Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 2199 it be in order for my amendment No. 3808 to be called up.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I know that in just offering the amendment I sought to offer on the Senate floor I have received an objection. Let me briefly describe what I am trying to offer. The objection that I just received from the other side of the aisle is a demonstration of what is wrong in the Senate right now. What is happening in the Senate right now is the majority leader keeps bringing legislation to the floor, and people are not allowed to offer amendments that directly pertain to the legislation. In fact, right now pending on the Senate floor is the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act. I have an amendment I want to offer on the Senate floor to that act that deals with addressing pay discrimination, but I am not going to be allowed to offer that amendment. I guess the first question we have to ask is: Why is that? Why is it that when we have such an important issue, which I acknowledge is an important issue--that people in this country be treated fairly, that we be paid solely based on our experience and qualifications, that we eliminate discrimination in the workplace; something I would hope we could work together on and about which we could have a real debate on this Senate floor--if someone comes to the floor and offers an amendment, what we get is an objection, because, really, what we are doing right now on the floor--let's be clear about it--is a political charade. It is trying to score political points on an issue that is very important that we shouldn't be sitting here trying to score political points on. Why can't both sides of the aisle offer their amendments on ideas on how to eliminate discrimination in the workplace? It seems to me that if they are serious about the issue, the majority leader would allow individuals like me and other Senators on both sides of the aisle to come to the floor and offer their amendments. But we have just seen that when I have done that, I got an objection instead of allowing my amendment to be debated fully on this floor. All Americans should be treated fairly and paid solely based on their experience and qualifications, and discrimination has no place in the American workforce. There are important laws we have passed on a bipartisan basis in the Congress. Laws like the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil Rights Act are there to combat workplace discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the first Federal law designed to protect U.S. workers from employment discrimination based upon a person's sex. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires employers to pay female employees the same wages that they pay male employees for equal work--very important laws. Both title VII and the Equal Pay Act provide a way for those who are discriminated against to file complaints against their employers and pursue financial remedies if they are discriminated against in the workplace. Our focus, of course, always needs to be on enforcing those important laws that were passed by the Congress to ensure that both men and women in the workplace will be judged based on their performance and not based on their gender. Unfortunately, despite these laws there are instances where pay discrimination still exists. With 60 percent of women serving as the primary earners in their households, this disparity must be addressed, and this is an important issue. But the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act that is pending on the floor, in my view, is not the answer. Instead of ensuring that women are treated fairly, the Paycheck Fairness Act would limit the ability of women in some instances to have flexible work schedules if that is what they need, and it would make it easier--much easier--to file frivolous lawsuits that, frankly, are a boon to trial lawyers. One concern I have about the bill pending on the floor--and I think it is a legitimate concern--is that it could have an impact on reducing the ability of employers to award merit pay. I had the privilege of serving as the first woman attorney general in New Hampshire, and before that I worked in private practice in a law firm. In my position and in the work I have done throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to meet incredible women in all fields in New Hampshire and throughout this country, whether it is leaders in the health sector, in the business sector--women working very hard every day in this country. There are many instances, I have to tell you, where women, based on merit, have outperformed their male colleagues. So what we don't want to do is create a law and pass a law that actually reduces the opportunities for employers in the workplace to reward merit, because women--like men--want the opportunity to earn more than their male counterparts when we do a better job. We had this debate last April on the Senate floor, and when we had this debate on the Senate floor we experienced what we are experiencing right now. Paycheck fairness was brought to the floor and, in fact, I worked on an amendment with some of my colleagues--Senator Fischer, Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski. We offered an amendment that we thought would help address the discrimination that can occur in the workplace and to address retaliation