parents, and to make it easier for students to repay these loans. I am here fighting for the 5,000 students in New Hampshire and for others like them. I don't want them to be a victim of Washington uncertainty or those who come after them for whom the Perkins loans make sense. Until we get to this broader discussion, which is an important discussion, let's not let this lapse on behalf of those students. I think there is a reasonable position that allows the important work of the HELP Committee to go forward, but it extends this important loan program. With all the respect I have for the senior Senator from Tennessee, this is something on which I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin and others who have said: Let's not leave them hanging on this issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleagues, and I wish to thank Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin for the speech that she gave and for her leadership--as well as yours, Mr. President--on the resolution to extend the Federal Perkins Loan Program. This is something we should take up and pass right now. There is strong bipartisan support to do so. Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Higher Education Extension Act of 2015, which would extend this important program for an additional year. But if the Senate does not act by tomorrow, this program, which helps the most financially needy students receive a college education, will expire. We can't let that happen. I have heard from students, colleges in my State, universities, and financial aid administrators who have urged us to act and to make sure we continue this program, which allows students with exceptional financial needs to have access to low-interest loans they need so they can get higher education, live the American dream, and contribute to our society. Making sure they have that access is critical. In New Hampshire, approximately 5,000 students received a Perkins loan during the last academic year. Across the country, as Senator Baldwin mentioned, over one-half million students received a Perkins loan during the 2013-2014 academic year. That is one-half million students across this country that will be impacted--their access to higher education negatively impacted--if we do not take up the House- passed bill and immediately pass it in this body. The cost of higher education in the United States continues to skyrocket. My home State of New Hampshire has the highest average student-loan debt in the country--either putting college out of reach for too many or requiring students to take on substantial amounts of debt in order to get a college education that is often hard to repay, especially with the first job they receive right out of college. There are several things we must do to address the issue of rising college costs, including, in my view, requiring schools to have more skin in the game and providing more transparency for students and for parents. But as we stand here today, there is one thing right now we can do to help make college just a little bit more affordable, especially for low-income students and families, and that is by taking up and passing the House bill to extend the Federal Perkins Loan Program for 1 more year. Allowing Perkins to expire would mean that hundreds of thousands of low-income students across the country could see a decrease of about $2,000 on average in their student aid packages. For many, that could put college out of reach because they are counting on it. If we don't take this up now, we will be in a position of really leaving those students hanging, and we should not do that. We should not allow that to happen. I again thank my colleague from Wisconsin and the Presiding Officer, who is from Ohio, for his leadership. Again, this has such strong bipartisan support. I hope we get it done today. Let's do it now. Let's make sure we extend the Perkins Loan Program for another year, just as the House did, and ensure we can work together to make college more affordable for everyone so that everyone has the opportunity to live and achieve the American dream. I thank the Presiding Officer. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Conway, NH, a town in Carroll County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am delighted to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic occasion. Conway is located within the Mount Washington Valley and sits in the shadow of the 2,369 foot Black Cap Mountain. The town is encompassed by the Saco River watershed, including both the Swift and Saco Rivers, and holds portions of the White Mountain National Forest to the north and west. Conway consists of the villages of Conway, North Conway, Center Conway, Redstone, Kearsarge, and Intervale and was first chartered in 1765 by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth. The town was eventually settled by Joshua Heath, Benjamin Dolloff, and Ebenezer Burbank and is named for British Secretary of State for the Southern Department Henry Seymour Conway. Secretary Conway is often remembered for his opposition to the Stamp Act, thereby in favor of moderate taxation policies for the colonies. Cathedral Ledge, Echo Lake State Park, and a portion of the Kancamagus Highway are all located in Conway, offering some of most scenic vistas in the State. From atop the ledge, you can look over the town and the surrounding mountains and rivers that make up the valley. ``The Kanc,'' as many locals call it, has the honor of being the highest mountain pass in the Eastern United States with the crest of the road sitting high at 2,855 feet and stretching for 32 miles from Conway to the neighboring town of Lincoln. Conway is one of the premier tourist destinations in New Hampshire. Every year, the town hosts thousands of visitors who travel north to enjoy the outdoor activities, dining, shopping, and culture of the Mount Washington Valley. Conway is home to hundreds of locally owned businesses, each with its own unique style and flavor. In a single day, a visitor could ride into the mountains aboard the historic Conway Scenic Railroad, canoe down the meandering Saco River, zip-line at the Cranmore Mountain Adventure Park, or virtually visit the home of the ``world's worst weather'' at the Mount Washington Observatory Museum. And during the winter months, Conway provides ample opportunity for downhill and cross-country skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, and both ice skating and climbing. On behalf of all Granite Staters, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Conway on reaching this special milestone, and I thank them for their many contributions to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important issue. It is a fundamental constitutional issue for this body and part of our duty in the Senate and the Congress; that is, to ensure next week the funding for the government which expires at the end of the month. With only 1 week until the current government funding runs out, it is our responsibility to work together to make sure that the government keeps running, that we do not disrupt people's lives, that we do not end up spending more money because we shut the government down to reopen it, and that we provide certainty with all of the challenges we face at home and, of course, the threats we face abroad. An issue has come up that is a very important issue, and that is an organization called Planned Parenthood and holding Planned Parenthood accountable in the wake of deeply disturbing videos that discuss the appalling practice of harvesting the organs and body parts of unborn babies. Like Americans across all political spectrums, I was just sick--sick to see the contents of recent videos that have been disclosed that show a callous disregard by officials at Planned Parenthood for the dignity of human life. These videos have shocked the conscience of people across our country because this organization does receive taxpayer funding. I understand why we have had an important debate in this body about redirecting this funding because of Planned Parenthood's actions and fully investigating what was revealed in these disturbing videos that show the practice of the harvesting of organs and body parts of unborn babies. So I support the efforts of the Judiciary Committee to investigate these disturbing videos. I also do not believe it is appropriate that taxpayer funds should be used to fund a private organization that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year and that engages in the horrific practices that were shown in these videos. That is why last month I joined a bipartisan majority of Senators in voting to redirect Federal funding from Planned Parenthood to community health centers that provide women's health services, including mammograms, cancer screenings, and contraceptives. In New Hampshire there are more than 30 community health centers, compared to 5 Planned Parenthood clinics. But when we had this debate and vote on the Senate floor, we received only 53 votes in favor of redirecting this money from Planned Parenthood to community health centers which provide women's health services, falling well short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance this legislation in the Senate. Yet despite already having had a vote on this, which failed the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, there are some that are pushing to attach this issue to the funding of the government, even though when we had the vote here, we did not have the votes to get it passed in the Senate, and even though the President himself has explicitly said he would veto any bill that prohibits funding for Planned Parenthood or redirects that funding to community health centers. In fact, the President is so dug in on funding for Planned Parenthood that he is prepared to let the government shut down over it. And those who are pushing the strategy, saying we should go forward with it anyway--they have not explained how we would obtain 67 votes in the Senate. When we had the vote on it, we only got 53, not even enough to advance