Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I agree. We need to protect our country. That means a lot longer than a week interrogation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be divided between myself and the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Ms. AYOTTE. Absolutely, I modify the request to reflect what the senior the Senator from Michigan said.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I think it is time for us to end this government shutdown. I said on the floor twice last week, and prior to that, that I didn't think the strategy of defunding ObamaCare was a strategy which would be successful. While I support repealing and replacing ObamaCare, because I have seen the negative impact in my own State of New Hampshire, we have already seen the government is shut down and yet the ObamaCare exchanges have opened--showing already many of the problems with those exchanges, with the computer system, what are called glitches but are major flaws at this point. So it is time for both sides to come together and resolve this on behalf of the American people. Let me say it is appalling that we have soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty and their families aren't receiving death benefits. It is wrong. It is outrageous. We need to solve this right away and we need to solve this overall government shutdown. In New Hampshire, we have private campgrounds which contract with the White Mountain National Forest which are closed, despite the fact that they actually bring revenue into the Treasury. They are run privately and actually make money for the Federal Government. I think the administration is playing games with things like that, and they should open those campgrounds. But ultimately we have to get this government open. I wish to praise my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine Senator Collins, who came to the floor earlier today with an idea she has drawn not only from Members in this Chamber but in the House of Representatives of a way we could resolve this impasse, and that is taking something we have already voted on in this Chamber on the budget resolution. There was a vote in this Chamber on the medical device tax repeal, and that vote got on the budget resolution 79 to 20. We voted on a bipartisan basis to repeal this tax. I have been against this tax since I campaigned, because in New Hampshire we see the impact on our companies. It is going to increase health care costs. Many companies in New Hampshire, such as Smiths Medical and Corflex, are negatively impacted by this tax. Their workers are put in a difficult place when these companies can't expand or they have to reduce their workforce because of this onerous tax--which, by the way, is a 2.3-percent tax on revenue, a tax on innovation and new ideas in health care, rather than a tax on profit. But ultimately we should repeal this tax. It is wrong. I wish to support what my colleague from Maine came to the floor on today as something we should take up and discuss in this Chamber; that is, a repeal of the medical device tax with a pay-for, a CR proposed for a longer period of time within the Budget Control Act numbers. She has proposed 6 months, and flexibility for the agencies to address the sequester in a way that is best and most sensible for the American people. I thank my colleague from Maine. We can come together and resolve this. I hope that along with Members on the other side of the aisle who voted for the repeal, we can work together with Members of the House of Representatives, we can work this out, get the government open, and also address concerns that we have with ObamaCare which is impacting an important industry, the medical device industry that provides innovation and important lifesaving devices for people in this country.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I want to first thank the Capitol Police for their bravery and for the important work they do in protecting all of us in the Capitol. Yesterday really showed how important they are. So I want to thank them for everything they did yesterday to make sure people were protected. This is day 4 of the government shutdown--a shutdown that did not need to happen. I had hoped when I came to the floor a couple of days ago, and when I heard congressional leaders were meeting with the President, at his request, that they would emerge from that meeting with a plan to end this impasse and get the government open again, to come to an agreement as to how we can responsibly fund the government and address the challenges we face as a Nation. But coming out of that meeting, what we got, of course, was a President who said he will not negotiate. From the beginning, I have said this strategy was an ill-conceived strategy by some Members of my own party who thought that defunding ObamaCare--therefore, shutting down the government--would, No. 1, stop the exchanges from opening. But we knew that was not going to happen. In fact, it has already happened, even though we shut down the government. It was ill conceived because, again, we knew that with the President and the Senate Democrats in charge, they were not going to defund their signature piece of legislation. As much as I support repealing that piece of legislation--because I have seen the impact already in my own State of New Hampshire, in terms of premiums and in terms of less choice for individuals, and I do believe there is a better way to address health care in this country-- where we find ourselves right now is unacceptable for America. It is unacceptable as leaders elected by the people of this country. We owe it to our constituents to resolve this now. Both sides need to get together and we need to resolve this. I would say to my Republican colleagues in the House and to some in this Chamber, it is time for a reality check. Defunding ObamaCare did not work as a strategy, so let's find common ground and work together, yes, to address the very legitimate concerns we have with this health care bill, but also to get this government funded. I would say to my Democratic colleagues here in the Senate and to the President, come to the table and negotiate. Let's work this out on behalf of the American people. I will say it again: I think where we are is the result of an ill-conceived strategy by many in my party, leading to an immature response that says we will not negotiate and talk and try to work this out on behalf of the American people. We all know the American people are the ones suffering the most from this shutdown. I have heard it from our guardsmen in New Hampshire who have been forced to go to the unemployment office, Federal employees who wonder whether they will be able to pay their mortgages, furloughed civilian workers in New Hampshire at one of our proudest military installations in this country, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and small business owners who can't get the help they need from the Small Business Administration. They deserve better than this. I hope, as we head into this weekend, the President, the leaders of the House, the leaders of the Senate will get together, and that we will get behind them on behalf of the American people, to get this government open, to resolve our differences, to find common ground and do the people's business. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Iowa needs a couple of minutes to wrap up, I don't think I will take my whole 10 minutes so I would be happy to cede to him a couple of minutes.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, as I said before--and I said certainly as I came to this floor last week--governing by crisis is no way to run a government. We simply have to get our act together and work together to get the government funded again, to not lose the forest for the trees in terms of addressing the fiscal challenges our country faces, to come up with a fiscally responsible plan that puts our Nation first and puts us on a path to economic security. And, frankly, we have wasted too much time and energy on political brinkmanship and self-inflicted fiscal crises that also keep us from focusing on the real challenges we face, including our $17 trillion in debt, an economy that could be much stronger than it is right now to create the best climate for jobs in this country. As I came to this floor last week, I reiterated my strongly held opposition to ObamaCare because I have seen the impact, hearing from businesses and individuals in New Hampshire concerned about rising health care costs. In New Hampshire, we only have one insurer that will be on the exchange, and 10 of our 26 hospitals will be excluded from the exchange. But I also said last week that shutting down the government in an attempt to defund ObamaCare was not a winning strategy for success. Why? We have already seen exhibit A why it was not a winning strategy for success--because the government shut down yesterday and the