when employees discuss the salaries they make so that they can become informed in the workplace. But when we offered that amendment in April, we were denied a vote on it. We were in the same situation we are now. So it is like ``Groundhog Day.'' The Senate rejected the bill pending in April, and we were denied all amendments and the ability to really debate and amend it and have a real discussion about this important issue. Here we are again leading into the November elections, and again the bill is on the floor, and again Senators like me who have offered an amendment that I hoped we could discuss and consider are going to be denied the ability to do so. When I came to this floor in April, when this bill was pending on the Senate floor before, I said then and I firmly believe it now: If the majority leader believes this is an important issue, then we should have a real debate and an open amendment process and not engage in a political charade. I think the American people deserve better. In New Hampshire, Republicans and Democrats actually got together and they were able to pass a bipartisan pay equity law which was signed into law in July. It is a commonsense measure that helps address wage disparities between men and women, and that law was the basis for the proposed amendment which I have just tried to offer on the Senate floor so that the Senate could consider some of the very good ideas that were worked through on a bipartisan basis in my State as a way to address discrimination in the workforce. This amendment that I have filed--but that I am not being permitted to offer--is modeled on New Hampshire's law and, again, it was bipartisan. In fact, the amendment that I have offered is called the Ensuring Fairness in Pay Act. It would make clear that employers have to pay men and women equal wages for equal work. It ensures equal pay for workers performing equal work under similar conditions regardless of sex. In fact, it also prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss their pay information and prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign a contract or a waiver that prohibits the employees from disclosing their pay. This would allow employees to know what their situation is so they can ensure that they are being treated fairly. What was passed in New Hampshire--my amendment here--also contains teeth. In fact, similar to New Hampshire's law, my amendment would impose a $2,500 penalty for any violation of this law and for pay discrimination. So putting teeth in it is important as well. We did that at the State level, and I thought we should consider doing this at the Federal level if my amendment could be considered by this body. It also requires employers to post a notice that sets forth excerpts or summaries of the pertinent provisions of what is the law--title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--and information pertinent to how you file a complaint if you feel you are subject to discrimination in the workforce. Finally, my amendment encourages States to provide pay disparity statistics including historical analysis and any information that would help the public understand and address this issue. I urge the majority leader to put politics aside so that we can work together on a bipartisan solution, just as New Hampshire was able to do. In my home State of New Hampshire, when there is an amendment offered, you actually will get a vote on it. I think we are doing a real disservice to the American people, regardless of what the issue is, that Senators on both sides of the aisle when they are offering an amendment aren't permitted to have a vote on it on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the town of Raymond, NH, which is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding this month. I am proud to recognize this historic milestone. Located in Rockingham County along the Lamprey River in southeast New Hampshire, the geographic area that Raymond now occupies was originally a parish of Chester called Freetown by its early settlers who came from nearby Exeter. Later, in 1764, the town was incorporated by colonial Governor Benning Wentworth and was officially named Raymond. Since its incorporation in 1764, the population in Raymond has grown to approximately 10,000 residents, whose dedication to preserving the town's unique character and historical charm is a testament to their patriotism and pride. Raymond is also a hub for commerce with a vibrant downtown. Raymond's town common serves as a central gathering place for the community and helps makes this town a quintessential New England treasure. Each year Raymond's residents come together for the annual Christmas parade and tree lighting, the Fourth of July parade, Veterans Day, and other special events. The town is also home to several historic sites, including the Raymond Congregational Church, which was established in 1874, the Dudley-Tucker Library, and the old Raymond Railroad Depot, which now houses the Raymond Historical Society. The theme for Raymond's 250th anniversary celebration is ``My Town, Your Town, Our Town.'' These words reflect the deep pride and spirit of citizenship that have defined Raymond over the course of the past 250 years--and which will continue to guide the town's future. Among the many activities planned as part of Raymond's 250th celebration is a parade that will bring together local residents, community organizations, businesses, veterans, and students. I am truly honored to be joining residents of Raymond for this special and historic event. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I am delighted to congratulate the citizens of Raymond on this important occasion in the town's history and commend them for their many contributions to our State and their spirit of community--which will endure for the next 250 years and beyond.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the exceptional public service of my good friend Police Chief Michael Sielicki. Mike Sielicki has worked as a New Hampshire law enforcement officer for more than 26 years, retiring as the chief of police of the Kensington Police Department. After serving in the U.S. Army with the 82nd Airborne Division from 1979 to 1983, then as a combat engineer in Germany from 1983 to 1986, Chief Sielicki returned to New Hampshire to serve in the New Hampshire criminal justice system. He first joined the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections in 1986 and then the Coos County Department of Corrections in 1987. Mike Sielicki began his law enforcement career with the Colebrook Police Department in 1987 and attended the New Hampshire Police Academy in 1989. Through his hard work and dedication, he rose through the ranks and became the chief of the Colebrook Police Department in 1993, serving in that capacity until 1999, when he accepted the chief's position in Hancock, where he worked from 1999 to 2003. In 2003, he was appointed the chief of police of the Rindge Police Department, where he served until accepting the chief's position in Kensington in 2012. In a career that has spanned three decades, Mike has established a reputation as a knowledgeable, respected and compassionate public safety professional and engaged community member. He established the Colebrook Police Athletic League in 1994. Chief Sielicki became a foster parent and subsequently served as the president of the New Hampshire Foster Parent Association from 1999 to 2004. He led the Law Enforcement Torch Run for NH Special Olympics from 2008 to 2011. During my tenure as New Hampshire's attorney general, it was my privilege to work directly with Chief Sielicki on many important law enforcement initiatives. Mike earned the respect and admiration of his peers and has been a thoughtful, effective leader in efforts to improve the criminal justice system and public safety in New Hampshire. Active in the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Sielicki rose through the executive board chairs and served as its president from 2013 to 2014, a term he just completed. A courageous and respected leader, Mike often spoke out on important public policy issues, such as opposing the legalization of marijuana, and the expansion of gambling. As Chief Sielicki celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Kim, and their family well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for coming to the floor to talk about this incredibly important issue to the American people. I ask the Senator, isn't it true that for 16 years the Internet Tax Freedom Act has prevented politicians nationwide from using the Web as a piggy bank and has helped commerce thrive by keeping it free from burdensome tax restrictions? And isn't it true that by making this permanent--the way the House bill does and the way the bill does that my colleague from Oregon has offered that has 52 cosponsors in the Senate--we never have to allow the people of this country again to feel uncertainty that suddenly this great freedom we have on the Internet is going to be gone, where they are going to be taxed when they access the Internet or that somehow we are going to use the Internet as a way to raise money and a way to hurt e-commerce? I would ask that of my colleague from the State of Texas. Is this all true, that if we can pass the House bill right now--which is similar to the bill offered by my colleague from Oregon--we can give the American people certainty that we are not going to tax what they are doing on the Internet?

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, reserving the right to object. First of all, let me say to my colleague from Oregon, I share what you have described and the work that you did in bringing forth the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The success we have seen from keeping the Internet free from discriminatory taxes has been astounding. So I commend the Senator for that. I am a proud cosponsor of your permanent act that you have with the Senator from South Dakota. I appreciate that you recognize how important it is that we keep this freedom for our Internet that has been so productive for the American people and, frankly, giving people from all walks of life access to this great tool on the Internet. So I thank my colleague from Oregon for that. Unfortunately, I object. I want to note today that I am reserving my right to object because to extend this only to December 31 is to invite uncertainty to the American people. I think the American people have had enough of these dramatic New Year's Eve moments in this body where they are wondering: Are we going to act upon important things, like will we ensure that the Internet remains free from discriminatory taxes? I know my colleague from Oregon shares the same goals. But to put this to December 31, the lameduck of this