the legislation in the Senate, which requires 60. The President certainly knows that we do not have 67 votes in the Senate to override his veto. Nevertheless, those who are pushing the strategy to attach this to the government funding bill--this issue of redirecting the funding--also know that there are not 60 votes in the Senate, never mind 67 to override a Presidential veto. So the result is that if we passed the bill, even if we could get the 60 votes, the President is sure to veto it, and the 67 votes are not there to override his veto. In the end, we are heading for an imminent government shutdown if this is not resolved. Everyone who looks at this issue knows the reality of where the votes lie. In fact, those on my side of the aisle who have been pushing the strategy of pass the bill, send it to the President for his veto, I have asked them the question: Let's assume we get the 60 votes to do that; first of all, how do we get those 60 votes? I have not received an answer to that question. Then I have asked the next question: Even if we could get those 60 votes to pass it out of the Senate and to send this to the President's desk with a government funding bill that redirects the money to Planned Parenthood over his opposition and he vetoes it, where do the 67 votes come from? I have not received an answer to that. So I am here on the floor today to say: I am tired of the political games. I am tired of the President's game on this, that he is so dug in on this issue that he would be willing to let the government shut down. I am tired of the people on my side of the aisle who are pushing this strategy even though they know they do not have the votes to have it pass the Senate, and they certainly don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto, so, therefore, they cannot answer the question: What is the end game for success here, even if you feel as passionately about these issues as we all do? So here we are again with the political posturing on both sides. I don't want to play this game anymore. I think it is too important that we not relive the movie of where we were in 2013 when the government shut down because I asked the very same question then, when the issue was defunding ObamaCare. I asked the question: How does this end? How does it end successfully to defund ObamaCare? How does it end without shutting down the government? I never received an answer then, and I have not received an answer now from those who are pushing this strategy. We saw the movie in 2013. I do not think we should relive that movie. Let's remember what happened. When you shut the government down and you reopen it, it actually costs us more money. So if you care about the fiscal state of the country, let's not waste money shutting down the government with no results. You think about the economy and the disruption in people's lives. I remember my constituents calling me on the phone, because I was answering my phones. I remember people who saved for years for a family vacation to our national parks and could not participate in that family vacation and lost the money they had sunk into it for years in their savings for their big family vacation because people were pushing to keep the government shut down, even though they had no strategy for achieving a result on it. I remember the uncertainty and the hardship for working families and our military. Even though we keep our national security piece open during a government shutdown, there is so much uncertainty about whom that covers and whom it doesn't. When we look at the threats we are facing around the world right now, we do not need uncertainty when it comes to those who keep us safe at home on the law enforcement end, on our intel, on our military, and all the civilian workforce that supports them and makes sure they can do their job every single day. The bottom line is, in 2013 we did not get a result, the funding for ObamaCare continued, the government was shut down, it cost us more money and disruption. We never got an answer then for how that would end successfully. Here we find ourselves again, the same group of people pushing the same strategy on the Planned Parenthood issue, saying we should shut the government down again, even though they cannot answer the question: How do we get to 60 votes? How do we get to 67 votes so that you can actually achieve a result here? I think the answer is that they don't know the answer, because we all know where the votes are. It is not going to happen. So I am here on the floor because I feel strongly. I agree with the National Right to Life on this. In a recent op-ed, the National Right to Life rightly points out that pursuing this shutdown strategy could actually undermine efforts to hold Planned Parenthood accountable, primarily by shifting public attention in the political blame game that would result inevitably from the shutdown. The National Right to Life also cited a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which found that the majority of Federal funds flowing to Planned Parenthood would not even be temporarily interrupted if the government shut down because the funds flow from mandatory spending programs like Medicaid rather than the congressional funding process, which is the discretionary spending piece impacted by what we will vote on regarding the continuing resolution. Again, this was the same issue that actually came up in 2013 when it came to the tactics of trying to defund ObamaCare without a strategy for success. Right now we are playing a game of chicken. It is a dangerous game. We already know as we stand here where the votes are and what it takes to keep the government open. Yet, as I understand it, we are going to be taking another vote on Thursday so we can show the proponents of those who are again seeking to attach the Planned Parenthood redirecting-of-funding issue to the government funding bill that, guess what, we already know the answer to this. We don't have the votes. We are not going to get to 60 in the Senate, never mind the 67 it would take to override a Presidential veto. So we all know what it is going to take to keep the government open. I think we should have that vote now, instead of continuing to have the political show votes that show the people where we know the votes already are on this issue. That means a clean funding bill now, so that we are not wasting time, so that we are not bringing ourselves closer to the brink of a shutdown. So in good conscience, while I fully support redirecting the money from Planned Parenthood to community health centers who serve women, I cannot in good conscience participate again in this process, one that would ensure we come closer to the brink of a shutdown, when I have not heard a strategy for success. I think the American people are owed an answer to the question: What is your strategy of success if you are threatening to shut down the government? I would ask the same of President Obama: If this is such an important issue to you that you are willing also to participate in this exercise of threatening a shutdown, is it that important to you given that the money can be redirected to community health centers that provide services to women? That said, it is time to quit the games on both sides of the aisle. I came here to solve problems. That means we need to address this issue now. We should have the vote on the clean funding bill now. We should make sure we keep the government running, given the challenges we are facing at home and abroad, so that we do not have shutdown 2 and relive the movie we saw in 2013, and that was not a good one for the country. I hope we will take the vote right now instead of continuing to play political games on both sides of the aisle while the clock ticks down. This is a very important issue for our country, and I am prepared right now to vote for a bill that will keep the government funded. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--headed by Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper--had a very important hearing where we heard from whistleblowers from the VA, and then afterwards we heard from VA officials and representatives from the inspector general's office. The issue of how we treat those who have served the country is so critical to who we are as a nation. Yet, over the last year, we have learned of shocking failures at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and today's testimony, unfortunately, was no different in terms of how whistleblowers were retaliated against at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead of a culture that encourages people to come forward when things go wrong, people who come forward when things go wrong are treated badly and also face consequences as far as their employment, and that is wrong. Over the last year, we have seen shocking failures, including veterans being denied care after being placed on secret wait lists, experiencing extended delays in benefits, and endless wait times for repeals, reviews, or action on claims. Recently, we also learned that as of last year, the VA had 867,000 pending health care enrollment records. That is almost 1 million records without a final determination status--some from decades ago. Nearly one-third of the veterans who had applied to the VA for care have now been reported as having died. Additionally, the VA staff has deleted 10,000 transaction records, but the reasons are undocumented. These failures are outrageous, and that word is used a lot around here, but this truly does define what is happening in our VA--outrageous. Our veterans, who have served and sacrificed so much for our country, deserve the very best care and support we can give them. The VA has fallen short time and time again in meeting that goal. The bipartisan VA reform bill, enacted last summer, represents an important step in increasing accountability and mismanagement at the department, and also giving our veterans the choice of care in their communities rather than waiting in line. That is very important to my State, New Hampshire, where, unfortunately, we