ObamaCare exchanges opened and continued anyway. Why is that? We knew in advance that the Congressional Research Service had told us that the mandatory funding piece that was put in ObamaCare would continue even if the government were to shut down. We have seen that happen. While I continue to believe this law is wrong for America because it is causing rising health care costs, because of the notion--in fact, I think it was well said recently by the chairman of the board of trustees of the Frisbie Memorial Hospital, who originally supported the Affordable Care Act but recently came to say: I supported it because we were told we could keep our doctor, and that has turned out to be a lie. I certainly want to work with my colleagues to do whatever I can to come up with ways that we can repeal ObamaCare, replace it with reforms that are actually going to drive down health care costs, allow people to keep their physicians, and foster more competition in the insurance sector to give people more choice, but we need to end where we are right now. We need to come to a resolution to keep this government funded in a fiscally responsible way. I am glad congressional leaders are going to speak to the President tonight. We do not need another photo op. What we need is results. We need both sides of the aisle working together to negotiate, to come up with a plan to fund the government, to move forward, to find common ground. I know there is some common ground in areas of ObamaCare that both sides of the aisle are concerned about--for example, the medical device tax. When we had the budget votes earlier this year, the vote was 79 to 20 to repeal the medical device tax. Members on both sides of the aisle decided that tax was not good for innovation, for jobs, and that it drives up health care costs. That is an area where we have had some common ground in how we can affect this health care law--a health care law I still deeply oppose, but it is time for us to make sure we can get the government funded again. Why? In my home State of New Hampshire right now, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard--one of our Nation's four public shipyards--the skilled workers there are being put in jeopardy. They have a very important function to defend our Nation, to maintain our Virginia-class submarines. Yet, due to the government shutdown, more than 1,700 workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are being furloughed. Instead of maintaining our submarine fleet and defending our Nation, they are worried about their paychecks. It is wrong. For our National Guard, more than 330 of our New Hampshire National Guard military technicians are being furloughed. These individuals lost 25 to 30 percent of their pay this summer when they were furloughed because of sequestration. This is no way to treat Americans who are helping defend our country. They play a critical role in the operations of our Guard. Yet we are also being told that the New Hampshire Air National Guard--if they do not receive more furlough exceptions, they may have to shut down their air-refueling and air-bridge operations to Europe and the Middle East. This is about the defense of our Nation. Many of them canceled their civilian job days at work to come to their drill weekend this weekend, which is now being canceled, so they are losing those days of pay as well. Yesterday I was answering my phones. I had a constituent call me saying that his family had saved for years for a vacation, that it was going to cost them $25,000 to $30,000, and they were at the Grand Canyon. They said: Senator Ayotte, what is going on? We took our kids out of school for 2 weeks, we saved for years for this vacation, and we cannot go down into the canyon. We must get this resolved, and we must look for common ground on both sides of the aisle to negotiate this, to get a responsible fiscal plan for the Nation. By the way, we are fighting about 6 weeks of a continuing resolution right now. Give me a break. We should be looking at long-term funding for this Nation, not 6 weeks. To have this kind of impasse over 6 weeks? I can understand why the American people are frustrated and angry. All I can say is that tonight, as congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle meet with the President of the United States, we do not need any more posturing. Let's give up the blame game on both sides. No more photo ops. You have all seen enough photo ops at this point. Come out of that meeting with results. Yes, results means that both sides are going to have to negotiate. Both sides are not going to get everything they want, but that is what people do in their daily lives. That is what I know people in New Hampshire do to resolve their differences. That is what the American people expect of us. I hope this ends soon so we can move forward on behalf of this great Nation.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what is happening in my home State of New Hampshire as a result of ObamaCare. When I ran for the Senate in 2010, one of the reasons I decided to do so is because when I saw ObamaCare had been passed, I worried about what was going to happen with this law. We saw it could offer less competition, limit peoples' choices, limit their choices on who would be their physician, and also change their insurance policies and raise costs in a health care system that costs too much to begin with. Sadly, we are now seeing all of these fears come true with ObamaCare. Unfortunately, I have seen it firsthand in my home State of New Hampshire. In fact, I have heard it from my constituents, whether it is at a townhall, whether it is visiting with a small business, whether it is listening to someone who is having their hours cut because their employer is trying to meet a 29-hour requirement. In fact, right now in New Hampshire there is only one insurer that was approved to offer health policies on New Hampshire's ObamaCare exchange. In order to prevent premiums from skyrocketing--and by the way, people in New Hampshire will be paying higher than the national average for premiums under ObamaCare. But to prevent them from skyrocketing even further, this lone New Hampshire insurer has been essentially forced to limit its network of providers to exclude 10 of our 26 hospitals. What does that mean for the people of New Hampshire? Several of the hospitals have been excluded as a result of ObamaCare from this exchange and did not make the list for coverage. They are, for example Concord Hospital, which serves residents in and around our State capital, and that is not one of the providers in the network; Portsmouth Regional Hospital in Portsmouth. The largest city on our seacoast, Portsmouth Regional Hospital serves the surrounding areas. Not in the network. Other hospitals in New Hampshire that are not in this network: Frisbie Memorial Hospital in Rochester; Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua, where I live; Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough; Valley Regional Hospital in Claremont; and Alice Peck Day Hospital in Lebanon. This problem is especially challenging for people in New Hampshire who live in rural areas. It is particularly unfair to them. For example, Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital in Colebrook did not make the cut. What does that mean that Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital in Colebrook did not make the cut? If you live in Colebrook or Stewartstown or Columbia, and you need maternal care, you have to drive to Berlin. If you have to drive to Berlin from some of those areas, this round trip can take you 3 hours. What does that mean when you need maternal care? If you have to drive over an hour or an hour and a half to get to the hospital, I have to tell you, the north country in the winter can be some tough driving. One thing I know about the residents of our north country, they are resilient, they are tough, they are wonderful people. But they should not be put through this as a result of fewer choices under ObamaCare. I have been making trips across New Hampshire directly talking to my constituents, including to business owners. The message I have heard from them is very clear. In fact, it has been raised with me on almost every stop that I made in New Hampshire in August where I had the chance to talk to people from throughout all our State. This is not an issue that is being raised because I am a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. It is universal concern and worry about the impact of ObamaCare and the increasing costs that people are seeing in health care as a result of ObamaCare and fewer choices that people in New Hampshire are going to have. Here is some of the mail I have received from some of my constituents about this law. Dave in Manchester wrote me that he and his wife are in their forties. This is what he had to say: Our premiums went from quarterly in May to monthly as of June. No