body, at a moment where we can all be sitting here on New Year's Eve and the American people again can be looking at us saying: Why do you all leave this to the very last minute on something that has 52 cosponsors and is the right thing to do for the American people? We should give them certainty now by extending this law permanently. I also note that if this is going to be extended into the lameduck session, I am very worried about the shenanigans that are going to happen. The shenanigans are on an issue that the Senator from Oregon and I are quite passionate about, and that is the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act my colleague from North Dakota just referenced, which, instead of the Marketplace Fairness Act, I like to call the Internet Sales Tax Selection Act. My colleague from North Dakota mentioned that this is about the State and local selecting taxes. I respect that State and localities should be able to collect taxes. But for States such as Oregon and New Hampshire which don't have a sales tax, why should our businesses or why should any Internet business in this country take on the responsibility which has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments to collect taxes? Under the so-called Market Fairness Act, what would happen is Internet businesses across this country--including in States such as Oregon and New Hampshire--would become the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, which is a bureaucratic nightmare for so many thriving Internet businesses. It is an anathema to States such as ours--Oregon and New Hampshire--which have chosen not to have a sales tax. Most importantly, to subject our great online businesses to the potential that they could be subject to an audit in almost 10,000 taxing jurisdictions to me is the opposite of what I know my colleague from Oregon is trying to accomplish with all the work he has done in this body, not only on the Wyden-Thune Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act--which I fully support--but all the other work he has done to make sure the Internet remains free and prosperous in this country for the benefit of all the American people. So I object to what my colleague from Oregon has offered. I think a short-term fix is no fix at all. In fact, it leaves the American people again uncertain that we will protect their rights against discriminatory taxes that can be imposed on them over the Internet, and it also invites shenanigans with the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that can get attached. I know some of my colleagues have talked about the potential of attaching this unfair act, which I would like to call the Internet Sales Tax Collection Act, which makes our online businesses across this country the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this Nation. So, for those reasons, I object. I would like to see what my colleague from Oregon has put forth--which is excellent legislation, and I thank him for that--which is permanent tax freedom for the Internet. With that, I believe the Senator from Texas would also like to be heard on this issue.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to honor the town of Landaff, New Hampshire, which is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding next month. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this special milestone. Landaff, a town in Grafton County, lies fully within the Connecticut River watershed, with the Ammonoosuc River to the northwest and the Wild Ammonoosuc River to the south. The southern half of the town is part of the magnificent White Mountain National Forest. The town of Landaff has a rich history. It is named after the Bishop of Llandaff, chaplain to King George III. After the town's first 60 settlers failed to meet the requirements of the King's original grant, the territory was re-granted to Dartmouth College in 1770. The college contributed to the town's development by building roads, a school and a saw mill. In 1773, however, the original owners desired a return of their land and petitioned the Governor to revoke the Dartmouth grant. The issue of the ownership of Landaff was drawn out in the courts for the next 17 years. When the American Revolution concluded, changes in the American legal system prompted the college to give the town back to the people. Today, Landaff's population remains around 360, with the patriotism and commitment of its residents reflected in part by their longstanding record of service in defense of our Nation. One distinguished Landaff resident, Harry Chandler, was born in Landaff in 1864 and moved to Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Chandler eventually became the editor of the Los Angeles Times, but he never forgot the little town that raised him. He was said to have offered a job at the newspaper to anyone from Landaff who showed up at his door. Resident sage of Landaff, Moor Noyes, once made this observation about the history of the town: ``Things ain't now as they use to was been and people don't do as they use to did then.'' Truer words have never been spoken. Landaff has contributed much to the culture and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warmest regards to the people of Landaff as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to recognize and congratulate the leadership and volunteers of New Hampshire's Exceptional Citizens', EC, Week at Camp Fatima