Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor one of New Hampshire's most revered and accomplished leaders, Ruth Lewin Griffin, as she celebrates her 90th birthday. Born in Fall River, MA, Ruth moved to Portsmouth, NH, at a young age and continues to reside there today. Most notably, she served as executive councilor for the third district of New Hampshire for 20 years. As a testament to her continued commitment to the Granite State, Ruth currently serves as chairman of the Portsmouth Housing Authority. But Ruth's career of service began long before her time on the executive council. After graduating from Portsmouth High School, Ruth went on to pursue a degree from Wentworth Hospital School of Nursing. Using the skills she learned as a registered nurse, she dove headfirst into a career as a public servant, holding office as a State senator and State representative and serving on the Portsmouth Police Commission and board of education. She also served as a delegate to two Constitutional Conventions and as a Republican national committeewoman. Ruth has earned well-deserved praise for her service to our State, including being named one of New Hampshire's Ten Most Powerful Women for 6 years in a row, and most recently, she received the 2015 Granite State Legacy Award, which honors dedication to the State, its people, and way of life. In addition to her tremendous service to New Hampshire, Ruth has been blessed with a wonderful family, including the late John Griffin, five children, five grandchildren, and two great-grandsons. Four generations of the Griffin family have lived on their family farm, raising sheep, chickens, and other livestock. As the matriarch of the family, Ruth strives to teach her family members the values she learned on the farm--hard work, humility, and perseverance. She will often tell you, invoking her family motto, that she lives her life ``by courage, not by cunning.'' Ruth embodies the spirit of a true New Hampshire leader. Her life is marked by her dedicated service and her devotion to making New Hampshire a better place to live and work. I had the privilege of serving alongside Ruth in the Governor's office and the attorney general's office and will be forever grateful for her wisdom, guidance, and mentorship. I am very proud to recognize and celebrate Ruth's birthday and her extraordinary contributions to the State. I wish Ruth and her family the best on this very special day and for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Bath, 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 occasion. Bath is surrounded by the Green Mountains to the west and White Mountains to the east and is situated at the furthest navigable point of the Connecticut River. Both the Ammonoosuc and Wild Ammonoosuc Rivers flow through Bath and are the source of the rich soil and ample water power responsible for Bath's thriving industrial and agricultural history. The town of Bath is named for William Pulteney, first Earl of Bath, and was originally chartered by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth in 1761 and later settled by John Herriman of Haverhill, MA, in 1765. Bath is known as the Covered Bridge Capital of New England and is home to the Bath, Swiftwater, and Bath-Haverhill covered bridges. Bath's architectural history is represented by a well-preserved group of 18th and 19th century style buildings located within its villages. One of the most famous of these buildings is The Brick Store. Opened in 1824, this Bath landmark holds the distinction of being the oldest continuously operated general store in the United States. As both statesmen and soldiers, Bath residents have been known throughout the town's history for their commitment and sacrifice in the service of our great Nation. United States Congressmen Harry Hibbard and James Hutchins Johnson both share ties to Bath, but it is New Hampshire's former District 1 executive councilor, Raymond S. Burton, who exemplified the meaning of public service. For over 30 years, Ray tirelessly advocated for his constituents throughout the North Country, and at the end of the day he always returned to his farm on River Road in Bath. On behalf of all Granite Staters, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Bath 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 wish to honor a long standing New Hampshire institution, often called ``the ultimate NH Resort Destination.'' The NASWA Resort at Weirs Beach in Laconia, NH, also known as, ``The Naz,'' is named for the natural spring water that was found at the site of the original cabins. This year, the NASWA will celebrate its 80th year of continuous operation in the Granite State. As the 6th annual NASWA Day approaches, it is a time to celebrate the thousands of people from New Hampshire and around the country who have visited this relaxing destination overlooking Paugus Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee. Drawing guests from the Lakes Region to the White Mountains, the NASWA is a place for people to enjoy the beauty of the Granite State, family fun, summertime entertainment and recreation. People of all ages can enjoy paddleboats, fine and casual dining, gather with friends, or take a swim in the lake. Founded by Greek immigrants in 1935, the NASWA is still a family-run business, owned and operated by Hope Makris, who continues to live on the property, her daughters Cynthia and Karen, and the rest of the family. To this day, you will find Hope in the kitchen, baking all of the desserts, including Greek pastries. The Makris family has made tremendous contributions to the community. Each year, the NASWA hosts the Peter Makris Memorial Run in honor of Hope's late husband, which benefits the Laconia Fire Department's Life Saving Fund and Water Rescue Team. The Makris family is also committed to serving veterans. Hope's daughter Cynthia serves as the Lakes Region chairwoman of the Easter Seals Veterans Count program; and for the past 14 years, the NASWA has hosted the Easter Seals Land and Lake Poker Run. The run further benefits the Easter Seals of New Hampshire and the Veterans Count program. As a native Granite Stater and on behalf of the State of New Hampshire, I congratulate the NASWA and the Makris family. After 80 years, the NASWA continues to be a beloved New Hampshire destination, and I wish the Makris family the very best for many more decades to come.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor one of New Hampshire's most respected, accomplished, and beloved citizens, Wallace ``Wally'' Reney, as he enters into retirement. I am proud to recognize his illustrious professional career and continued service to many communities across the Granite State and our country. Originally from Bellows Falls, VT, Wally has been a resident of Surry, NH for the past five decades. During his 50-year career as a community banker, Wally has helped thousands of Granite Staters become homeowners, serviced their financial needs, and helped strengthen and develop the Monadnock Region. Before becoming a business leader in the community, Wally spent 8 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. Serving overseas in Japan for 2 of those years as a court stenographer, he took the time to learn the language, culture, and customs--demonstrating an appreciation for serving people and a knack for communication that would lend itself to Wally's own work and character years later. Wally tells everyone he meets that he has what money cannot buy. He is revered as one of the most generous and selfless individuals who has devoted his life to giving back, not just to the community, but to others who gave him the opportunity to be successful in life. Wally lent his time and energy to over 50 nonprofits and has been a member of the Lions Club for over 40 years. He sent dozens of children to summer camp, often paying for their experience himself. Since 1969, Wally has helped expand the local Toys for Tots program, where he has donated gifts and toys to ensure a joyful holiday season for all children. Wally Reney embodies the true spirit of the American dream, and, in turn, has encouraged countless others to achieve their own dreams. Wally has improved the quality of life in the Granite State and epitomizes the great New Hampshire tradition of being a good neighbor. I am extraordinarily proud to recognize and celebrate Wally. I wish him the best for a happy and healthy retirement.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about Internet tax freedom and to talk about ensuring that our online businesses remain competitive. First of all, I commend the House of Representatives for recently passing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which would permanently extend the current ban on Internet access taxes. The current tax moratorium will expire on October 1, and if we fail to renew it, it could cost taxpayers nearly $15 billion in new fees and taxes next year. In addition, as importantly, it would make Internet access less affordable to hard-working families and hamper small businesses' ability to grow and create jobs using the Internet because essentially it would allow all of these jurisdictions to tax the Internet. So when you get on the Internet, you can expect many more taxes if we do not do what the House of Representatives did and extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. In fact, I think we should make it permanent. I am a cosponsor of a Senate companion bill of which I hope this Senate will follow the House's lead to pass and send a permanent extension to the President's desk. Unfortunately, one of the things we have heard is that some see this extension of the moratorium on Internet taxation as an opportunity to attach another piece of legislation that, in fact, would burden our online businesses and would tremendously disadvantage a State like my home State of New Hampshire that has made the legislative decision not to have a sales tax. We have seen this playbook