don't have a full- service veterans hospital. There is so much more work to be done on that front; however, we continue to hear about reports of bureaucratic delays and failures at the VA, such as overprescribing opiates, bonuses paid to employees involved in serious misconduct, enrollment record mayhem, and inflated claims of VA employees being held accountable and fired. Unfortunately, we still can't get a number, even after all the wait-list scandals where veterans literally died while waiting for care. I have a few recent headlines about the VA. In the Chicago Tribune, January 9, ``Veterans: VA hospital nicknamed `Candy Land' because painkillers given out freely.'' Arizona Republic, February 13, ``Whistle-blowers: VA still endangering suicidal vets.'' Washington Post, March 9, ``Veteran Affairs manager pokes fun at mental health issues with photo of elf begging for Xanax.'' Associated Press, April 9, ``Veterans hospital wait times haven't improved.'' Stars and Stripes, April 13, ``Whistleblowers say retaliation unabated year into VA scandal.'' The Washington Post on May 14, ``Veterans Affairs improperly spent $6 billion annually, senior official says.'' In light of all of the issues that have been raised with our VA, can you imagine that we are in a place where there is no permanent inspector general who has been appointed by the President to serve in that important watchdog position for the Veterans' Administration after all of the issues I just cited in this Chamber? There are many more issues that I didn't even have on this list. The inspector general position at the Veterans' Administration has been vacant since December of 2013. That is 631 days--631 days that the President has failed to appoint someone to ensure that there is critical oversight and transparency at the Veterans' Administration. In fact, we have just had acting individuals in that position. We have not had a permanent watchdog in that position. In light of everything we have been through, we have had 631 days without adequate accountability; 631 days without permanent oversight leadership; 631 days without a permanent watchdog to investigate scandals that have tarnished the promises we made to our veterans which they earned by defending our great Nation; 631 days without the President even submitting a nomination to fill this empty position. That is unacceptable. We need the President to step up and appoint an inspector general to be the watchdog for the Veterans' Administration so they can have a continuity of leadership. There is no more important oversight issue right now. I have written the President, along with Members on both sides of the aisle. We have repeatedly called on the President to make a nomination for this inspector general position, and we know that--through the process--names of individuals who are qualified to serve in this position have actually been submitted to the President's desk. Both sides of the aisle in this body agree on this issue. Our desire--on a bipartisan basis--is to make sure that those who have defended, served, and answered the call of duty for our Nation receive the very best care for what they have done to defend our freedom. Yet, after all the scandals and all the issues and challenges that our veterans face, can you imagine leaving this particular position open for 631 days? I am, again, in this Chamber going to call on the President, and I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whom I have worked with on this issue, agree that it is time for the President of the United States to nominate a qualified individual--he has had many names submitted to him--to serve in this critical watchdog position as the permanent inspector general for the VA with the full authority to conduct the investigations that need to be conducted on issues that have been raised repeatedly about the Veterans' Administration. What is clear from the testimony we heard today at the homeland security committee hearing is that we have so much more work to do to ensure accountability at the Veterans' Administration and to ensure that our veterans get the very best of what they deserve and have earned by defending our Nation. What is clear is that the IG council has done its job and nominated individuals for the President to consider for this inspector general position. I am now calling on the President: Mr. President, please nominate a qualified individual to be a permanent VA inspector general in order to protect our veterans. Mr. President, 631 days is already way too long, and our veterans should not have to wait a day longer to have this position filled. This important agency needs a watchdog that is there to serve them. I thank the Presiding Officer. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss what I believe is probably the most important foreign policy issue I have worked on in my time in the Senate. It is one of great consequence to our Nation and also to our allies. I don't come to this decision lightly, but there are many reasons I would urge this body to disapprove the agreement that has been entered into between the Obama administration, the Iranian Government, and the P5+1 nations. First of all, we need to understand the country we are dealing with. Just today the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: I am saying to Israel that they won't live to see the end of these 25 years. With Allah's help, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years. Of course, this is not the first time we have heard this from the Supreme Leader or the leaders of Iran. We are in this position even after having entered this agreement and having had the President go to the U.N. to seek approval of this agreement prior to coming to the Congress. We know that while this agreement was being negotiated, the Iranian Foreign Minister was smiling for the cameras and negotiating the agreement, while the President of Iran was actually at rallies in Iran where they were shouting ``Down with America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' Iran itself has a history that is important for us to understand. That history is a history of noncompliance. Iran has time and time again failed to comply with U.N. resolutions and failed to meet its obligations. Iran has violated U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the past. Iran has consistently been unresponsive to the International Atomic Energy Agency in the past--the IAEA--and Iran has failed to answer questions about its past nuclear weapons activities. If there is no covert, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran today, Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA Deputy Director, has said it would be the first time in 20 years. So one of the important issues, I believe, for any of us in reviewing this agreement is: What is the inspection regime that would be put in place to assure not only that we are doing a full inspection at the declared facilities of Iran but also the undeclared facilities? The reality is that under this agreement, the process for seeking inspection by the IAEA for undeclared facilities is a process that only a lawyer could love--and I happen to be one--because if we look at the language of the actual agreement, we will see in paragraph 75 that ``if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement'' the IAEA first has to ``provide Iran [with] the basis for such concerns and request clarification.'' So that is the first step. Then, ``if Iran's explanations do not resolve the IAEA's concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities'' and the IAEA also has to ``provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available all relevant information.'' Then, Iran may come back and ``propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA's concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities . . . . '' So if those alternatives aren't accepted from Iran, then, ``if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory agreements to verify the absence of'' an undeclared nuclear facility, then at that point there is a process that goes into place, and that process--which has been described on this Senate floor--can take up to 24 days. But we need to understand there is a whole litigation process that occurs even before those days, and this can be a much longer process. Then, how does this get resolved? This gets resolved essentially by a committee process. So then we have a committee resolve all of this. That is why I say this is a lawyer's dream in terms of an inspection regime here. Then, if we look at paragraph 78 of the agreement, ``The members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns.'' This process, if we add up all the days, is a lengthy process. Again, it certainly is so far away from the anytime, anywhere inspection regime. We have to understand that Iran has a history of using every means possible to delay inspections, especially to areas that are undeclared or they are trying to hide their nuclear facilities. That is why I describe it as an inspection regime that only a lawyer could love because this will allow Iran to litigate access to their undeclared sites, and we already know they have a history of doing that. One of the issues I have taken a keen interest in since I have been in the Senate is Iran's missile program. We have heard all along from the administration that they were not going to address Iran's support of terrorism, that they were going to keep that issue separate--that they were going to keep separate issues of Iran's support for terrorism around the world--we have heard about that in this debate today--their support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, their support for the Houthis in Yemen, their support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, their support for terrorism around the world. Yet at the last minute in this agreement, the administration conceded two incredibly important points: No. 1, allowing Iran to have the resolutions lifted on having arms sales and transactions within 5 years, and then, No. 2, within 8 