as the program marks its 60th year of providing continuous service to children and adult campers with special needs. Held every year at Camp Fatima on the picturesque Upper Suncook Lake in Gilmanton Iron Works, EC Week is a non-sectarian outdoor camp program sponsored by the Catholic Diocese of Manchester. Attendance, which is free for campers, is funded by generous contributions from individuals and businesses. During EC Week, campers have the opportunity to participate in a variety of traditional camping activities, giving them a chance to enjoy the great outdoors and have some good old-fashioned summer fun. Borne of the idea that ``it would be great to allow these children the same camping experience as other kids,'' Bill Haller, president of The United Life and father of a child with Down syndrome; Dr. Tom Walker, a pediatrician at St. Paul's School; and the Rev. Richard O. Boner, associate pastor at St. John's Parish in Concord, who founded Camp Fatima for Boys, began work on this concept, starting EC Week in 1954. As they set out to create an entertaining and rewarding camp experience, the program founders teamed up with student nurses from Sacred Heart Hospital in Manchester, a group of Sisters of Mercy, a group of Sisters of St. Francis, and seminarians from St. John's Seminary, in preparation for the camp's launch. The first year 25 boys and girls attended the camp. Since that first year, EC Week has grown immensely and now includes 170 campers and more than 300 volunteers from around the country. It is a unique and special experience that is treasured by so many, and has served as a model for the creation of similar camps around the country. As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of EC Week next month, I want to commend the Diocese of Manchester and the EC Week staff and volunteers. Their hard work and dedication has brightened the lives of thousands of campers and allowed them to have exciting experiences they otherwise may never get to enjoy. I have no doubt this outstanding program will continue to benefit and delight campers for generations to come.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I recognize and commend MooreMart, an outstanding charitable organization based in Nashua, NH, that is devoted to supporting America's servicemen and women. For more than 10 years, MooreMart has shipped care packages to American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq--lifting the spirit of our brave military members serving in harm's way. What began in February 2004 as a family project started by Paul Moore and Carole Moore Biggio to support their brother--New Hampshire Army National Guard SSG Brian Moore, who was deployed to Iraq--has developed into a major volunteer effort. Over the past decade, MooreMart has sent more than 63,000 care packages to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their effort came to be known as ``MooreMart,'' because the soldiers receiving the packages remarked that the boxes ``carry more supplies than WalMart.'' It's a clever nickname that is now well known in the Granite State Once word spread about MooreMart's wartime effort, hundreds of New Hampshire citizens, and dozens of organizations and businesses, gave their support to this very special organization. At packing events held several times throughout the year at the Nashua National Guard Armory, volunteers have assembled packages containing goods that make deployments a little easier--including candy, toothpaste, dental floss, energy bars, trail mix, lip balm, playing cards, puzzles, white tube socks, crackers, and notes of encouragement. At Christmas, MooreMart has sent Christmas stockings filled with candy canes, Christmas lights, and cookies. In addition to sending these goodies to our troops, they have also treated veterans in New Hampshire and remembered our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. MooreMart's generosity has also extended to children in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending them school supplies and toys. Through these donations, Afghan and Iraqi children have seen the warmth and generosity of the American people. The Moore family and all the MooreMart volunteers represent the very best of New Hampshire and our Nation: patriotic Americans coming together to support our troops. This exemplary organization has touched the lives of our brave soldiers serving on faraway battlefields--making sure they know they're not forgotten during tough deployments. As MooreMart celebrates its 10th Anniversary, I join citizens across New Hampshire and the Nation in commending Paul Moore and Carole Moore Biggio, the Moore family, and all the tremendous MooreMart volunteers for the inspiring work they have done supporting our troops.