before. It was called before the Marketplace Fairness Act. Of course, there is nothing fair about this act when it comes to our online businesses having to collect taxes for nearly 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. You can imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would occur. So this so-called Marketplace Fairness Act--I always used to like to call it the ``Online Sales Tax Act'' or the ``Online Sales Tax Collection Act.'' That would be a more accurate description of that particular act. So here we are. We have a rerun of this particular bill that would have required businesses in the State of New Hampshire--even though we do not have a sales tax--our online businesses to collect for all these other tax jurisdictions. Again, it is not even just States that have sales taxes. In some States, it goes down to the municipal level when it comes to municipalities and local jurisdictions actually collecting a separate tax, so it would have ended up being over 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. So here you have a nice online business out there having to be the tax collector for all these different jurisdictions. You can imagine that this would really be a huge burden on these online businesses. The individuals who have been supporting this new sales tax collection scheme in this new burden on the Internet--by the way, one of the reasons I am such a strong proponent of permanently extending the tax freedom and the lack of taxes on the Internet, on Internet access, is because we have seen not only consumers' access to the Internet but the ability of businesses and the ability of us to create jobs and to see real growth on the Internet. This has allowed people to start businesses from their home. It has allowed so much creativity. It has been very positive for our economy. So lo and behold in all of that there are some talking about attaching to this Internet Tax Freedom Act this incredibly burdensome collection scheme to require businesses to be out there collecting all these sales taxes throughout the Nation. The latest proposal the proponents of this type of tax collection scheme have come up with is one that again creates even more issues--certainly as many if not more issues--than the prior proposal that was called the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. Of course, we know there is nothing fair about it if you are a business having to collect all these taxes. What this rerun would do is actually create this reporting system and require businesses to purchase this software and then require States to actually have what are called certified software providers. Here is what would happen: Under this latest scheme, the certified software providers for these States would actually collect all the sales information for every sale--every online sale in a State--and then they would manage the collection of these taxes. Well, can you imagine? So now we are going to say to businesses: Yes, you have to purchase this certain software. And guess what. Every sale you make is going to be held by the central government in each State. Can you imagine, with all the things we have seen happen in terms of breach of privacy of individuals? We have seen cyber attacks, all these issues we are facing. We have seen it in our government with OPM. We have seen it with the IRS. We have seen it with private companies in data breach. Now this latest scheme is, let's send all the sales information to one place, and we will have some company--I guess some private companies will stand to benefit from this--they will now collect all these taxes, and they will hold all this information. Imagine how much information they would hold in each State. So that is how we are going to create this new taxing scheme. You can imagine how a State such as New Hampshire would feel about that as a State that has decided not to have a sales tax--that suddenly our State has to keep all this information, has to hire some private company to do this, to collect all these taxes, and then that each of our online businesses has to purchase this software which is supposed to interface with its State government. What a massive bureaucracy, and how unfair it is in terms of State sovereignty that the Federal Government would impose this on a State such as New Hampshire that has made a decision not to have a sales tax. This, to me, would be the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which I fully support, which is about Internet tax freedom, and to attach this proposal to that Internet Tax Freedom Act, which some people, I think, are scheming around here to do, which with the right hand we are going to give you Internet freedom and with the left hand we are going to take that freedom away from States like mine that have chosen not to have a sales tax. And our online businesses would now have to be part of this huge bureaucratic scheme to collect taxes for other States and other localities. So I would hope my colleagues would not go down this road because I think the Internet should be free. I think online businesses should be able to continue to thrive and grow. I think online businesses should not be required to collect for over 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. And certainly I think all of us should have concerns about all of the sales data being collected by some kind of third party and being held in one place just so we can collect more taxes on online businesses. In fact, what I have heard from our businesses in New Hampshire previously when the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act was on the floor of the Senate--many of the businesses in New Hampshire that have online sales told me then how unfair they thought this taxing scheme was, and those concerns remain, great businesses such as Garnet Hill in Franconia, NH. Russ Gaitskill, who is the president and CEO of Garnet Hill, told me previously: ``It's going to be a nightmare.'' I heard in the past from E&R Laundry and Dry Cleaners, a small business founded in Manchester in 1921. About 70 percent of E&R's sales are now Internet based. The company's president said he would not have the resources to calculate, collect, and deliver sales taxes for thousands of jurisdictions across the country. There is a great bakery, certainly, in the Nashua and Amherst area, Frederick's Pastries. Anybody who has been there--I can tell you, Frederick's is a great bakery. Susan Lozier Roberts of Frederick's expressed concern that this taxing scheme would create mass confusion, keeping up with all the individual tax codes. There is the fact that we are going to have to have software and have some third party hold all of the sales information for all these online businesses. That creates so many other additional burdensome issues, as well as privacy issues. Travis Adams with whaddy.com, based in Nashua, said previously: One tax audit from another State or jurisdiction would completely crush us. Because what happens under this so-called taxing scheme is now all of our online businesses can be audited in all of these taxing jurisdictions. So you can be an online business in New Hampshire, and what the proponents of this new tax scheme would like to have is this opportunity that businesses in New Hampshire can now be audited in all these other jurisdictions. You can imagine what kind of burdens that would create on businesses that are trying to focus every day on the bottom line and creating jobs. So I would say that as we look at this new proposal that some people behind the scenes are talking about trying to attach to the Internet Tax Freedom Act--I hope we will not go down this road. It would be bad for business, it would be bad for people's privacy, it would be a big power grab, I think, from Washington to require States such as New Hampshire to collect these taxes from throughout the country, and it certainly would not be positive to create more jobs through online businesses. In fact, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said of this latest proposal, which is a cousin to the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act: [This] new tax grab erodes healthy tax competition among states, puts consumers' information at higher risk, and ushers in a regime of taxation without representation. It's like the Blackwater of tax collection, state-paid mercenaries with sales tax charts. Under the Marketplace Fairness Act businesses are threatened by the prospect of being audited and prosecuted in every state into which they sell. This issue is one I think we all should care about. I know in my home State of New Hampshire, where we have chosen not to have a sales tax, it would be completely unfair for us to consider passing this proposal which is a brandnew tax grab that erodes New Hampshire's competitive status of choosing not to have a sales tax. Also, there is the concern we all should have about a central taxing authority holding all of this private sales information in each of the States and what could be done with that information and how will consumers' information be protected. New Hampshire's residents and Internet retailers cannot afford this radical Federal invasion of our State. I hope my colleagues will see the importance of extending the Internet Tax Freedom Act to encourage innovation and job creation, but under no circumstances should the Internet access tax moratorium be held hostage by a new and invasive sales tax that would not only undo the benefits of the tax moratorium but also burden our small businesses with becoming tax collectors for other States. That is wrong, and I hope this body will not go down that road. I certainly will be doing everything I can within my power in the Senate to make sure this new sales tax collection regime does not get attached to a very positive proposal, which is the Internet Tax Freedom Act. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I have to the Defense authorization legislation. Americans who volunteer to defend our country deserve our utmost support and great credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult, and important service. We are a safe and free Nation because of their bravery and sacrifice. However, as we honor our troops and veterans, we have to remember they don't serve alone. Military families serve too. They make serious career and personal sacrifices on behalf of their loved ones so their loved ones can serve our country. Anyone who has served in the military or has been married to a servicemember or even attended a military retirement ceremony--I actually come from a military family--understands that a successful military career depends on the support and sacrifice of those you love and those who are in your family. A career in the military frequently involves frequent moves and long separations for your spouse, which present unique challenges for military families. The service and sacrifice of military families not only deserves recognition and respect, but military families are also a critical component of our military readiness. It is difficult for a mother, father, husband or wife serving in the military to focus on defending our Nation if they are worried about the well-being of their family at home. Perhaps that is why, in March of this year, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Joseph Dunford, who has now been nominated to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that ``a key element in our overall readiness is family readiness. The family members of our Marines are very much a part of the Marine Corps family. Their sacrifices and support are not taken for granted.'' However, it has come to our attention that the current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect the sacrifices of our military families or the importance of this issue to military readiness. I wish to talk about a specific problem; that is, when a member of our military actually gets into criminal trouble. Yet their spouse and children have to suffer as a result of it. Current law forces military juries to sometimes confront the undesirable dilemma of either supporting justice or supporting the military family--but not both. In these rare and tragic cases, a jury must choose either to impose a just sentence on a member of our military--which of course these cases are rare--who commits a crime, but if the jury imposes a just sentence, this could cause the retirement benefits that the family of the military member is counting on to be taken away, and so it leads to this choice of either giving a just or strong sentence and also punish the family who is an innocent bystander in all of this or give a weak and unjust sentence to spare the innocent family--but not both. When a jury chooses a just sentence, an innocent family can be left with nothing, and that is wrong. Knowing this, some family members choose not to report a crime out of fear that coming forward will risk loss of benefits that a family member helped earn. For these reasons, I am proud that the National Defense Authorization Act, as passed by the committee, does include an amendment that I introduced with Senator Gillibrand which could make transitional benefits available to innocent military family members when their retirement-eligible servicemember forfeits those benefits due to a court-martial. I am also pleased that the Defense authorization legislation contains sense-of-Congress language that recognizes the valuable service of military families and emphasizes the view of the committee that military juries should not have to choose between a fair sentence and protecting military families. However, this doesn't go far enough. Our work isn't finished. We must do more to recognize the service of military families and to ensure a strong and fair military justice system. I will briefly talk about the case of Rebecca Sinclair. Rebecca was married to a career Army officer who served with distinction. She married him early in his career and supported him as he rose through the ranks to become General. She served alongside him for 27 years. He was at home for a total of 5 years between 2001 and 2012. She had been a single mother during those five combat deployments when he was serving our country. She moved 17 times in 27 years. Her oldest son went to six schools by the time he was in sixth grade. Despite earning a bachelor's and master's degree, Rebecca's career had been severely limited by the constant moves. She thought this sacrifice was worthy because she was doing it on behalf of her Nation and her family. Because she wasn't able to achieve her full earning potential, she was counting on the pay benefits and retirement plan she helped her husband earn over 27 years. But then, in 2012, she watched helplessly as all of this sacrifice, all of this effort, and all of this work hung in the balance. Unlike the vast majority of servicemembers who serve their whole career with honor, her husband was charged with 25 counts of misconduct, including: forcible sodomy, sexual assault, indecent conduct, making fraudulent claims against the government, and obstruction of justice. Rebecca was totally innocent of this conduct. Her sons, who were 10 and 12 years old, were totally innocent. Yet her husband's actions threatened to leave her with no benefits and no security after 27 years of sacrifice, and if he were to be dismissed from the Army, Rebecca and her sons would be left with nothing. During his sentencing hearing, Rebecca's husband begged the court to allow him to retire at a reduced rank so his family could collect the benefits which, in his words, ``they have earned serving alongside me all these years.'' Rebecca also made a plea to the court for a sentence that would spare her family from being punished for her husband's actions. I think Rebecca sums it up well in the piece she wrote for the Washington Post in 2012: For military wives, the options are bad and worse. Stay with an unfaithful husband and keep your family intact; or lose your husband, your family and the financial security that comes with a military salary, pension, health care and housing. Because we move so often, spouses lose years of career advancement. Some of us spend every other year as single parents. We are vulnerable emotionally and financially. Many stay silent out of necessity, not natural passivity. It is time to fix these problems. Saying thank you to the military families is not enough. We must ensure that our laws and regulations reflect our gratitude to military families and the importance of what they do. They serve our country, too, and they have earned the benefits as well. It is not right for a military member to rely on his family to help earn retirement benefits and then have that individual commit misconduct and the family is punished too. My amendment will fix this problem by recognizing that military families serve, too, remove disincentives to report misconduct, and put the sentencing process back in balance. Juries can choose a punishment to fit the crime without worry that an innocent family member will suffer as a result. My amendment has been endorsed by 10 veterans service organizations. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment that allows the military justice system to function properly and also makes sure that innocent family members do not suffer and that their service is recognized as well. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to talk about an important amendment that was offered by Senator Kirk, which I cosponsor, and that is the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. I can tell you that in my home State of New Hampshire, on Monday, I was at a roundtable at GE Aviation. GE Aviation has over 700 jobs in the State of New Hampshire. They are building a new facility there. The Export-Import Bank provides a company like GE Aviation the opportunity to obtain financing to export its products that are manufactured in the United States of America, in New Hampshire, to other countries overseas, increasing the opportunity for American manufacturing jobs. At that company, on Monday, they invited a lot of their suppliers and small businesses who also have either used Ex-Im financing or are suppliers for the larger companies that use Ex-Im financing. One of those companies that were around the table that had used Ex-Im financing in New Hampshire was Boyle Energy in Concord. In fact, Mike Boyle, who is the CEO of Boyle Energy, has been able to use Ex-Im financing to grow New Hampshire jobs. He has a vision for a new plant in Merrimack, NH, that he is ready to expand. If he can get this financing, he is going to be selling more of his great products overseas, creating more jobs in New Hampshire. Yet, this Bank expires at the end of June. This is a very important tool for American businesses. This program--and I wish I had this problem with every program in Washington--actually returns money to the Treasury, and it creates American jobs. The reason this type of financing is available is because of the risk that is often taken in exporting products and there aren't commercial loans always available. The Ex-Im Bank has the ability to allow financing for our businesses in America. In fact, other countries around the world have programs such as this, and that are much more extensive. So without the Ex-Im Bank, it is not a level playing field for our American companies that want to manufacture in the United States of America. The Ex-Im Bank will allow access to financing that will enable businesses to create American jobs. Also around that table on Monday at GE Aviation was Goss International. They manufacture great printing presses in New Hampshire. We are very proud of them. They have also been able to use Ex-Im financing. If that financing doesn't go through, we heard from a representative of Goss that, in fact, they could lose up to 40 jobs in my home State of New Hampshire. So it is important that we