birthdays or changes in health. Our monthly bill went from $497.39 for myself to $572.67, a jump of over 15 percent. My wife had her bill go from $572.67 to $801.84, a jump of over 40 percent. Dave says he makes approximately $31,000 a year after taxes and that health care takes up half of it. Caroline from Grafton wrote: Our school district and surrounding ones are cutting back paraprofessional jobs to 29 hours. Many of these people were full time. Instead, they hired several part-time people to cover the once full-time positions. This law of unintended consequences is devastating for those whose hours and benefits have been cut. Now they are no longer entitled to benefits; many of these individuals have worked for 15 years or more as full timers. John from Middleton wrote: I am 61 and retired. I buy my own health insurance privately. Since the Affordable Care Act, I have had to change my insurance carrier because they left the State. I changed my coverage because it became too expensive, and I have had three increases in my premiums. Chris from Nashua wrote: As a small business owner and self-insured, I am very worried about my costs going up. My broker mentioned that we may see a 200 percent increase in our monthly rate. Nancy lives near a hospital that was left out of the exchange. Ten of our hospitals, which is a huge amount in our State of New Hampshire, almost a third of our hospitals, have been left out of the exchange. Nancy wrote: I want to continue to have my medical care with the doctors, nurses, therapists, et cetera, whom I know and trust and with whom I have an established relationship. Again, what do I do? This is what the Affordable Care Act did for me. We have seen recently that the headlines of what is happening with the impact of ObamaCare tell the story. In my home State of New Hampshire today, from the Associated Press: ``Health overhaul premiums in NH above average.'' The National Telegraph: ``Decision to eliminate Nashua hospital from health exchanges causes confusion.'' The Union Leader: ``Companies look for new ways to pay fees coming from ObamaCare.'' Concord Monitor: ``Concord hospital not part of provider network for ObamaCare exchange plan in New Hampshire.'' Nationally, the headlines are telling the story as well. A Politico recent article: ``ObamaCare: One blow after another.'' USA Today: ``Family glitch in health law could be painful. It could leave up to 500,000 children without coverage and cost some families thousands of dollars.'' Washington Post: ``One week away, ObamaCare's small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.'' CNBC on Main Street: ``ObamaCare hurts hiring: Staffing.'' USA Today: ``Pew poll: Health care law faces difficult future.'' There are many more I can go through here. It has been one bad story after another because of the reality of implementing this flawed law. The private sector impact of ObamaCare: We all want our economy to do better than it is doing right now, to provide jobs and opportunity for people in this country, to make sure everyone in this country can live the American dream. Yet the Affordable Care Act is hurting job creation and job hiring in this country. Increasingly, employers are cutting benefits and shifting the burden of health insurance coverage to their employees. We have seen in the recent impact of this law that the Cleveland Clinic is probably the best example. The President went to the Cleveland Clinic during his campaign and cited it as a model in terms of how health care could be delivered in pitching his health care law. Yet the Cleveland Clinic recently announced, as one of Ohio's largest employers, that it would cut jobs and slash 5 to 6 percent of its budget to prepare for President Barack Obama's health reforms. Walgreen's recently announced it is dropping health insurance coverage for 160,000 workers and will instead give them payments to purchase insurance through private exchanges. Time Warner and IBM plan to move retirees from employer-administered health plans to private exchanges. We have seen similar stories from companies like Home Depot and Trader Joe's. They are going to end coverage for part-time employees. UPS is dropping coverage for employees' spouses. In terms of the impact on jobs, what I have heard from companies in New Hampshire, from the smallest to the largest, is they want to do right by their employees. The rising cost of premiums and the questions that have been raised by ObamaCare have put them in a position where they can't do what they want to do for their employees and their health care. In many instances they are forced, because of higher costs, to not hire that next employee. If you think about the structure of this law, that it applies to those with 50 employees or more, some are not going to open that next business, or that next restaurant, because they do not want to fall under this law. What kind of law would we pass here to deal with the issue of health care that actually makes it more difficult to hire people, that actually thwarts the private sector's desire to expand businesses or if you have one restaurant, to have a second restaurant; if you have one shop, to open up a second shop? The flaws in this law are not only that it reduces choices for consumers, but it is reducing the choices that people in this country have for jobs, which is wrong. I think the best critiques that we have seen of the law actually came from President Obama's supporters, and they are the Teamsters Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Unite Here. They recently wrote the President and said: We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our Members, along with millions of other hard- working Americans. They have also expressed concerns that this law will destroy the 40- hour work week. As Senator Cornyn from Texas said: As Republicans, we are united in repealing this law. We are united in wanting to defund this law and wanting to make sure that we can replace this law with commonsense reforms that drive down health costs, increase competition for insurance companies, and give people more choice, while making sure that we do not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, which we are now seeing is not true, unfortunately, under ObamaCare. I will do everything I can to make sure we repeal this law, to make sure that we can ensure that people have choice, that they can keep their doctor, and that health care is affordable for people in this country. However, I do not support shutting down the government in order to defund this law. While some of my colleagues have urged us to shut down the government--and they haven't said it in this term, they have said they don't want to shut down the government--but the reality is they have asked us to vote against a bill that is coming over from the House that will defund ObamaCare, but will continue the funding for the government. If we were to vote as a block against ending debate on that bill, then the result could be to shut down the government. While Americans are opposed to ObamaCare, what we have seen in a poll as recently as today is that 80 percent of Americans say threatening a government shutdown during budget debates is not an acceptable way to negotiate. I believe we should make sure that we repeal this law. I join in what the senior Senator from Texas said, and I would hope that my Democratic colleagues would listen to what their constituents are saying about the negative impacts of this law and that they would join us, join Republicans, in ensuring that we do defund this law, that we work together, that we make sure that, by the way, businesses aren't treated better than individuals in where we are right now with the implementation of this law. One of the most absurd things that I don't even know how you can explain to people is the President has made the decision that the employer mandate is going to be delayed until 2015. With regard to individuals, they have not been given a similar delay. How do we justify treating businesses better than individuals with a law that is going to force many people into a position where they are paying higher premiums? They may, unfortunately, lose the hospital they prefer to go to in my home State of New Hampshire, or the physician they have that trust and relationship with. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how is it that we can treat businesses differently than individuals here? Why don't we join together and delay the individual mandate, at least until 2015, as businesses are being treated by the President now in his delay of the employer mandate? I hope on the other side of the aisle we can work together and listen to the American people who loud and clear are expressing the worries, the concerns, and the impact this law is having on them. It has not been, unfortunately, a good impact. Finally, I wish to say in terms of the strategy of shutting down the government, I don't support it also because it is not going to work. The Congressional Research Service has said that even if we shut down the government, there has been mandatory spending baked into this law, so ObamaCare can mostly continue. To those who are asking us to take that step, I would say that even if we were to do so, we will not achieve the purpose of fully defunding ObamaCare or stopping ObamaCare from hurting average Americans. I hope we can work together to make sure that we don't continue to hurt Americans, such as my constituents who are going to have to drive much longer distances to go to the hospital in the ObamaCare exchange in New Hampshire. They are paying higher premiums because of ObamaCare and have less choice. I would hope we could work together to ensure that average Americans don't continue to be harmed by this law. Finally, this piece of legislation was a signature of the President's policies. It was something when he got into office he pushed right away to pass. The impact that many of us feared about this law--less competition, higher costs, interfering with keeping the doctor you want, hurting jobs--we have now seen come to fruition. So why would we at this point try to shut down the government? Why would we at this point give the President a lifeline? To quote the President's own former Press Secretary on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend: If you think about this from the White House perspective, you've had three fairly forgettable weeks at the White House, right? About to lose a vote on Syria; immigration reform looks dead; you're sinking in quicksand, and here your enemies throw you the rope and want to get in the quicksand instead of you. Why would we put ourselves in a position where we would shut down the government over a law that is the President's signature piece of legislation and hand him a lifeline on this issue and, in the process, hurt average Americans, such as our military, that could be impacted by a government shutdown, such as our veterans that could be hurt by a government shutdown, such as air travel that could be impacted by a government shutdown. By the way, the last time we shut down the government, it cost us more to reopen the government--$1.4 billion more--than it would have cost to just run the government. So from a fiscally conservative perspective it doesn't make any sense either. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to be united in repealing and replacing ObamaCare, and let's work together to do that. Let's work together while keeping the government going forward with responsible spending levels. Let's not forget we are $17 trillion in debt. Let's not let that debate get sidelined by this debate of ObamaCare. Finally, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you have been hearing many of the same stories from your constituents. How can we treat businesses differently than individuals? Why wouldn't you agree to something such as a delay of ObamaCare for 1 year for individuals similar to the delay businesses have been granted by the President? Why would you want to continue to fund a law right now that is already hurting people in terms of their choice for their doctor and driving up costs and hurting job creation? I know we can resolve these issues and I know the American people expect us to. I think we can do this in a way that helps address health care costs, coverage, and in a more responsible way than ObamaCare has done, allowing people to keep the doctor they have chosen and allowing people to have greater choice through competition. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the late Dr. Paul E. Emery's extensive service and commitment to the psychiatric community and the people of New Hampshire. At an early age, Paul knew he wanted to become a psychiatrist. His calling was to help people overcome their challenges, and he did so with great compassion. He was a highly skilled and dedicated doctor who was loved by many. He trained at Syracuse Psychopathic Hospital, Western New England Psychoanalytic Institute, and Yale University. He was also an NIMH fellow at Austin Riggs Center in Stockbridge, MA. His training was interrupted by the Korean war, during which he was promoted to captain and served as the division psychiatrist and chief of the Mental Hygiene Clinic in the U.S. Army. He received several commendations for his outstanding service. He started his private practice of psychiatry in Concord, NH, and practiced for more than 23 years. During this time, he was a consultant for Concord Hospital, St. Paul's School, and the Division of Public Health Program on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. He was also the medical director for the Forensic Unit of the New Hampshire State Hospital. He later became the first medical director and then executive director for the VA's First Center on Stress Recovery in Brecksville, OH. Subsequently, Dr. Emery became chief of psychiatry at the Manchester VAMC. After his retirement from the VAMC, he became staff psychiatrist at Manchester Counseling Services and Elliot Hospital. In addition, he served on the New Hampshire Parole Board. Dr. Emery had an academic/faculty appointment at Dartmouth Medical School from the 1960s until he retired in 2005. He published about 30 scientific articles and chapters dealing primarily with post-traumatic stress disorder. He founded the N.H. Psychiatric Society in 1972 and held various chairmanships and offices in that organization, including serving as its president during the 1980s and as chairman of the ethics committee during the 1990s. He was also active in the N.H. Medical Society and was its vice president during the mid-1970s. Dr. Emery touched so many lives, and I join with citizens across New Hampshire in honoring the many contributions he made to our State and the psychiatric community.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today I wish to honor Thornton, NH--a town in Grafton County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this special occasion. Thornton is a gateway community to New Hampshire's beautiful White Mountains--welcoming visitors from near and far throughout the year. This picturesque community represents the very best of New Hampshire's proud heritage. The land that would become Thornton was granted in a charter by Governor Benning Wentworth on July 6, 1763, one of New Hampshire's great statesmen, to a small group of settlers including Doctor Matthew Thornton. Thornton later represented New Hampshire as a representative to the Continental Congress, and signed the Declaration of Independence. The town was named to honor Thornton for his service to New Hampshire. The town's population has grown to include over 2,400 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Thornton are reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Notable Thornton residents include 19th century abolitionist Moses Cheney, a conductor with the Underground Railroad, and MIT professor and nutritionist Nevin S. Scrimshaw. Thornton is home to one of the oldest remaining meetinghouses in the State. Erected in 1789, the Old Town House is listed on the New Hampshire State Register of Historic Places and serves as an enduring symbol of New Hampshire's tradition of self-governance. Thornton is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the Granite State. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Thornton as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to join with the people of Newington, NH, as they celebrate the town's 300th anniversary. Located in Rockingham County, Newington is surrounded on three sides by water--the Piscataqua River to the northeast, Little Bay to the northwest and Great Bay to the west. Due to its close proximity to water, agriculture became the way of life in the early years of this town. The town was originally part of Dover and was known as Bloody Point, so named because of the battle between men from Dover and Portsmouth who were vying for more land. In 1640 Thomas Trickery established the Bloody Point Ferry, which crossed the Piscataqua to Hilton's Point and was the only connection between Dover and Portsmouth. Because of the difficulty in getting to the church in Dover, early settlers established a meetinghouse at Bloody Point in 1712. In 1713 local residents held a meeting to hire a minister, and on May 12, 1714, Governor Dudley granted the request and renamed the parish from Bloody Point to Newington. This meetinghouse is still owned by the town and is considered the oldest meetinghouse in New Hampshire. In addition to this historic landmark, residents set land aside to create a town forest in 1710. This forest is the oldest surviving town forest in the United States and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of farms grew during the late 1800s thanks in part to the construction of the railroad bridge to Dover point in 1873. The railroad provided the ability to transport perishable commodities, such as apples and dairy, to new markets. Today the population has grown to include over 750 residents, whose patriotism and commitment is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Over the past several decades, Newington has seen a dramatic change from an agricultural community to an industrial and commercial hub. In the 1950s, the Federal Government acquired land to build Pease Air Force Base, over half of which is located in the town of Newington. Although this base closed, the area has been redeveloped into what is now the Pease International Tradeport. Even with these recent changes, the town of Newington has maintained its quaint and historic character. Whether it is the popular Newington Mall, the historic town forest or the Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the citizens of Newington have contributed much to the life and heritage of New Hampshire during the town's first 300 years. On this day, we honor the 300th anniversary of Newington, salute its citizens, and recognize their accomplishments, their love of country, and their spirit of independence.