years, lifting the U.N. resolutions on missiles or ICBMs. As our own Secretary of Defense has described, the significance of course in ICBMs is the ``I,'' which means intercontinental, meaning missiles that can hit the United States of America. Yet that was lifted at the last minute, and that was lifted over the objections, over the recommendations of our highest military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman Martin Dempsey. This has been a focus of mine in the Senate because I have been concerned that we have heard in the Armed Services Committee from many of our top defense and intelligence officials that the preferred method for Iran to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States of America would be an ICBM and that this certainly represents a threat to America and to our allies. In fact, I was so concerned about this that last summer I wrote the President of the United States, and 26 Senators joined me in the letter that I wrote to the President. In that letter, I expressed the belief that the Iranian deal should address Iran's ICBM missile program. The reason I wrote and led this effort is because we had been hearing for years before the Senate Armed Services Committee from people such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who testified before the committee in February of 2014, that ``we judge that Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons.'' In 2013, we also heard from Director Clapper that the Iranians are developing two systems that could have intercontinental capability as early as 2015. Here we are in 2015. Some have estimated it may take a few more years. Regardless, according to public testimony from our intelligence community, Iran could have ICBM capability in the next few years, and here we have, in conjunction with this agreement, our blessing because we agreed that the U.N. resolution against their missile program that said, no, Iran, you cannot have ICBM capability, now it is OK. It will be legitimate for them to have ICBM capability. Why do they need ICBM capability if they don't have any interest in delivering the most destructive weapons to the world--to countries on the other side of the world, including our own? So as I said, this issue was against the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's advice. When I heard public reports--there were reports bubbling up about the agreement before it was signed that Iran was pressuring, with support from other countries like Russia, to lift the arms embargo, to lift the missile embargo. I was so worried about it that a week before the agreement I asked Chairman Dempsey in the Armed Services Committee, on July 7, about the reports that these resolutions may be lifted on arms and missiles. He told me that under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capability and arms trafficking. Yet that is exactly what happens in this agreement. The Chairman came back to our committee after the agreement was signed to testify about the agreement, and I asked him again about including this in the agreement. He told me it was against his military advice to lift the arms resolution and to lift the missile resolution. So as I look at the grave concerns we should have for our national security, this is one of the top concerns--an insufficient inspection regime legitimizing their ability to have ICBM capability, allowing them in 5 years to legitimately have more arms. We already know they are supplying arms and cash around the world to their terrorist proxies. This agreement of course gives them, within a 9-month period, billions of dollars more cash to support terrorism. One of the things I have heard on the floor today from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this agreement is that somehow this leaves on the table all of the tools we need to deal with Iran's support for terrorism--which, of course, destabilizes the region. Except the problem is that nobody has told the Iranians this point because they have a very different viewpoint on this agreement. Iran has taken the position that if any of the sanctions are reimposed, they can walk away from the agreement. If we look at paragraph 26 of this agreement, I would argue the language in the agreement actually allows them to make that argument, unfortunately. Tehran has specifically stated that it will treat the imposition of any sanctions that are similar to those that were in place before this deal as a reason to walk away. So why is this important? It is important because we know they support terrorism around the world. My colleagues have said we have to deal with their support for terrorism, and we still have the tools in our toolbox to issue tough sanctions to deal with their terrorism, even while being part of this agreement. The problem is that the language doesn't necessarily bear that out in the agreement. In a July 20 letter, Iran told the U.N. Security Council that it would ``reconsider its commitments under the JCPOA if the effects of the termination of the Security Council, European Union, or United States nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures are impaired by continued application or the imposition of new sanctions with a nature and scope identical or similar to those that were in place prior to the implementation date, irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear-related or other grounds, unless the issues are remedied within a reasonably short time.'' In other words, Iran is taking the viewpoint, under the language of this agreement, that if we reimpose any of the sanctions that are lifted as part of this agreement--which, by the way, these are the toughest sanctions, right? These are the tools in our toolbox--even if they commit acts of terrorism, they can walk away from this agreement. So let's put this all together. Iran, within 9 months, gets more cash for this agreement. They get to keep their infrastructure for their nuclear program because they get to keep their centrifuges. They are now in a position where people are doing business with them--because we know that many countries around the world want to be able to do business with Iran, so an infusion of cash and relationships there. And then they are continuing to support terrorism. They commit through their proxies a major terrorist event that triggers something that we want to do here--we want to take tough sanctions against them because they have supported a terrorist attack against us or our allies. Yet they are going to take the position that we can't reimpose any of their sanctions no matter what they do because of the language of the agreement in paragraph 26. They are interpreting it that way. So if you are Iran, right now, this is a pretty good deal for you. You can get the cash. You can get the legitimatization. People are doing business with you again. You can continue to support terrorism, and our hands apparently, in their view, are tied on sanctions. So when I hear from those supporting the agreement that somehow we still have all the tools in our toolbox to deal with terrorism, it seems to me that if we look at the language of this agreement and how the Iranians are supporting it, we have tied our hands, and we will be in a weaker position to deal with their support for terrorism around the world no matter how egregious their behavior is. This is a real issue when I think about our national security, when they have the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and they will now have legitimate access to developing their ICBM program with the lifting of sanctions in the U.N. and the legitimate purchasing of arms. We know there are countries like Russia that are lining up to sell these arms to them, and then we are going to weaken our ability to impose terrorism-related sanctions in the future. I heard many of my colleagues talking earlier about the 60-vote threshold in the United States Senate. When we voted on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, we voted on it, I believe, 98 to 1. We would think at that point we wouldn't be worried at all about actually getting to the debate on the actual bill. So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they voted for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, were serious about having a substantive vote, given that this was a vote of 98 to 1 on this agreement. I believe the American people deserve nothing less than a substantive vote on the merits of this agreement as provided for by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I know that many of my colleagues are here to speak, but I want to raise one final issue that we have heard about on this floor; that is, actually being able to see the full text of this agreement. We all know that when you have an agreement, especially with a country that has a history of cheating, language matters. We know that because the Iranians are already taking all kinds of different positions on what the language means in this agreement to their benefit. Yet we have not been given access to the two-side agreements between the IAEA and Iran. By the way, that is in direct violation of the express language of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which says Congress should have access to side agreements. But what we do know about these side agreements that has been reported in the press is truly disturbing; that is, as to the side agreements themselves, information has been leaked that indicates Tehran could declare some areas as suspected nuclear sites, including the Parchin military complex, off-limits to inspectors and that Iran could even be permitted to self-inspect there. Can you imagine allowing a country with a history of cheating the ability to self-inspect or collect their own samples in terms of how inspections would be done? Yet those who are supporting the agreement are saying this is a robust inspection method. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this agreement, does it not trouble you that you have not been given access to the language of these side agreements given that what has been leaked about them is that they pertain to the actual inspection process at important sites such as Parchin? I would hope that our constituents would expect us to review every word of the language of something so important to our national security. That, in and of itself, I would say, is a reason to be highly skeptical of this agreement, along with the other issues I have raised. Finally, we have a long history in this body of debating important international agreements, including agreements that deal with very fundamental issues involving our foreign policy--issues that involve nuclear nonproliferation, issues that involve many sensitive treaty issues. We have a long history of actually debating these in a bipartisan manner and working in a bipartisan manner to approve agreements. Yet on this agreement, we are left in a position where a majority of the Senate on a bipartisan basis has said that we have serious reservations about this agreement and have declared that we are going to vote against this agreement. Yet the administration is continuing to push forward to get this done, to make sure that this agreement is fully implemented without reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that the strength of the Congress in a bipartisan fashion is behind something so important to our national security. That should say something about the merits of this agreement. This agreement is deeply flawed. This is an agreement that I believe does not protect our national security. In fact, in the long run it will undermine our security in this country by giving Iran more cash, legitimizing their nuclear weapons program in terms of keeping their infrastructure for that program, legitimizing their ICBM program, and hurting our ability to impose further sanctions if they conduct acts of terrorism, which they certainly have a history of doing through their proxies. I hope as we continue this debate, we will disapprove this agreement, which I do not believe protects our national security.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a public health issue that is devastating communities and families in New Hampshire and throughout this country; that is, prescription opioid and heroin abuse. I actually see my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts here. This is an issue where, on a bipartisan basis, we are focused on important legislation to address this terrible public health crisis. Right now in New Hampshire, heroin--sometimes combined with a very powerful synthetic drug called fentanyl--is taking lives, ruining families, and harming communities. Public safety officials are confronting overdoses every single day. My good friend, Manchester police chief Nick Willard, said recently: ``I'm up to my eyes in heroin addiction.'' Unfortunately, the statistics underscore Chief Willard's statement. In all of 2014, Manchester police seized over 1,300 grams of heroin. As of just last month, Manchester police had seized over 27,000 grams of heroin in 2015. That is nearly 26,000 more grams in just 7 months. In 2014, there were over 320 fatal drug-related overdoses in New Hampshire--up from 193 in 2013--and heroin and fentanyl were the primary drivers of nearly 250 of those deaths. In Manchester alone--our largest city--overdose deaths so far have increased 90 percent over 2014 and over 269 percent if we go back to 2013. That is the crisis we are facing. That is how many lives are being taken by opioids, by overdosing on prescription drugs and heroin, and it is devastating. I worked with law enforcement when I was attorney general of New Hampshire. I know how hard they are working on this. They are working tirelessly to get these drugs off the streets. But they will tell you that we simply cannot arrest our way out of this problem. I have actually heard from law enforcement in New Hampshire that what they believe we need most to confront this public health crisis and to confront the public safety issues that go with it are more prevention, more treatment options, and more support for individuals in recovery. We know that addiction to prescription pain medication can often become a gateway to heroin abuse. Unfortunately, right now the price of heroin on the streets has gotten so cheap that people are often going from prescription drug addiction to heroin addiction because of the price and the high and the way they feel. It is so tragic. According to a study from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, approximately 4 out of every 5 new heroin users previously used nonmedical prescription opioids before using heroin. I wish to briefly mention two pieces of legislation that I believe represent critical steps in the right direction. In February I helped reintroduce the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, who is in this Chamber, as well for his important work on this legislation. This legislation would expand opioid prevention and education efforts and expand the availability of naloxone to first responders and law enforcement. It would also support additional resources to identify and treat incarcerated individuals suffering from substance abuse disorder and encourage prevention by expanding drug take-back sites to promote the safe disposal of unwanted or unused prescription drugs, strengthening prescription drug monitoring programs, and launching a prescription opioid and heroin treatment and intervention program. This summer I had the privilege of doing a ride-along with the Manchester fire department. Within half an hour of being at the fire department, we were called to a heroin overdose. I watched the first responders give Narcan to a young man who was on the ground who I thought was going to die, and he came right back. But what I noticed was that in that room in a corner was an infant--an infant child whom the firefighter gave to another young woman in the room. Think about the impact of that. What chance does that child have when her father is on the floor, is not getting treatment, and is getting back in this cycle? Often what I hear from our first responders is that when they save someone's life using a drug such as Narcan, they see the same people again because they are not getting the treatment they need to get the recovery they need from this horrible addiction they have. Earlier this year I also reintroduced the Heroin and Prescription Opioid Abuse Prevention, Education, and Enforcement Act with Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize programs related to prescription drug monitoring programs that are helpful to our physicians so they can get good information when they are prescribing pain medication; grants for local law enforcement; and establishing an interagency task force to develop best practices in prescribing pain medication. The headlines we are seeing in New Hampshire every day in our local newspapers underscore the sad reality of this problem. Here are some we have seen in recent weeks: The Union Leader: ``Mom, dad overdose on heroin while bathing child.'' The Nashua Telegraph in May: ``Nine die from drug overdoses in Nashua so far this year, including three in one weekend.'' Nashua is where I was born and where I lived. The Telegraph on May 14: ``Toddler left in care of men, one of whom died of an overdose.'' There was more on that same day: ``Hampton man on heroin causes 5-car crash.'' May 29: ``Ossipee mom accused of selling heroin with 2 kids in the car.'' These news stories mirror the heartbreaking personal stories of loss I have been hearing about from families in our State. I want to share a couple of these stories. Recently, I met with the family of Courtney Griffin, a 20-year-old young woman from Newton, NH. Tragically, Courtney lost her life to a heroin overdose last September. I was very moved by her family's story. Courtney aspired to join the Marine Corps and had already attended boot camp. She was a charter member of the Kingston Lions Club. She played the French horn in high school and was a member of the tennis club. During high school, Courtney started hanging out with a different crowd, and at some point the Griffins' prescription medication in their cabinet started disappearing. After Courtney graduated from high school, her addiction grew worse. She was stealing from her father's business and from her family in a desperate attempt to feed her addiction. Courtney entered drug treatment, but she relapsed. When she finally admitted she had a problem, she tried to seek treatment but was denied coverage because the Griffins' insurance company said it wasn't a life- or-death situation. With some help from local law enforcement, Courtney was finally able to find a place to receive treatment. Tragically, she died of a heroin overdose about a week before she was set to begin treatment. Her father Doug is doing everything he can to turn Courtney's story of tragedy into a cautionary tale so that he can save other families from what his family has been through. Doug and others like him have a perspective on this crisis that is impossible for anyone who has not personally experienced a loss like this to understand. I admire his courage in sharing the story of his family so that he can save other families' lives. Unfortunately, this story is all too common. In April, Molly Parks, a waitress at Portland Pie Company in Manchester, lost her life to a heroin overdose while she was at work. Her father is also speaking out to warn other families of the dangers of drug addiction. I want to share as a final point one story that really moved me on Memorial Day. That story came from Keith Howard. He served our country with distinction. I know him personally. When he returned home from his enlistment, he struggled with alcohol and heroin abuse and he became homeless. Unfortunately, we hear too many of these stories about our veterans, what they are carrying with them, the wounds from war, and they become addicted to drugs and alcohol. Keith was one of those individuals who served our country and who became addicted. Today Keith is sober, and he helps run Liberty House in Manchester, NH, which