reauthorize this Bank. I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for offering this amendment to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank so that our companies here in the United States of America can manufacture here, sell to consumers around the world, and have access to this financing. In fact, in New Hampshire there have been about 36 companies--many of them small companies--that were able over the last several years to use Ex-Im financing to create New Hampshire jobs. This is about jobs in the United States of America. This is about competing. We recently had the TPA--trade promotion authority--on the floor to expand opportunities for trade. This goes hand in hand with that legislation so that companies have opportunities to get financing to create jobs here and return money to the Treasury. I wish I could say that about every program--that it returns money to the Treasury. The default rate at Ex-Im Bank is lower than with commercial loans. I hope that Senator Kirk's amendment will get a vote on the Senate floor, that we can get this reauthorized before the expiration date at the end of this month, and that we can continue to allow this financing for American businesses to continue to build and create products to sell overseas and to create American jobs. This is what this financing allows these businesses to do. This is very important in making sure that we remain competitive and that we have more jobs here and that we continue to sell our great products built here in the United States of America around the world. So I am very honored to support this amendment. I hope we will get a vote on this amendment on the Defense authorization bill or get a vote and make sure that we have this passed before the end of this month when this Bank expires so that we could have continuity in this important financing mechanism for our businesses here in this country. In addition to the businesses I previously mentioned that were around the table on Monday, I also want to mention GKN Aerospace from Charleston, which is a larger business with a smaller footprint in New Hampshire that has been able to export and create jobs in New Hampshire and across the country. In addition to that, we were so glad to hear from other businesses in New Hampshire that were able to rely on this important financing mechanism. I am very glad to support Senator Kirk's amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kirk, I send an amendment to the desk to the text proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 1463.

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kirk, I withdraw amendment No. 1986.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment-- amendment No. 1628--to the Defense Authorization Act. This is an amendment I have submitted with Senator Peters, and it has strong bipartisan support. This is about the threat of tunnels--tunnels used by terrorists. We saw those tunnels being used in the 2014 conflict that Israel had with Hamas. Israel found more than 30 terror tunnels that had been dug by terrorists to infiltrate and attack Israel. The Israeli military said these tunnels were intended to carry out attacks, such as abductions of Israeli citizens and soldiers, infiltrations into Israeli communities, mass murders and hostage-taking scenarios. In one disturbing attack in July of 2014, Hamas terrorists used one of these terror tunnels to sneak into Israel and then attack and kill five Israeli soldiers. This is a picture of one of these terror tunnels. You can imagine, if terrorists can use a tunnel to come into your country, the feeling of fear that can create in the civilian population. Unfortunately, terror tunnels are not a new problem. In 2006, terrorists used tunnels to capture Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. They used tunnels to take Gilad back to Gaza and held him captive for 5 years. Two other soldiers were killed in this same attack where these terror tunnels were used. Again, this issue of terror tunnels is not unique to the conflict the Israeli people have been subjected to. In fact, one of Israel's primary objectives in Operation Protective Edge last year was to destroy these terror tunnels that posed unacceptable risk to the Israelis and to their national security. That is why Israel has devoted so much attention to this problem and how to destroy these terror tunnels. But not only are terror tunnels a leading security concern for the Government of Israel, tunnels are being used by terrorists in Syria and in Iraq. According to a public report yesterday, ISIS used several dozen tunnel bombs in Syria and used tunnels to help take the Iraqi city of Ramadi. On March 11, ISIS reportedly detonated a tunnel bomb under an Iraqi Army headquarters, killing an estimated 22 people. On March 15, a second tunnel bomb was reportedly used to attack Iraqi security forces. Terror tunnels can also be used to threaten U.S. Embassies and forward-deployed U.S. military personnel. In addition, drug trafficking organizations and international criminal organizations continue to construct tunnels on our southern border in order to illegally move people, drugs, and anything else they think will advantage them into the United States. Drug cartels are exploiting vulnerabilities on our border. While this undoubtedly affects border communities and border States, it has consequences far beyond the border States. In my home State of New Hampshire, heroin is killing people. It is a public health epidemic. I have spoken to law enforcement, first responders, firefighters, and public safety officials, and we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people dying in my State. According to a recent DEA report and drug control experts, heroin is most commonly being brought into the United States via the southwest border. In many places on our border with Mexico, we have fences. Unfortunately, these criminals and their syndicates--by the way, we have heard from the commander of Southern Command, and he believes these networks could be used by terrorists if they wanted to infiltrate our country. Unfortunately, they are being dug on our southern border. This is a picture of a tunnel built on our southern border that is used to smuggle drugs, smuggle people--smuggle anything criminals and other bad people want to move into our country. In a 2-day period alone in April, two tunnels were discovered beneath the California-Mexico border. Again, these tunnels are often used to smuggle almost anything you can think of into this country, drugs being the most prominent thing smuggled in. According to public reports, dozens of smuggling tunnels have been discovered on our southern borders since 2006. The amendment I have submitted to the Defense authorization, along with my colleague, Senator Peters from Michigan, is an amendment that builds on a provision already in the Defense authorization that I had included in section 1272. Our amendment promotes and authorizes greater cooperation between Israel and the United States to counter terror tunnels in Israel. If we work with close allies such as Israel to develop better capabilities to detect, map, and neutralize tunnels, not only can we help defend Israel and Israel defend itself against terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but we can also use the capabilities we develop together to better protect our own border, our own U.S. Embassies, and our forward-deployed U.S. troops. My amendment specifically highlights the tunnel threat on our southern border. It calls on the administration to use the anti- tunneling capabilities developed to help Israel to better protect the United States, our people, our interests, and our border. In short, this amendment will help Israel, our closest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. It will help us defeat the use of terror tunnels. It will better equip officials on our southern border to find and shut down tunnels that are being used to smuggle drugs and that can be used to smuggle other dangerous items into the United States of America by these criminal syndicates. Again, the commander of our Southern Command said he believes this network can also be used by terrorists. Not surprisingly, this effort and this amendment have received strong bipartisan support. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have sponsored this amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and I hope my colleagues, when it is offered for a vote on the Senate floor, will support this amendment so that we can work with the Israeli Government, that we can share our understanding of how to stop these terror tunnels and we can deploy that same technology on our southern borders to keep our country safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I honor a great institution of higher education in my home State of New Hampshire. This year Saint Anselm College will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding, and I am proud to recognize this historic event. Founded in 1889 by Abbot Hilary Pfrangle, a member of the order of Saint Benedict, the world's oldest religious order, the college's mission is built on the credo of ``faith seeking understanding''--the guiding principle of its namesake, Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Located in Goffstown, the college's picturesque campus is a perfect showcase for all the natural beauty New Hampshire has to offer. Since its inception, Saint Anselm has continued in the proud tradition of a strong Catholic education, which has prepared nurses, police chiefs, scientists, and politicians for successful careers for over a century. The student body continues to be comprised of highly motivated and gifted learners who are committed to achieving a diverse and challenging liberal arts education and are dedicated and enlightened members of the community. The college is also home to the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and Political Library. As