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today I wish to honor Sandwich, NH--a town in Carroll County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic event. Sandwich is a picturesque community situated in the shadow of the Sandwich Dome, that has through the hard work and dedication of its citizens retained the look and feel of a traditional colonial New Hampshire village. Sandwich was granted a charter by Governor Benning Wentworth on October 25, 1763, and derives its name from John Montague, the 4th Earl of Sandwich. Today, the population has grown to include over 1,300 residents. Carpenters, wheelwrights, and blacksmiths formed the base of Sandwich's vibrant artisan history. The beauty of the region, and its rich history, has attracted a variety of artists to Sandwich. In 1920, Sandwich Home Industries was founded. Today it is known statewide as the League of New Hampshire Craftsmen. Sandwich is also home to one of New Hampshire's premier agricultural fairs. Held every year on Columbus Day weekend, the Sandwich Fair has been providing a venue for the celebration of New Hampshire's agrarian history for the past 125 years. Named for the owner of the nearby grist mill, the historic covered Durgin Bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and has been a part of the community since 1869. Before being washed away in 1865, a previous span served as a connection to North Conway for the Underground Railroad. Sandwich is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Sandwich as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Lisbon, NH--a town in Grafton County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic event. Famous for its annual Lilac Festival, Lisbon is located along the Ammonoosuc and Gale rivers in the shadow of Babbit Hill. The land that would become Lisbon was granted in a charter as Concord by Gov. Benning Wentworth in 1763. Renamed Chiswick, the name was subsequently changed to Gunthwaite. At a town meeting in 1824, it was renamed Lisbon in honor of Lisbon, Portugal. The population has grown to include over 1,500 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Lisbon is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Among those patriots were Revolutionary War veterans Samuel Young and MAJ Benjamin Whitcomb. Young and members of his family fought in the Battle of Bunker Hill, while Whitcomb, also known as the ``Dreaded Scout,'' was the leader of Whitcomb's Independent Corps of Rangers. New England Wire Technologies first opened in 1899, and it has grown to become a leader in the design and manufacture of multiconductor cables, custom braids, and strands. Today the company has over 330 employees and is one of the larger employers in the area. According to a town history, ``Three of the five peg mills in the United States were located in Lisbon. Parker Young Company was at one time the largest manufacturer of piano sounding boards in the world. There were two railroad stations, a library, a gold rush, a small airport and the first rope ski tow in New Hampshire.'' Lisbon is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Lisbon as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Hampton, NH-- an historic Granite State community that is also one of the most popular vacation destinations in New England. A crown jewel of New Hampshire's seacoast, Hampton was one of four original New Hampshire towns and was located in an area originally known as Winnacunnet. According to a town history, it was settled in the autumn of 1638. Incorporated as Hampton in 1639, the current day high school is named Winnacunnet High School--home of the Warriors. With the arrival of the railroad in the mid 1800s, Hampton became a summertime favorite of travelers from near and far--starting the town's long tradition of providing welcoming hospitality. On a hot summer day, Hampton Beach can expect to see around 100,000 visitors on its beautiful beaches and boardwalk. Generations of New Hampshire families have spent their summer vacation on the shores of Hampton Beach--eating fresh seafood in its restaurants, splashing in the surf, enjoying beachside concerts, and playing in the arcades. Hampton has been the home of many historical and famous figures. First Lady of the United States, Jane Pierce, called Hampton home, as did former Governor Stephen E. Merrill and former Congressman Tristram Shaw. Whether it is scenic Hampton Beach, the Tuck Museum or the historic James House historic site--which is described as what may be the earliest surviving example of the two-room deep, center chimney colonial in New Hampshire--the proud people of Hampton have contributed conspicuously to the spirit and heritage of New Hampshire during the town's first 375 years. Hampton holds a special place in the hearts of citizens across New Hampshire. On this day, I am pleased to recognize the 375th anniversary of Hampton--saluting its citizens and recognizing their accomplishments, their love of country, their warm hospitality, and their spirit of independence.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Woodstock, NH--a town in Grafton 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. The land that would become Woodstock was granted in a charter by Governor Benning Wentworth on September 23, 1763, and was subsequently named after the English town of Peeling. Governor Wentworth's nephew, John Wentworth, would later rename the town Fairfield, after Fairfield, CT. In 1840, the town would receive a final name change to Woodstock, for Blenheim Palace in Woodstock, England. The population has grown to include over 1,300 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Woodstock is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Frank Merrill, a notable summer resident of Woodstock, was the commander of the special World War II unit known as Merrill's Marauders. General Merrill commanded the 5307th Composite Unit during combat operations in Burma throughout the spring of 1944. He later served as the New Hampshire commissioner of highways. Woodstock remains largely forested and is home to the world renowned Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, where in the 1960s acid rain was first discovered. Also within Woodstock is the famous Lost River Reservation, a portion of the White Mountain National Forest, and a segment of the Appalachian Trail. The abundant timber and access to the power of the Pemigewasset River established logging as the principal early industry in Woodstock. The entrance of the railroad in the 19th century opened the wilderness to development and expansion. This expansion attracted tourists to the town, and tourism remains a vital part of Woodstock's economy--with visitors from near and far traveling to savor the peace and solitude of this special part of New Hampshire. Woodstock is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of the Granite State. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Woodstock as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for giving us that courtesy. I rise in support of the amendment that will be offered by my colleagues from Tennessee and North Dakota. I appreciate the hard work they have done to enhance the border security provisions in the current pending immigration bill on the floor. To all of us, securing our border is very important to preventing another wave of illegal immigration in this country. But what they have done is incredibly important. It is very strong, the strongest measure that I think this body has considered--20,000 Border Patrol agents, essentially doubling those agents that will be along the southern border; in addition to that, significantly increasing the fencing. In fact, at least 700 miles of fencing will have to be completed along the southern border, almost doubling what was already in the bill for fencing and specifying what types of technology the Department of Homeland Security will have to deploy, including the best technology, using sensors and drones, to make sure we can apprehend those who are illegally trying to cross our border and then making very sure we prevent a further wave of illegal immigration, along with the strong reforms in this bill to our legal immigration system, making sure we can keep the best and the brightest here to help us grow our economy, to make sure we have the workforce we need to ensure that we will create jobs here. Let us not forget we are a country of immigrants. I daresay for most of my colleagues either their parents or their grandparents came from another country and worked very hard in this country. We need legal immigration that works for our country, that makes sure our economy continues to grow and that we have people here who want to work hard and live the American dream. But we also cannot ignore securing our southern border. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the amendment that will be offered by Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven. This doubles the number of border agents, doubles the amount of fencing, specifies the type of technology that is required, and gives the resources to finally secure our border. To my Republican colleagues, I think there was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that is worth mentioning. I share their concerns about securing the border, but I hope--with the strong enhancements that have been put in this amendment to double the amount of border security, to strengthen and double, almost, the amount of fencing, to make sure the right technologies are in place to secure our border, this will prevent another wave of illegal immigration--they will not use border security as a ruse not to vote for a bill to fix an immigration system that is absolutely broken. The status quo is not working for anyone. None of us wants to find ourselves, another 5 years from now, debating this issue again and finding that we have a larger population of illegal immigrants and we have legal immigration that is not working for our country and is not making sure we have the right people here, people who are working hard, living the American dream to grow our economy and great American jobs. I think today the Wall Street Journal has said this border security issue cannot be used as a trick not to want to support a strong bill which is on the floor--and this amendment will make it very strong on the border security provisions--and finally work in a bipartisan manner to fix a broken immigration system that is not working for anyone and not working for our country. I yield the floor for my colleague from Florida. I commend my colleague from Florida who has worked--along with the other Members of the group, the Senators from Arizona as well as the Senator from South Carolina--but the Senator from Florida, I know how focused he is on making sure our borders are secure. I appreciate his strong leadership in fixing this broken immigration system and making sure we do not have another wave of illegal immigration in this country.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize and honor the town of Cornish, NH as it celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding. Established in 1763 and incorporated in 1765 by Colonial Gov. Benning Wentworth, Cornish was named for Sir Samuel Cornish, a distinguished vice-admiral of the Royal Navy. This area, located in Sullivan County, was once known as Mast Camp because it was the shipping point for the tall masts floated down the river by the English for use by the Royal Navy. Forestry and agriculture continue to be important components of Cornish's economy and lifestyle. Cornish is known as a summer resort for artists and writers. In 1885, sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens sought a summer studio away from the heat of New York City and found himself in Cornish. Maxfield Parrish and other artists soon followed Saint-Gaudens, transforming the area into a popular artists' colony. In 1964, Saint-Gaudens' home and studio were named a national historic site. Famous authors Winston Churchill and J.D. Salinger wrote at homes in Cornish. Cornish is home to four covered bridges, all of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. The Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge built in 1866 is the longest two-span covered bridge in the world. The Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge has been designated a National Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers and still carries daily automobile traffic. Whether it is the Cornish Fair or a summer concert at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, Cornish has contributed so much to the rich heritage of New Hampshire during its first 250 years. I am pleased to join the citizens across New Hampshire in celebrating this special milestone for the people of Cornish, whose accomplishments, love of country, and spirit of independence have enriched our State.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Graham and Senator Menendez for their leadership on this important Senate resolution, S. Res. 65. This is a resolution that is very straightforward. It says to our friend and ally Israel: We have your back. That means right now. If you look at the dangers confronting Israel, they are unprecedented dangers, from the situation in Syria, to threats from Hamas and Hezbollah, to the situation in the Sinai. But the greatest threat of all is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It is a country that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Rightly so, the Israelis have said never again. As our country, we say never again. Because it is not just that the Iranians could acquire nuclear weapons capability and launch a missile against our country, it is that they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism. They could give that nuclear weapon to a terrorist. Then it is not just a threat to Israel, this is a threat to the safety of the world. That is why I fully support this resolution and why it has so many cosponsors in the Senate. To understand the deep friendship we have with Israel, what we share in terms of democracy in the Middle East, ultimately this threat is not just a threat to Israel, this is a threat to the safety of the United States of America. This resolution is clear. If Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, it urges the U.S. Government to stand with Israel, diplomatically, militarily, and economically. It also reiterates what my friend from North Dakota talked about, which is the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and reaffirms that we will continue to press for the toughest of economic sanctions. To the leaders in Iran, understand there is much we do not agree on in this body. When we pass this resolution today, you need to know we are unified when it comes to stopping you from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, and that we will stand with our friend and ally Israel to make sure you do not present that type of grave danger to the safety of the entire world. I thank my colleague from South Carolina. I thank my colleagues here who have supported this incredibly important resolution. Think about it. How often do we come together with 91 Senators to support legislation? This is about the security of this country. I look forward to this body passing this important resolution.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Haverhill, NH--a town in Grafton 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. Haverhill is comprised of the villages of Woodsville, Pike, North Haverhill, and the historic town center at Haverhill Corner. The village of North Haverhill is the county seat of Grafton County. The Bedell Bridge State Park, Black Mountain State Forest, Kinder Memorial Forest, and the Oliverian Valley Wildlife Preserve are all located in Haverhill. Haverhill was granted a charter by Governor Benning Wentworth on May 18, 1763. A veteran of the French and Indian War, CPT John Hazen originally oversaw and settled Haverhill, naming it after his birthplace in Massachusetts. The population has grown to over 4,600 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Haverhill is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation. Some of Haverhill's most notable residents have included U.S. Senator and New Hampshire Governor, Henry W. Keyes; U.S. Congressmen Noah Davis and Jonathan H. Rowell; and professional baseball players Chad Paranto and Bob Smith. As sturdy and resilient as the people who built it, Haverhill is home to the Haverhill-Bath Covered Bridge. Completed in 1829, it is the oldest Town Lattice Truss Saltbox covered bridge in the United States. Haverhill is also home to the Museum of American Weather. This unique institution chronicles the history of four unique New England weather events. Haverhill is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Haverhill as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, Evan, a graduate of Timberlane Regional High School in Plaistow, NH, was a beloved member of both the school's community and the greater Plaistow community. Evan was involved in the school's theatre program, competed on the Model United Nations team, and was a member of the National Honor Society. Upon graduating from Timberlane, Evan began his freshman year at Bates College in Lewiston, ME, where he was studying classical and medieval studies. At the time of his passing, Evan was participating in an archaeological research project in Scotland.