provides sober housing for American veterans transitioning out of homelessness and helps our homeless veterans. Keith has dedicated his life to this. On Memorial Day--on that important day on which we honor those who have sacrificed so much and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom--he shared stories with us of veterans who have come to Liberty House and turned their lives around, but he also shared stories of others who came but could not overcome their addiction, eventually costing them their homes, their families, and in some cases their lives. Keith and Liberty House are doing incredibly important work for veterans in Manchester, but he believes there is more to be done. On Memorial Day of this year when we were honoring those servicemembers who gave their lives in service to our country, Keith reminded us of something else when he told a crowd at Veteran's Park in Manchester-- and you could have heard a pin drop when he said this: ``Let us honor our dead by creating hope for our living.'' He is absolutely right. It is clear to me that we need to work together. This is a bipartisan issue. This is a public health crisis. This is about the quality of life in our country. This is a problem on which we need to work together at the local, State, and Federal level in partnership to identify effective strategies to help save lives and take back our communities. For my part, I will remain committed to fighting against this public health epidemic and taking it up at its roots to make sure for our children that this addiction and heroin--that we get it off our streets but that we get help for those who are addicted and that they understand they shouldn't feel the stigma I know many of them do, that we want them to come forward, we want to help them, and we understand this is incredibly difficult. We want them to know we stand with them so they can get the help and the treatment they need to lead productive lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Pittsburg, NH--a town in Coos County that is celebrating the 175th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic occasion. Pittsburg is nestled deep within New Hampshire's Great North Woods and sits in the shadows of Stub Hill and Magalloway Mountain. It is the largest town by area in the State, and contains all four Connecticut Lakes. Pittsburg is the only town that shares a border with both Maine and Vermont, and contains the only portion of New Hampshire west of the Connecticut River. Pittsburg holds the only New Hampshire crossing into Canada, sharing an international border with the Province of Quebec. The area known as Pittsburg was settled in the early part of the 19th century, but an unclear boundary line between the United States and Canada allowed for the formation of a region known as the Republic of Indian Stream. Shortly thereafter, the town was incorporated in 1840 and named for English Prime Minister William Pitt. Pittsburg is home to scenic lakes, rivers, streams, and forestland, and has become the perfect venue for all recreational outdoor activities. Thousands of off-highway recreational vehicle enthusiasts visit each season to enjoy the hundreds of miles of snowmobile and ATV trails that have earned Pittsburg the title, ``snowmobile capital of New England.'' On behalf of all Granite Staters, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the residents of Pittsburg on reaching this special milestone, and I thank them for their many contributions to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Concord, NH--a city in Merrimack County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join the citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this special occasion. Concord, settled in 1725 by colonists from Massachusetts, was incorporated in 1733 as the town of Rumford, and later the parish of Concord where it experienced several border disputes with the neighboring town of Bow. The parish of Bow officially became part of Concord in 1765. Concord includes the villages of Penacook, East Concord, and West Concord. The city's population has grown to over 40,000 residents with over 6,000 acres of protected land. Concord residents have access to numerous hiking and biking trails, and the town's location on the Merrimack River significantly adds to its natural beauty. In 1808, Concord was established as the State capital of New Hampshire. The statehouse is the oldest legislative building in the Nation still in use by the State's house and senate. The house chamber is also home to the largest State legislative body in the country. Concord has produced many innovative businesses, including the Abbot- Downing Company that designed and built the world-famous Concord Coach in 1827, revolutionizing travel throughout the world. Today, Concord is a civic, cultural, business, and medical hub for the Granite State. It is where New Hampshire's lone U.S. President, Franklin Pierce had an office, and it is the location of his final resting place. Concord is also home to the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center, named after Christa McAuliffe, a Concord educator who bravely volunteered to become the first teacher in space aboard the fatal Challenger space shuttle mission in 1986, and New Hampshire astronaut Alan Shepard. Today, new generations can visit the planetarium to learn about our universe. On Concord's thriving Main Street, residents and visitors can find an outstanding collection of New Hampshire small businesses that represent the heart of the city. Downtown Concord is full of history and culture--including the Museum of New Hampshire History, the Capital Center for the Arts, and the Red River Theater. The spirit of community and volunteerism is strong in Concord as evidenced by the hard work and dedication of all involved with the planning and celebration of this special sestercentennial anniversary. Concord, as our State's capital, has greatly contributed to the life and spirit of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Concord as they celebrate the city's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I congratulate Brian Murphy of Dover, NH. On May, 29 2015, Brian reached an important career milestone by working his 250th National Hockey League playoff game as a linesman. Born on December 13, 1964, Brian has been a lifelong resident of Dover. He graduated from Dover High School in 1982 and continued his education by attending the University of New Hampshire, where he earned a degree in business administration in 1986. Brian was then hired by the NHL in September 1988. His first game was on October 7, 1988 between the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Washington Capitals. Linesmen have a difficult and often thankless job. While referees officiate the game and call penalties, linesmen break up fights between players, drop the puck for face-offs and have to keep up with the pace of the game to make offside calls--all while avoiding interference. Brian has excelled in every aspect of his career and is one of only 13 U.S. born NHL officials. Most officials who work for the NHL are Canadian nationals who have relocated. During Brian's 27 years as an on-ice official, he has worked 1713 regular season NHL games and the men's hockey games at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. More recently, Brian was selected for the 7th Stanley Cup Finals between the victorious Chicago Blackhawks and the Tampa Bay Lightning in June of this year. As the former president of the National Hockey League Officials Association, Brian understands the sacrifices and hard work that are necessary to perform his job. I ask my colleagues to join me today in celebrating Brian's career as a linesman. I am delighted to congratulate him on reaching this important career milestone and I wish him many more years of success.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Association for Facilities Engineering. The organization began in Framingham, MA when Henry ``Harry'' S. Dennison, president of the Factory Managers Association, saw a need for increased information-sharing within the engineering world. Because of this, Dennison invited a group of 25 mechanics and engineers from the greater Boston area to attend the organization's first informal meeting. On June 9, 1915, the organization's constitution was approved, their officers were elected and they began their history as a working, professional consortium for engineers and mechanics alike. Years later in 1954, a group of engineering clubs associated with the organization came together and changed the organization's name to the American Institute of Plant Engineers, AIPE. AIPE became the hub for countless engineering societies in New England and elsewhere, including the New England Chapter of AIPE, comprised of New Hampshire and five other States. In May of 1996, AIPE's board of directors voted to change their name to the Association for Facilities Engineering or AFE, in an effort to include more than just plant engineers, and to focus on buildings and facilities as a whole. Wayne Saya of Nashua serves among the leaders and board members of AFE. As AFE's executive director, Wayne is personally committed to furthering the message and continued success of the association. He believes that the chapters of AFE have the best tools for problem solving and often cites his motto during mediations: ``Chapters may not always be right, they are just never wrong!'' His continued advocacy is a vital tool for engineers, mechanics and buildings that might not otherwise have a say. AFE is a non-profit, volunteer-based organization that considers the wellbeing of its chapters before all else. They recognize that a strong relationship with a chapter can mean more opportunities for all parties involved. With global reach, AFE is inventive and organized--it is the only association of its kind with a fully paperless online presence. It is because of organizations like AFE that our country can continue to excel and innovate, while ensuring the needs of engineers are met. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating this exceptional organization for their unparalleled work and commitment. Congratulations to AFE for reaching this important milestone, and best wishes for the next 100 years.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I honor Dunbarton, NH--a town in Merrimack County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this special milestone. Dunbarton, previously known by many names, including Starkstown, was incorporated in 1765 by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth and was officially renamed Dunbarton. The town's population has grown since then to over 2,700 residents. With more than 1,600 acres of protected land, Dunbarton is located on the Merrimack River watershed and is rich in natural beauty. Based upon its latitude and longitude, Dunbarton is known as the true center of New England. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Dunbarton is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Revolutionary War General John Stark, his wife Molly and son Caleb, all lived in Dunbarton. Another Dunbarton native was Robert Roger, famed Commander of Roger's Rangers during the French and Indian War who was instrumental in developing military tactics still used to this day. Additionally, John Ordway, who helped lead the Lewis and Clark Expedition, made his way back home to Dunbarton after the expedition had finished. The spirit of community and volunteerism is strong in Dunbarton as evidenced by the hard work and dedication of all involved with the planning and celebration of the annual Old Home Day festival, as well as this special sestercentennial anniversary. Dunbarton is a place that has greatly contributed to the life and spirit of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Dunbarton as they celebrate this special day.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Orford, NH-- a town in Grafton County celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic occasion. Orford village is the town's main population center and is situated along the Connecticut River. The town lies in the shadow of Sunday Mountain, Cottonstone Mountain, and Mount Cube--Orford's highest peak. The Appalachian Trail runs through the summit of Mount Cube, greatly contributing to the town's natural and scenic treasures. The town of Orford is named for Robert Walpole, first earl of Orford, and England's first Prime Minister. It was originally chartered by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth in 1761 and later settled in 1765. The rich agricultural history of Orford is exemplified by the success of the Mt. Cube Sugar Farm. For over 60 years, the Thomson family has been producing its award-winning maple syrup from the groves located on the farm's namesake mountain. Orford also boasts an impressive industrial past, including soapstone quarries, sawmills, a tannery, grist mill, and factories that manufactured starch, chairs, doors, boots and shoes. The town is known for its historic ``ridge'' homes and is credited with having one of the finest collections of federal-style houses in the Nation. As innovators, statesmen and soldiers, Orford residents have been known throughout history for their commitment and sacrifice in the service of our great Nation. Early steamship pioneer Samuel Morey, U.S. Congressman Jeduthun Wilcox, Senators Gilman Marston and Leonard Wilcox, and most notably, New Hampshire's 73rd Governor Meldrim Thomson, Jr., all share ties to Orford. On behalf of all Granite Staters, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Orford on reaching this special milestone, and I thank them for their many contributions to the life and spirit of New Hampshire.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the exceptional public service of my good friend, Pittsburg Police Chief Richard ``Dick'' Lapoint. Chief Lapoint has worked as a Pittsburg, NH law enforcement officer for more than 40 years. He is retiring on August 16, 2015, the day after Pittsburg's 175th Old Home Day celebration. Chief Lapoint is a 1968 graduate of Pittsburg High School, and first began his law enforcement career as a part-time officer in August 1975. After working part-time for 11 years, he became a sergeant, and was later promoted to the department's full-time chief on January 16, 1987. Having held the position for more than 28 years, Chief Lapoint is one of the longest serving police chiefs in the Granite State. Throughout his career, Chief Lapoint has established a reputation not only as a knowledgeable, respected, and compassionate public safety professional, but also as an engaged community member. Chief Lapoint knows that in a small town, public safety means wearing many hats. He was a member of the fire department for 36 years and an emergency medical technician for over 20 years. Known for his advocacy of cooperative North Country policing, he was a leader in uniting local, county, State, and Federal agencies to share information, train, and work together. He also served as the president of the Coos County Chiefs Association, and has built strong partnerships with colleagues throughout the public safety community. During my time as New Hampshire's attorney general, it was my privilege to work directly with Chief Lapoint on many important law enforcement initiatives. He earned the respect and admiration of his peers across the State, and has been a thoughtful and effective leader in efforts to improve the criminal justice system throughout New Hampshire. Additionally, Chief Lapoint served on the executive board of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, and has represented Coos County with professionalism and integrity throughout his entire membership. Making frequent trips to Concord and southern New Hampshire, he ensured that our Great Northern Woods had an important voice on public safety issues. As Chief Lapoint celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done, and ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his outstanding service and in wishing him the best in all his future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak about the bill that we have pending on the floor, a law that is long past due for reexamination and reauthorization, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This law was last updated in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act. Fourteen years is far too long to go without updating the primary law focused on an issue that is so important to the future of our country, ensuring that children in New Hampshire and across this country receive a high-quality education. I am the mother of a 7-year-old and 10-year-old, and this could not be a more important issue to me and to, I know, other mothers across the country. Many parents, teachers, and school leaders in New Hampshire have expressed to me their concerns about No Child Left Behind, and so it is past time for us to update and improve this law. I believe education decisions are best made locally, including decisions about school curriculum and how education dollars are spent. While its goals of accountability were very important and laudable, No Child Left Behind, unfortunately, imposed a one-size-fits-all regime on every school in every State in this country. No Child Left Behind imposed unworkable mandates and unreasonable goals that led many schools in America to be labeled as failing, with no reasonable way to get off the failing list. Congress's inaction, up to this point has led to a system where the Federal Secretary of Education can dictate to States what priorities they must set in order to receive a conditional waiver from parts of this law. This Senate's bipartisan education reform bill, the Every Child Achieves Act that is on the floor right now, would return decisionmaking on education to where it belongs, back to States, local schools, teachers, and parents. I wish to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray of the HELP Committee for conducting an open debate on this critically important legislation and working together. I am encouraged that Republicans and Democrats worked together and overcame disagreements to move this important legislation forward. That is how the Senate should work and that is what the American people deserve from their elected representatives. Like all Granite Staters, I want children in our State and across our country to have even better opportunities than our generation has had, and the foundation for future success starts with a quality education. Every parent knows that, and that is why this is such an important topic that we have been debating on this floor. Granite Staters have shared with me some of the biggest challenges facing our students because of No Child Left Behind, and the Every Child Achieves Act seeks to address them. For example, as I mentioned, No Child Left Behind created a one-size-fits-all system that ignored differences between different parts of the country and primarily used tests as the measure of accountability at the expense of other important measures of success, such as student progress, attendance and graduation rates, parent and teacher engagement, among others. We have seen what happened under this law over the last decade. Schools are overtesting and educators are teaching for the test as opposed to making sure our children really learn the topic matter. That is not how we should be educating our young people. We want to make sure they have a firm understanding of the concepts they are learning in school. The Every Child Achieves Act restores these powers to the States. It makes sure States have the flexibility they need to develop their own ways to test and measure accountability. I know from our local communities and our local school boards that they are focused every single day in their own communities on making sure their communities are delivering the best quality education and understand the geography and the different challenges facing their communities, and it is important we restore that decisionmaking to them. This bill will let