we prepare to celebrate the 100th anniversary of New Hampshire's first-in-the-Nation presidential primary, it is fitting that we also mark St. Anselm's longstanding tradition of fostering citizenship, engagement, and public service. Through the work of the institute, students have a front row seat to the political process. New Hampshire's well-deserved reputation as a proving ground for Presidential hopefuls is due in large part to the hard work of institutions like Saint Anselm that encourage students to be active and inquisitive and provide forums for the community at large to participate in government. Saint Anselm has also fostered a long history of service. Named one of the country's ``Colleges with a Conscience'' by The Princeton Review, Saint Anselm students, faculty, and staff log more than 16,000 community service hours yearly. The school actively encourages its students to participate in service, both as a way to honor their faith and help those in need. Each year, over 200 students forego traditional spring-break activities to engage in service trips. From Costa Rica to Orland, ME, Anselmians spend their time and energy building homes, volunteering in schools, and serving at soup kitchens. For over 100 years, Saint Anselm College's continued success has been driven by its clarity of vision and the hard work and dedication of its students, alumni, parents, and talented faculty and staff who share a sense of family and community. I congratulate Saint Anselm College on 125 years of excellence in education, and wish the entire college community best of luck on 125 more years of providing high-quality education in the Granite State.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important issue to my State of New Hampshire, and that is American trade and our ability to create more jobs in New Hampshire and in the United States of America by giving our businesses the opportunity to sell to consumers around the world since our businesses are creating the very best products and technology, and their ability to sell to those around the world is going to create more jobs in New Hampshire and in this country. I also wish to speak about an important financing mechanism to businesses in New Hampshire and to businesses in this country, and that is the Export-Import Bank. When traveling throughout New Hampshire and meeting with businesses both small and large, what I hear most often is this: In Washington, please make it easier, in terms of the regulatory environment and the tax environment, for us to do what we do best, and that is create jobs and put people to work. I have also heard we want more opportunities to sell what we produce to other countries in the world, and we also want opportunities to make sure financing is available to increase opportunities for New Hampshire businesses to export to other countries around the world. An important tool for New Hampshire businesses is the Export-Import Bank, which is set to expire next month, at the end of June, and that is why getting the bill pending on the floor is important. I fought to ensure that there is a way forward to secure a path for a vote on the Export-Import Bank reauthorization before it expires at the end of June. I thank our leader for committing to allow us an opportunity to extend this important financing mechanism to businesses in New Hampshire to ensure that mechanism is still available and that those New Hampshire jobs continue and that we can continue to grow our economy. In New Hampshire, the Export-Import Bank supports $416 million in exports and has helped 36 New Hampshire businesses over the last 7 years. Its continued existence is not only important to the Granite State economy, but it translates to over 2,300 jobs that are supported by the opportunity to have financing available through the Export- Import Bank to New Hampshire. I met with New Hampshire exporters from around the State who have been able to grow their businesses and create more jobs by utilizing the Ex-Im financing to export goods and services overseas. In fact, in December I hosted a roundtable in New Hampshire at the Seaport International Forest Products in Noshua. In the past, they have been able to use Export-Import financing. They were gracious enough to hold a roundtable when Fred Hopper, the head of the Export-Import Bank, came to New Hampshire and met with businesses in New Hampshire to allow them to give him feedback as to how the Bank was working and how important it was to their ability to obtain this financing and expand their exports overseas. In fact, one of the participants in that roundtable, Jerry Boyle, who is the leader of Boyle Energy and Technology Services in Concord, explained how he grew his business 75 percent in the past few years because of the opportunity to use Ex-Im financing. Make no mistake--failure to renew the Bank's charter would cause us to lose jobs in New Hampshire and lose jobs in this country and would hurt the economy at a time when we should be focusing on making it easier for businesses to create jobs and making sure our businesses have opportunity and access to markets overseas to create more American trade. I will continue to push this body to reauthorize Ex-Im so that New Hampshire businesses can continue to have access to this financing, can continue to grow their opportunities to create more jobs in New Hampshire by using this financing and to sell their goods and services overseas to create jobs. I want to address the critics of this Bank. I look at this and I wonder--we are competing in a global economy, and so many of our competitors are actually offering even greater financing mechanisms for their businesses. So without this opportunity for our businesses, we would be putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, the Ex-Im Bank actually has a lower default rate than commercial loans and returns money to the Treasury. If someone asked me about the Ex-Im Bank, I would tell them that it creates American jobs and returns money to the Treasury to help pay down our debt. If every Federal agency were asked that question, that would be an easy question to answer, wouldn't it? We would probably be a lot farther along in dealing with our $18 trillion in debt. To me, this is a program that allows us to create more New Hampshire jobs and more American jobs. We have to get this done. I am glad we have a commitment to have a vote on it in this body to allow us to reauthorize it before it expires. Again, it returns money to the Treasury and creates American jobs. Imagine if we could say that about every Federal program. I wish to talk about another issue that is very important to jobs in New Hampshire, and that is trade promotion authority, which we are currently debating and which is pending on the Senate floor. This will have a real impact on New Hampshire's economy and create thousands of jobs in my State. In 2014, New Hampshire exported $4.4 billion worth of goods and services and exports and supported about 23,000 good-paying New Hampshire jobs. Over the past decade, we have seen Granite State exports increase by 175 percent. As a testament to America's entrepreneurial spirit, almost 90 percent of New Hampshire's exporters are small or medium-sized businesses. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Mercury Systems, which designs and builds defense and commercial electronics in Hudson, NH. Since opening in Hudson in 2014, Mercury Systems has more than doubled its workforce from 70 employees to now 170 employees--thanks in part to their opportunity to export what they manufacture. In April, I visited Corfin Industries in Salem. Corfin provides robotic processing services that are used by the defense, medical, and telecommunication industries. Corfin relies on exports and access to international markets, which has helped to create 22 new jobs in New Hampshire, and now they see a growing portion of their sales going to exports--American trade creating jobs. There are many other important companies in New Hampshire that support trade promotion authority, and they view this as an opportunity to create more Granite-State jobs, including companies such as BAE Systems in Nashua; Bosch Thermotechnology in Londonderry; Elbit Systems in Merrimack; Globe Manufacturing Company in Pittsfield; General Electric in Hooksett; Goss International Americas in Durham; Intel Corporation, which also has a facility in Merrimack; Medtronic in Portsmouth; and New Hampshire Ball Bearings in Lanconia. In fact, I had a chance to visit New Hampshire Ball Bearings and to talk to them about the importance of not only Ex- Im financing--as a supplier, this is important to them--but also the importance, obviously, of trade. Also, Osram Sylvania in Manchester, Hillsboro, and Exeter; Polartec in Hudson; Texas Instruments has a facility in Manchester; and Velcro USA is in Manchester. These are just a few examples of the many Granite State companies that depend on American trade and an opportunity to sell the great products they produce overseas. Here is what I have heard from my constituents in New Hampshire about the pending bill on the floor when it comes to creating good-paying jobs in New Hampshire. Tony Giunta, a city counselor for Franklin's Ward 1, wrote to me and said: Our community is working diligently to boost its economic development. Our priority is jobs and attracting new businesses to our city. It is in that regard I am writing to ask for support on the pending trade vote in the U.S. Senate . . . Our President needs the flexibility to handle the details and present a full plan to Congress for final approval. That precise system has worked for many years and I believe it should be extended for another 5 years. . . . The Wall Street Journal recently reported that our trade deficit rose to its highest level in nearly six and a half years and the trend line is headed in the wrong direction. We need to do all we can to boost free trade in this country. Our state's