Ms. AYOTTE. In the wake of Evan's passing, students and faculty of Timberlane Regional High School gave great thought to the true meaning of compassion. To honor Evan's life and the many lessons he shared, members of the community have worked to incorporate Evan's values of compassion and kindness into their daily lives. We would all be well served by emulating such behavior.

Ms. AYOTTE. We recognize Evan Dube for his well-lived life that was full of compassion, kindness and care. Those who knew Evan are fortunate to have had the opportunity to grow with and learn from him, and are certainly better off by having had their lives touched by such an inspirational person.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me say I wish to thank very much my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, for her leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to work together to address this very important issue of making sure we eliminate sexual assaults that occur within our military and that the victims of these crimes get the respect, the support, and the justice they deserve. I am very honored to work with Senator Murray, and I thank her so much for giving me the opportunity to work with her on this important legislation to address a very serious problem in our military. I approach this issue not just as someone who comes from a military family and has such great, deep respect for the military--as I know Senator Murray does with the important position she has on the Veterans' Committee--but also as someone who serves on the Armed Services Committee and someone who worked in my prior career extensively with victims of sexual assault. During my time as a prosecutor in New Hampshire and then later as the State's attorney general, I saw the devastating impact of these types of crimes. I also saw the real need to address what is too often a silent crime. The victims often suffer in silence for fear of coming forward and not being supported when they are to come forward and report a sexual assault. That is very important, and that is why I also supported efforts earlier this year--that I know Senator Murray was a very strong leader on--to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I wish to thank her for her leadership on that as well. Currently, military sexual assault occurs at alarming levels throughout all branches of our military. According to the Department of Defenses estimates, 19,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in 2011, a rate of over 52 per day. Despite these shocking figures, fewer than 2,800 assaults against servicemembers were reported to the Department of Defense over the same period. The Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office's annual report, which was actually just released today at the same time that we are filing our legislation, concludes that the number of people who made an anonymous sexual assault claim but never reported the attack increased from 19,000 in 2011 to 26,000 in 2012, nearly a 37-percent increase. Yet the number of reported sexual assaults against servicemembers only increased--in other words, those who did report and come forward--by about 8 percent. This is a dramatic example of people who were victims but feel they would have the support to come forward and report the crimes that were being committed against them. Astonishingly, as Senator Murray mentioned, just yesterday it was reported that the police arrested a lieutenant colonel in charge of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response branch and charged him with sexual battery, which brought this issue very much to the forefront, given the fact that this individual was charged with important responsibility over the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. It is important to understand why sexual assault is so destructive, especially when it occurs in our military--of course, when it occurs anywhere. Sexual assault is a serious and unacceptable crime that can inflict lasting emotional and physical impact on the victims of these crimes that can last for years and throughout their lifetimes. In the military, sexual assault can also damage unit morale, readiness, the preparedness of our troops. Also, military sexual assault can negatively impact the well-earned reputation of those who serve honorably, which is obviously the overwhelming number of members of our military who serve our country with great courage and with great character. So we must aggressively tackle this problem to compassionately help victims but also to protect the good order and discipline that ultimately undermine and support the readiness of our military units. We do our military and our servicemembers little good if we ignore this problem. Conversely, it is very important we pass commonsense legislation that will help solve the problem. But we should make no mistake that, again, the vast majority of our men and women in uniform serve with tremendous dignity and honor, and the United States continues to be the very best military in the world because of the character, quality, and courage of our men and women in uniform. But when a servicemember fails to live up to our values and commits a sexual assault, we must ensure victims have the support they need and the perpetrators are held accountable and are brought to justice. That is why Senator Murray and I have introduced this legislation today. Our legislation, titled the ``Combating Military Sexual Assault Act,'' would expand and improve military sexual assault prevention and response resources available to the victims of these crimes. Building on the lessons we have learned from a pilot program already in place in the Air Force, our bill would provide trained special victims' counsels to victims in all service branches to help them throughout the process. These counsels can help comfort and advise victims after the crime has occurred. The special victims' counsel also provides victims the confidence they need to come forward, report the crime, and seek justice. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Welsh, testified this morning before the Armed Services Committee ``the evidence is clear'' that providing special victims' counsel to those who suffer from this crime has been ``immensely helpful'' in the Air Force. So every victim of crime within our Armed Services deserves to have the support of the special victims' counsel. Our bill would also ensure sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the National Guard and Reserve at all times, regardless of whether the servicemember is operating under title 10 or title 32 authority. It is very important we get this in the law now so that our Guard men and women get the support they deserve. We could not have fought the battles and wars we have fought without their courage and bravery and the sacrifices they have made. Our bill would also make certain sexual assault cases are referred to the general court-martial level when sexual assault charges are filed or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. Right now, the way the system is set up, there is not a set mechanism where there is a conflict of interest. This commonsense approach would recognize the uniquely devastating damage sexual assault crimes inflict on individuals and ensure that victims can have confidence in the military court justice system. In conclusion, allowing this problem to persist is simply unacceptable, both for the victims and for the morale and readiness of our forces that do so much to ensure the freedom of this country. We must continue to make clear that sexual assault in the military simply will not be tolerated, and we must match these words with actions. Our legislation does just that. I look forward to working with the Department of Defense, continuing to work with Senator Murray--and I thank her again for her leadership-- as well as my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle in strengthening existing laws and policies so that all military sexual assault victims can come forward without fear of retribution and with the confidence they will receive the support, care, and justice they deserve from our country. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me say I wish to thank very much my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, for her leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to work together to address this very important issue of making sure we eliminate sexual assaults that occur within our military and that the victims of these crimes get the respect, the support, and the justice they deserve. I am very honored to work with Senator Murray, and I thank her so much for giving me the opportunity to work with her on this important legislation to address a very serious problem in our military. I approach this issue not just as someone who comes from a military family and has such great, deep respect for the military--as I know Senator Murray does with the important position she has on the Veterans' Committee--but also as someone who serves on the Armed Services Committee and someone who worked in my prior career extensively with victims of sexual assault. During my time as a prosecutor in New Hampshire and then later as the State's attorney general, I saw the devastating impact of these types of crimes. I also saw the real need to address what is too often a silent crime. The victims often suffer in silence for fear of coming forward and not being supported when they are to come forward and report a sexual assault. That is very important, and that is why I also supported efforts earlier this year--that I know Senator Murray was a very strong leader on--to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I wish to thank her for her leadership on that as well. Currently, military sexual assault occurs at alarming levels throughout all branches of our military. According to the Department of Defenses estimates, 19,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in 2011, a rate of over 52 per day. Despite these shocking figures, fewer than 2,800 assaults against servicemembers were reported to the Department of Defense over the same period. The Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office's annual report, which was actually just released today at the same time that we are filing our legislation, concludes that the number of people who made an anonymous sexual assault claim but never reported the attack increased from 19,000 in 2011 to 26,000 in 2012, nearly a 37-percent increase. Yet the number of reported sexual assaults against servicemembers only increased--in other words, those who did report and come forward--by about 8 percent. This is a dramatic example of people who were victims but feel they would have the support to come forward and report the crimes that were being committed against them. Astonishingly, as Senator Murray mentioned, just yesterday it was reported that the police arrested a lieutenant colonel in charge of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response branch and charged him with sexual battery, which brought this issue very much to the forefront, given the fact that this individual was charged with important responsibility over the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. It is important to understand why sexual assault is so destructive, especially when it occurs in our military--of course, when it occurs anywhere. Sexual assault is a serious and unacceptable crime that can inflict lasting emotional and physical impact on the victims of these crimes that can last for years and throughout their lifetimes. In the military, sexual assault can also damage unit morale, readiness, the preparedness of our troops. Also, military sexual assault can negatively impact the well-earned reputation of those who serve honorably, which is obviously the overwhelming number of members of our military who serve our country with great courage and with great character. So we must aggressively tackle this problem to compassionately help victims but also to protect the good order and discipline that ultimately undermine and support the readiness of our military units. We do our military and our servicemembers little good if we ignore this problem. Conversely, it is very important we pass commonsense legislation that will help solve the problem. But we should make no mistake that, again, the vast majority of our men and women in uniform serve with tremendous dignity and honor, and the United States continues to be the very best military in the world because of the character, quality, and courage of our men and women in uniform. But when a servicemember fails to live up to our values and commits a sexual assault, we must ensure victims have the support they need and the perpetrators are held accountable and are brought to justice. That is why Senator Murray and I have introduced this legislation today. Our legislation, titled the ``Combating Military Sexual Assault Act,'' would expand and improve military sexual assault prevention and response resources available to the victims of these crimes. Building on the lessons we have learned from a pilot program already in place in the Air Force, our bill would provide trained special victims' counsels to victims in all service branches to help them throughout the process. These counsels can help comfort and advise victims after the crime has occurred. The special victims' counsel also provides victims the confidence they need to come forward, report the crime, and seek justice. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Welsh, testified this morning before the Armed Services Committee ``the evidence is clear'' that providing special victims' counsel to those who suffer from this crime has been ``immensely helpful'' in the Air Force. So every victim of crime within our Armed Services deserves to have the support of the special victims' counsel. Our bill would also ensure sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the National Guard and Reserve at all times, regardless of whether the servicemember is operating under title 10 or title 32 authority. It is very important we get this in the law now so that our Guard men and women get the support they deserve. We could not have fought the battles and wars we have fought without their courage and bravery and the sacrifices they have made. Our bill would also make certain sexual assault cases are referred to the general court-martial level when sexual assault charges are filed or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. Right now, the way the system is set up, there is not a set mechanism where there is a conflict of interest. This commonsense approach would recognize the uniquely devastating damage sexual assault crimes inflict on individuals and ensure that victims can have confidence in the military court justice system. In conclusion, allowing this problem to persist is simply unacceptable, both for the victims and for the morale and readiness of our forces that do so much to ensure the freedom of this country. We must continue to make clear that sexual assault in the military simply will not be tolerated, and we must match these words with actions. Our legislation does just that. I look forward to working with the Department of Defense, continuing to work with Senator Murray--and I thank her again for her leadership-- as well as my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle in strengthening existing laws and policies so that all military sexual assault victims can come forward without fear of retribution and with the confidence they will receive the support, care, and justice they deserve from our country. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of CW5 Bernard Satterfield. On July 1, 2013, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield will retire after 40 years of distinguished service to the U.S. Army. With his decades of service and dedication to our country, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield has earned our deepest gratitude and respect. In September 1973, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield entered active duty service after completing basic combat training at Fort Jackson, SC. In 1984, he was appointed to the Warrant Officer Corps. In 2010, he became the regimental chief officer--the highest ranking warrant officer--of the U.S. Army's Ordnance Corps. Chief Satterfield served in multiple overseas tours and deployments to Germany, Panama, South Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and numerous locations across the United States. His service earned him numerous military awards and decorations, including the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star, for his faithful service and contribution to the Army's mission. In retirement, I am confident that Chief Satterfield will continue to serve our Nation. On behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the U.S. Senate, I am proud to thank Chief Satterfield, his wife Deirdre, and their son Steven, for four decades of honorable service to our Nation. I wish him and his family the very best in retirement.