States decide how to measure student achievement and school success within their own borders. What might be right and work for North Dakota may not be the right approach for a State like New Hampshire, and so this allows each State and locality to engage on what is best for the State. The Every Child Achieves Act also prohibits Washington from mandating or incentivizing any States to adopt any particular curriculum standards, such as common core. This is an issue many of my constituents have raised with me, and so this bill will, again, restore this decisionmaking to the States and the parents and teachers. In doing so, this bill reaffirms that it should be the State, not the Federal Government, that determines education standards. Each State is different and uniquely situated to determine the curriculum and accountability measures that best fit the needs of their students without interference from Washington. We don't need the Washington- knows-best attitude. We know the best decisions are made locally. This bill includes additional reforms that will help strengthen our education system and better prepare our young people to join the rapidly changing and competitive global 21st century workforce. It ensures parents can still have access to data about their State, district, and school's education performance so they can make informed decisions about their child's education. It increases support for high-quality charter schools, giving parents greater choice to determine the best learning environment for their children. It creates State-based need assessments to help identify low-performing schools and allows States, not the Federal Government, to determine how to best help low-performing schools. All of these reforms are much needed, commonsense steps toward reforming and improving our education system, and I believe more can be done to specifically help students in New Hampshire. That is why I appreciate the willingness of Senators Alexander and Murray to work with me to allow votes on several bipartisan amendments that I have included in this bill, and I know this has been a very open process. This is how the Senate should operate. I was able to work across the aisle on a number of amendments that addressed New Hampshire's priorities. The first of those is strengthening our mental health first aid training to ensure that school personnel have the critical mental health first aid training they need to improve the safety and well-being of students in schools in New Hampshire and across the country. This is something I have heard so much about from our local communities. That is why I was pleased to see the Senate adopted my amendment on mental health awareness training programs yesterday. I wish to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me to include this important amendment that will help school personnel safely address mental health issues earlier, before they reach a crisis stage. I know an issue I have heard so much about in New Hampshire about that 21st century workforce is STEM education. When it comes to developing the high-skilled workers we need to compete, we must ensure that we have better STEM education in our schools for that next generation of American innovators. Promoting education initiatives and job training in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is critical to ensuring that we stay on the cutting edge and that we ensure that our children have the skills they need to get those good-paying jobs when they leave high school, postsecondary education, and beyond with their college education. Over the last few years, an effort to increase students' proficiency and close the education gap between the United States and other countries has seen a renewed focus on STEM, and we have seen it in New Hampshire as well. One of the issues I have seen a focus on which I think is very important is including more women and girls in STEM education. At the college level, women are currently studying in the STEM fields at a lower rate than men, and many women who do earn STEM degrees actually end up working in other fields. Despite that fact, we are expected to see a 20-percent increase in STEM jobs we are going to need to build that workforce. Yet women only make up 25 percent of the STEM workforce. So we have a long way to go, and that is one of the reasons I worked with Senator Gillibrand on a measure to broaden student access to mentorship, tutoring, and afterschool activities to encourage interest in and develop STEM skills. Our amendment was focused on encouraging States to explore ways to increase participation in STEM programs by underrepresented groups, including girls, minority students, English learners, students with disabilities, and low-income students, so we can have a broad array of our students ready to take on those jobs and the workforce we need to grow our economy. Another area where we need to grow the economy in our country is in manufacturing. We are seeing the beginnings of a manufacturing renaissance. Last week, I was visiting a company in New Hampshire called Rapid Manufacturing in Nashua, NH. They have a partnership with a local community college to train their workforce and to bring them right from the community college into Rapid Manufacturing. They have more positions than they can fill right now. In fact, they are going into the middle schools and high schools to get kids excited about career and technical education. We really need this, and the jobs are there. I hear this from so many of our employers. I was glad to work across the aisle on an important amendment that did not get included but got quite a bit of support from Senator Kaine and gained support from Senators Portman, Capito, Graham, Boxer, Whitehouse, Casey, and Warner, and I wish to thank them. This would create a pilot program in our middle schools to get our children excited about career and technical education for those advanced manufacturing jobs where we need to grow our workforce. While I am disappointed this amendment was not included on this bill, I am encouraged that Senator Alexander said he would be open to working with us on this effort as a potential when we reauthorize the Perkins Act in the future, which will deal with higher education. In addition to the issues we see with workforce, STEM, and manufacturing, unfortunately, an issue too many of our States are dealing with--and New Hampshire has been hit hard--is substance abuse. As part of my ongoing efforts to combat the heroin and prescription addiction crisis in New Hampshire, I worked with Senator Manchin to put forth two measures to better assist students dealing with substance abuse issues at home. Our amendment would encourage local education decisionmakers to provide professional development, training, and technical assistance to schools and communities that are affected by the crisis of addiction, and this is something I know we are also going to address in an amendment I am supporting later today. New Hampshire has been a leader in what is called competency-based education. What that means is actually assessing students on measures other than tests. That is actually measuring students on innovative assessments and measures of accountability; for example, when students actually go out into their community and have real hands-on experience based on the career they are focusing on. New Hampshire has been the first State in the Nation to actually receive a grant on competency- based education. I was very glad to work with Senator King to improve a section of this bill that would allow a greater ability for States to participate in alternative assessment pilot programs like we have seen in New Hampshire. This is, again, about transferring control from Washington of how we assess how our students are doing and how we ensure accountability in our schools to innovative local ideas like what we have seen in New Hampshire when it comes to competency-based education. So I want to thank Senator King for working with me on that. There are a number of other amendments for which I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and which I think are very important in this bill. I was very glad to work on them with my colleagues. They include working with Senator Booker on assisting homeless and foster youth; working with Senator Warner on including language ensuring better transitions from school to the workplace; and working with Senator Bennet on supporting the use of shared service alliances for early childhood education programs. For example, in New Hampshire we have the Seacoast Early Learning Alliance. I was very glad to work with Senator Bennet on that amendment. Also, improving oversight of the Early Learning Alignment and Improvement Grants Program--oversight of our programs is critical. I was glad to work with Senator Warner on oversight of these programs and, finally, work with Senator Isakson again on the local control piece, and that is putting the decisionmaking back with the parents. This amendment will better inform parents about their rights when it comes to mandatory assessments and the qualifications of their classroom teachers. I think we need to inform parents so that they can make the best decisions for their children. I am confident that the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Every Child Achieves Act will improve our education system and certainly make sure that the decisionmaking rests where it should--with parents, teachers, local school boards, and our States, rather than the Washington one-size-fits-all approach we have seen too often. In turn, it will help prepare students in New Hampshire and across our country for good careers and a brighter future. All of us here want to ensure that our children will have better opportunities than we have had in this great country, and we certainly owe that to our children. I am very glad we had this important debate on the floor. Again, I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for working across the aisle on this important bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.