economy depends on it. My city's future depends on it as well. . . . Considering nearly one-quarter of our workforce provides goods and services that are exported abroad means this proposal will have a tremendous impact on our state's economy. Emily Heisig is senior vice president of the New England Council. This council is a very important council for employers in New England and in New Hampshire. She wrote: While interstate commerce among the states remains a significant avenue for business prosperity, The New England Council believes that foreign markets must be cultivated to tap into the buying power of this vast and ever-burgeoning consumer base. Indeed, across New England, more than 24,000 companies export to foreign markets, and in 2014, that supported nearly 265,000 export-related jobs for our region. The value of goods exported from New England last year was $56.5 billion. Jim Roche is president of the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association. The New Hampshire Business and Industry Association is a very important group in New Hampshire and brings New Hampshire businesses together. He wrote to me and said: Nearly 40 million American jobs depend on trade. This is especially true for New Hampshire where trade plays a big role in our economy. Trade supports more than 179,000 jobs in the state and our exports of goods and services last year reached nearly $7 billion. Trade is especially important for New Hampshire's small businesses, more than 2,200 of which are exporters. Pete McNamara, president of the New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association, recently visited me in Washington. He also wrote to me and said: The New Hampshire Auto Dealers Association supports free trade. In this competitive world market, the U.S. needs the TPA. America drives the world economy, but outside our borders are markets that represent 80% of the world's purchasing power, 92% of its economic growth, and 95% of its consumers. Texas Instruments has a very good facility in Manchester. I had a chance to visit that facility and meet the workers in these great- paying jobs and also jobs that are very important, with expertise on technology. Mark Gary is the vice president and manager of the Manchester site. He said: Texas Instruments strongly supports TPA-2015 and urges its swift approval. Renewing TPA provides an opportunity for American companies and their workers to secure 21st century rules to govern international trade. Innovation is the Granite State's greatest asset. New Hampshire's high-tech companies, startups, and universities are generating breakthrough innovations and technologies. High tech companies now represent 8.6% of the state's economy and pay 92% more than average wages. TI Manchester is the heart of the largest power management unit . . . TPA is critical for TI to secure market access, maintain a competitive global supply chain, and support our high value-added design jobs here in New Hampshire. I also heard from Sylvia Linares, director of engineering and New Hampshire site leader at Intel in Merrimack, NH, which is also very important for New Hampshire jobs. Passing TPA will arm U.S. trade negotiators with a clear set of principles and objectives that support our nation's economic, social, and technological interests. These rules have never been more important. In Merrimack, NH we have a very specialized design team that stands to benefit from these rules--rules around intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer and compromised encryption standards. At Intel, we conduct roughly three quarters of Intel's advanced manufacturing and R&D right in the U.S., investments which are supported by three quarters of our revenue from sales elsewhere in the world. We are proud to be part of the New Hampshire tech community by spending more than $5 million annually with approximately 50 suppliers in the state. With 95 percent of the world's customers and 80 percent of the world's purchasing power outside of the United States, we have to do everything we can to ensure that we have more American trade. American trade that supports jobs here allows us to sell the great work we and our workers do here and the products we produce overseas. That is why the bill pending on the floor is so important to creating more American jobs. Since the 1930s, nearly every President has used trade promotion authority to negotiate foreign trade policy. This bill contains the clearest outline of trade priorities in our Nation's history. It includes almost 150 ambitious, high-standard negotiating objectives that will direct our trade negotiators to break down barriers that hurt American businesses and will allow American businesses to have more American trade to create jobs here. The bottom line is that trade promotion authority will ensure that in the Granite State, New Hampshire businesses can create more jobs. In fact, the estimate in New Hampshire is that if you look at some of the agreements, such as the current transatlantic and transpacific trade negotiations, those could spur international investment in New Hampshire and create an estimated over 8,200 jobs in New Hampshire if the President is able to go forward and negotiate the right agreements that allow us to create American jobs. So there are two issues that I have talked about. We need to get the Ex-Im Bank reauthorized before it expires so that employers in New Hampshire that have been able to use this financing mechanism and the many suppliers that also support companies outside of New Hampshire but that create New Hampshire jobs can have an opportunity to continue to use this financing to put more people to work in New Hampshire. We also need to pass trade promotion authority that is pending on the floor. If you look at the list of New Hampshire businesses that will benefit from this opportunity to create more New Hampshire jobs and more American jobs in the United States of America, this is something we need to do to strengthen our economy in the Granite State and to strengthen our country to make sure there are more opportunities for people to work in this country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I honor Hopkinton, 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. Hopkinton, previously known as New Hopkinton by the original settlers from Hopkinton, MA, was incorporated in 1765 by colonial Governor Benning Wentworth, and included the three communities of Hopkinton, Contoocook Village, and West Hopkinton. As a centrally located town, Hopkinton gained an influential reputation. Its farms thrived on fertile land fed by local bodies of water and businesses continued to prosper as State leaders and prominent business owners moved to the area to be closer to the center of activity. As the town's influence grew, it came to be known as one of the most powerful locations in the State. Coincidentally, the New Hampshire Legislature met in Hopkinton four times during the years of 1798 to 1807. The civic-minded residents of the town later petitioned for Hopkinton to become the State's capital city, but the neighboring town of Concord eventually won the bid in 1814 and now houses the New Hampshire Legislature. Hopkinton is home to two historic covered bridges, including the Rowell's Bridge that was built in 1835 and the Contoocook Railroad Bridge that spans the beautiful Contoocook River and is the oldest covered bridge of its kind in existence. With 1290 acres of protected land, Hopkinton is rich in natural beauty with sprawling forests, numerous hiking and biking trails, as well as access to countless outdoor activities including canoeing, kayaking and cross country skiing. The town's population has grown to over 5,500 residents, but their record of service is indicative of a much larger town. The people of Hopkinton have a strong commitment to the spirit of community and volunteerism, as evidenced by the hard work and dedication of its residents involved with the planning and celebration of the 100th anniversary of the renowned Hopkinton State Fair this coming September and the town's special sestercentennial anniversary. Hopkinton and its residents have greatly contributed to the life and growth of New Hampshire. I ask my colleagues to join me today in extending congratulations to the people of Hopkinton as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I want to add my support to the amendment Senator McCain has just spoken to and my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen. Absolutely we should have a vote on eliminating this duplicative inspection of catfish, what the Wall Street Journal is calling one of Washington's most wasteful programs, calling it the catfish scam. In fact, we had testimony before the small business committee the other day, and I asked the representative of the FDA whether we need duplicative inspections of catfish because right now the FDA is inspecting catfish for $700,000 a year, and this duplicative inspection of it is estimated to cost over $14 million a year. In fact, there was already a study done by the National Fisheries Institute that the USDA had spent more than $20 million to have a duplicative inspection regime. As Senator McCain mentioned, there are nine GAO reports about the fact that we are wasting taxpayer dollars on a duplicative inspection regime that we should eliminate. The fact that we cannot get a vote on the Senate floor on such a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars--this is why people get frustrated with Washington when it is sitting right before us, and it is so obvious that we should not waste their money when we already have a perfectly good inspection regime that costs so much less versus this added inspection regime, which in the end is going to hurt jobs across this country, including jobs in New Hampshire, because it is going to create not only a duplicative program that wastes taxpayer dollars that common sense would tell us we should have a vote to eliminate, but it is also going to eliminate the opportunity for trade. The free-trade agreements that are currently being negotiated could mean over 8,200 jobs in my State. James Bacchus, the former chief judge on the highest international tribunal of world trade and former Member of Congress, said this program will result not just in a trade war but also a lawsuit, and the United States will lose. Not only will we lose taxpayer dollars by not having a vote on this program and wasting money, but we will also create an unnecessary trade barrier that could impede future trade agreements and American jobs that can be created. I offer my support for this amendment, and I do believe we should have a vote on this amendment. Why wouldn't we have a vote on a program that has demonstrated--by nine GAO reports--it has wasted millions of dollars which could otherwise be used to pay down our debt or put to good use in programs that are worthwhile. Yet here we are. We cannot even get a vote. I share my colleague's concern. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Shaheen for bringing this important amendment forward, and I hope we will have a vote to eliminate the wasteful money going into the USDA inspection regime of catfish. How many times do we need our catfish inspected? It is absurd and time to end this waste and quit wasting taxpayer dollars. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 606, the Don't Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act, which was received from the House.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I am very honored to be here today with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen. We worked together on this important bill that has just passed the Senate and had previously passed the House of Representatives. This week is National Police Week. We were honored to receive law enforcement officers representing more than 20 agencies in New Hampshire, including the Brentwood police chief and many members of his department. They are here joining thousands of officers and families of law enforcement to remember and honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty to keep the rest of us safe. Last night during a candlelight vigil, 273 fallen officers from across the Nation whose names were added this week to the national memorial were honored, including Officer Stephen Arkell from New Hampshire, from the Brentwood Police Department, who lost his life in the line of duty a year ago Tuesday. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Officer Arkell's family and with the Brentwood Police Department. Unfortunately, more than a year after his death, his family is still waiting for their survivor benefits. We are here today to discuss the bill that was just passed by the Senate--H.R. 606, the Don't Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act--which Senator Shaheen and I worked on together. Recently, Senator Shaheen and I had the opportunity to sit down and have a roundtable with many law enforcement officers, fire chiefs and firefighters from our State. We heard many of the challenges that the families of those law enforcement officers and firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty face to get the survivor benefits that they should receive. One of those challenges is the fact that while survivor benefits for the families of our fallen firefighters and law enforcement officers are tax free, unfortunately, ambiguity in the tax has forced families to apply for private letter rulings from the IRS to have that clarified. Our bill will ensure that they no longer have to go through this bureaucratic step when it comes to their survivors' benefits. It ensures that the benefits their survivors receive for the sacrifice they have made are not taxed under the Internal Revenue Code. These benefits are intended to help those families and make sure that when they go through this incredibly tragic loss, they are able to continue with their lives. I thank Congressman Erik Paulsen from Minnesota for working with us to get this bill passed through the House of Representatives. I also thank Senators Toomey and Cardin for their work in the Senate Finance Committee to pass this legislation and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden for their work to help get this important legislation passed. I most of all thank my colleague Senator Shaheen because this issue is so important to law enforcement officers and firefighters in New Hampshire. Our public safety officers who go out every single day on our behalf--every hour, every holiday, every weekend--to make sure we are safe. When, unfortunately, we lose one of them in the line of duty, as we experienced in New Hampshire too recently, we want to make sure those families are taken care of. That is what this bill does--it makes sure that those families do not have to wait to receive benefits they should receive and that they do not have to go through a rigamarole with the IRS to make sure these benefits are not taxed. I also want to mention that, in New Hampshire, not only did we unfortunately lose Patrolman Stephen Arkell a year ago, but in 2012 we also lost Greenland Chief of Police Mike Maloney, who was about to retire. Both of those families have been down here for National Police Week. Our prayers continue to be with their families and the families of every single law enforcement officer and firefighter who makes sure we are safe every single day. I am so glad this legislation passed during National Police Week. We are going to continue to work together to make sure that the families of public safety officers that lose their lives in the line of duty do not have to go through any bureaucratic red tape to get their survivor benefits. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for her work on this issue. I yield to Senator Shaheen.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the important legislation we have pending right now on the Senate floor. I do not see a greater threat to our security interests in this country than a nuclear-armed Iran. Our national security interests require a permanent and verifiable end to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Today, I come to the floor to support the legislation that I was proud to be an original cosponsor of that will ensure that Congress reviews this agreement if there is an agreement reached with the Iranians and that we will have a voice on this agreement because without Congress's involvement in this--I believe it would be a huge disservice to the American people to not have their elected representatives weigh in on such an important matter. What matters most is, is this agreement one that is transparent, verifiable, and will actually end their nuclear program because the country of Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. We cannot give one of the most dangerous regimes in the world the most dangerous weapon. Iran described the United States of America as the ``Great Satan.'' Iran said it wants to annihilate or wipe out the State of Israel. Iran is a country that is supporting terrorist groups around the world. We can only imagine the devastation that could be wrought if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. So the stakes cannot be any greater with what is happening right now with the administration negotiating with this regime, which is not a regime we can trust, unfortunately. So the terms of this agreement matter. The elected representatives of this country need to have a vigorous debate about this agreement in the Congress, and we need to make sure it is not an agreement that allows them to continue their march toward a nuclear weapon. Some of the information that has been released so far about the framework the administration has put together has raised a number of red flags about where this agreement is going. It is my hope that this legislation passing will ensure that Congress is able to review the agreement to make sure it is one that ends their nuclear program. Some of the concerns I already see with this framework agreement suggest that the administration is moving in a direction that would not fully force Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or require Iran to address its long history of deception regarding its nuclear program, including long-term questions about the program's military aspects. The framework that has been released would not address Iran's support for terrorism, its intercontinental ballistic missile program, or its stated desire to knock Israel off the map. In order to ensure that we have an agreement that would end Iran's nuclear program and hold them accountable, we cannot have a situation where Iran keeps so much of its infrastructure and then can run up to a nuclear weapon or walk to it instead of running to it. Even worse, as we look at the framework of this agreement and the inspection framework the agreement would require, we cannot have an agreement that does not allow unlimited inspections of Iran's nuclear program at any time, unannounced, because this is a regime which is not a trustworthy regime. Yet, as I look at the terms of the framework that the administration has announced, it seems we have a ``mother, may I'' approach to asking Iran whether we should go in and inspect their facilities. Well, that is going to be unacceptable. We need to ensure that the terms of this agreement, if reached, make sure we can show up at any time, anywhere, without notice to Iran, to inspect their facilities to make sure they are adhering to the terms of the agreement. In short, the framework of the agreement that has been released by the administration suggests that this potential deal could eliminate hard-fought sanctions on which we worked together in this Congress on a bipartisan basis--economic sanctions that brought Iran to the table, which would take years to restore--in return for concessions that have only reversed Iran's program by days or weeks. Iran would retain a massive nuclear infrastructure, and they don't seem to be answering the tough questions about their support for terrorism or their missile program. Iran's activities during these negotiations in supporting terrorism have continued. As their diplomats sit at the negotiating table and smile for the cameras, their government continues to support terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and provide arms and funding to the murderous Assad regime in Syria that has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It has continued to destabilize Yemen. It is imprisoning innocent Americans and developing an intercontinental ballistic missile whose obvious purpose is to potentially deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States of America. I intend to offer an amendment to the pending legislation that will address Iran's ICBM program because one of the concerns I have is that there doesn't seem to be any mention in these negotiations of Iran's development of ICBM capability that could be the delivery mechanism to deliver a nuclear weapon to hit the United States. I will offer that amendment to indicate to this administration that this issue needs to be on the table. We need to not only stop their nuclear program, we need to stop Iran's ICBM program, which some of our intelligence estimates have indicated could be successful as soon as the end of this year. That is the testimony we have heard in the Armed Services Committee. So there is real urgency that we stop not only their nuclear program but also their support for terrorism and their work on an ICBM that could deliver harm--very grave harm--to our country. In fact, in February, Iran had actually successfully launched a long-range missile system and used a space launch that could be the potential manner in which they would deliver a nuclear weapon capability to our country. So this is a real concern that we address their missile program in the context of this agreement. In fact, on January 29, 2014, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that ``we judge that Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons'' capability. One of the real important issues that we need to debate and address when it comes to their state sponsoring of terrorism is what is happening in Yemen right now. As we stand here, we have had a situation where Iran has been harassing and threatening cargo ships in the region, challenging a core American national security and economic interest in the freedom of navigation, particularly in key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. If you look at our interest in what has happened in Yemen, Iran has supported the Houthis that have undermined the Government in Yemen. Why is that important to us? It is important to us because we had to leave Yemen, in part, as a result of Iran's support of terrorism in Yemen. Who presides in Yemen? Who is one of the great presences in Yemen? Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that has vowed to attack our country, a group that has made attempts to attack us and our country. Iran is aiding the way, through their terrorism there, to give Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula more space to conduct attacks that can harm our interests and the interests of our allies. So this legislation that is pending on the floor right now--if we were to not pass it, I think people need to understand the implications of it. The implications of not passing this legislation that is on the floor is that Congress would not have any say on these issues that are so important, would not have any say on whether the agreement that the administration is negotiating with Iran actually will end their program, actually will dismantle their nuclear program, actually will have a verifiable inspection regime that allows inspectors to go anywhere unannounced at any time to ensure that they are not cheating on whatever agreement is reached between us and the Iranians. So this bill could not be more important. I thank the sponsors of this bill. I certainly thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their leadership in the Foreign Relations Committee, to ensure that the people of this country, through their elected representatives, on something of such importance when it comes to the national security of the United States of America--that their elected representatives perform their important oversight role here. So I am hopeful we will pass this legislation that the U.S. Congress--I hope the administration, with some of the concerns I have raised about this framework, really toughens what they are doing in this framework to end their program, to have a transparent, verifiable inspection regime to address the ICBM Program, to address Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism. I hope they will do that. But I know that on behalf of my constituents, it is important, if any agreement is reached, that we have that debate here, that we have a voice in it on behalf of the American people. In doing so, we will protect the national security interests of this country to make sure that whatever agreement is entered into is really a good agreement, one that protects our country, which protects our allies, and ends Iran's nuclear program, as none of us can look in the mirror and think about one of the most dangerous regimes in the world having the most destructive weapon in the world. That is something that--as I think about all of the national security issues, this is on the top. So I cannot think of a more important debate we could have now or more important legislation that we could work on. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the exceptional service and the extraordinary life of Rockingham County High Sheriff Michael ``Mike'' W. Downing of Salem, NH, who passed away recently following his battle with cancer. Sheriff Downing was a knowledgeable, respected and compassionate public safety professional, a problem solver, and a concerned community member. He was one of a kind, and was beloved by everyone who knew him. Raised in Salem, Mike attended Saint Joseph's School and graduated from Salem High School in 1972. He went on to serve our Nation as a member of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, after which Mike began what would be a long career of service to the State of New Hampshire, first as a N.H. State trooper after graduating from the 47th New Hampshire Police Academy. He continued his career in law enforcement service, joining the Salem Police Department where he rose to the rank of detective sergeant. Mike was a graduate of the Command Training Institute at Babson College, and earned an associate's degree from Southern New Hampshire University and a bachelor's degree from Franklin Pierce College. After his retirement from the Salem Police Department, Mike continued his public service through his work in the State legislature. He served three terms as a State representative and then served two terms as a State senator, where he held the position of senate minority leader. In 2010, Mike returned to his law enforcement roots and was elected the High Sheriff of Rockingham County. Downing was serving in his third term as sheriff at the time of his passing. In addition to his professional and elected service to the State of New Hampshire, Mike was very active in his local community. He gave generously of his time and energy as the 301st captain commanding of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts, an ASA Salem softball coach, a NH Little League coach, a member of the Knights of Columbus, trustee of Amvets Post 2, a past president and board member of Salem Haven Nursing Home and Silverthorne Adult Daycare, a member of the Rockingham County Law Enforcement Association, Rockingham County Chiefs of Police Association, International Chiefs of Police Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the NH Sheriffs' Association and a founding board member of Isaiah 58, a nonprofit organization focused on helping the homeless population of Rockingham County. Most recently, he was honored as the 2015 recipient of the Chief John P. Ganley Community Service Award which is presented to an individual ``who has exhibited concern, involvement and leadership in the community of Salem; while providing inspiration to others, through his or her dedication, integrity and courage in the manner exemplified by Chief John P. Ganley during his life on earth.'' Sheriff Downing leaves behind the love of his life, his wife Heidi Downing and their five children, Jennifer, Jessica, Kaitlin, Kelsey, and Michael along with six grandchildren, Charlotte, Bella, Jacob, Logan, TJ, and Max. He also leaves his parents, Delbert and Teresa Downing. We are all deeply saddened by the loss of our friend Mike, an extraordinary man and proud New Hampshire son who served our State and Nation with honor, courage, and dedication. He represented the very best of our State, and I ask my colleagues to join me in sending Heidi and her family our deepest condolences and our gratitude for Mike's life of service to the people of New Hampshire.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I thank Senator Brown. This is a very important amendment. If you are for supporting victims, protecting life and children and against rapists, vote for this amendment. Unfortunately, rapists too often try to manipulate their victims by claiming custodial rights over children, and we need to stand with victims on this issue and allow States to be incentivized to allow victims to terminate their parental rights should they choose to have a child and to raise that child without having the threat of a rapist over their shoulder. I ask for support on this amendment, and I thank all of my colleagues. This is a commonsense bill, and I thank Senator Brown for his leadership. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 400.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.