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership and our leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for the incredible work he has done in supporting our great friend Israel and also leading this body in terms of the issues he has brought forward, not only in supporting important protections, such as the Iron Dome program, but also by ensuring America remains safe and strong. I thank Senator McConnell very much for his leadership. I rise because I had the privilege in March of traveling to Israel. I went there not only to meet with the leadership in Israel but I had the opportunity to meet with some of the Palestinian leadership as well. I went to Sderot, which is a town in Israel. I was very much struck by what the Israelis are facing every day and the threat they face from Hamas, a terrorist organization. Go to a town such as Sderot and everyone in their household has a bomb shelter. I met with mothers there whose children feel traumatized because they never know when the next potential rocket may be coming toward their town, and it has very much affected their children. It has affected them so much so that when one goes to the playground where the children play, the playground itself contains a bomb shelter. There is a caterpillar which looks like something your kids would play in, but it is actually a bomb shelter because this town in Israel has been facing rockets from Hamas. That is what we need to understand in this conflict: Hamas, a terrorist organization, has not only used its own civilians, the Palestinians, as human shields but they have also continued to threaten the children of Israel so much so that their playgrounds have bomb shelters. What is happening right now in this conflict is that Israel is trying to defend itself against the threat of rockets from Hamas which threaten their children and the Palestinian children, who unfortunately have been put in harm's way by this terrorist organization, Hamas. They are facing a new threat. Can you imagine if we were faced with a threat where terrorists could pop up through a tunnel and suddenly terrorize the people in this country? Can you imagine what we would do under the same circumstance? That is the threat the Israelis are facing right now. They need to eliminate these tunnels to ensure that their people can be protected from this threat. How did they build these tunnels? They actually built some of these tunnels by using concrete the Israelis let the Palestinians have for building places such as schools, and instead Hamas has taken this concrete and used it to build terror tunnels to allow them to either kidnap or kill Israeli citizens. We stand with the people of Israel and their right to defend themselves against this terrorist organization Hamas and the terror it has brought upon not only the country of Israel but also the terror it has brought to the Palestinian people and how Hamas stands in the way of peace in the region overall. We also stand against the hypocrisy we have seen on many levels, and that hypocrisy and double standard has been most apparent in the U.N. Human Rights Council and the recent resolution passed by that council. I have to wonder why that council exists in the United Nations because they have countries such as China, Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela issuing a resolution condemning Israel for what is happening in this conflict but in no way even mentioning Hamas or what Hamas is doing to use civilians as shields and basically as targets so they can try to get support from the international community. The opposite is happening in terms of what Israel is doing. There is such a contrast. Israel is taking steps to notify civilians if there is going to be a missile launched in their area. They have warned civilians to leave areas. They have taken extraordinary steps to protect civilian lives in contrast to what Hamas is doing; they are using civilians as shields. We condemn in this body very clearly what the Human Rights Council has done. The notion that we are going to follow what China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia tell the world, which is their view on human rights--and they don't even mention the actions of a terrorist organization that is at the root of the conflict we see right now in Gaza--talk about the situation where the fox is watching the henhouse. That is what has happened with this human rights council. Frankly, this council, in my view, should be eliminated because it is the opposite of standing for human rights; it is for standing for terrorist organizations such as Hamas. I stand with the recommendations of my colleague from South Carolina and our leader that we need to absolutely condemn the human rights council. We need to reaffirm in this body this week before we leave our support for Israel's right to defend itself and to eliminate the threat these tunnels present to the Israeli people, and, frankly, also to the Palestinian people as well, and to allow them to finally address this threat from this terrorist organization Hamas. Until this threat is eliminated, there can be no peace in this region. There cannot be peace for the Israeli people and there cannot be peace for the Palestinian people. So it is my hope that we will take this up this week and make sure we clearly send a message to Israel; that we stand with Israel, that we clearly send a message to the U.N. that we are not going to accept the hypocrisy of the human rights council; that we clearly send a message to Hamas: We know who you are. You are a terrorist organization. Stop using civilians to try to accomplish your purpose and we stand with you. I yield the floor for my colleague.

Ms. AYOTTE. I would fully share the Senator's view. In order to end this threat we need to support Israel and its right to eliminate the tunnels, to address the missiles and eliminate missiles and the stash that Hamas has that they are targeting Israel with--which, by the way, would have had many more civilian casualties but for the Iron Dome system that we have supported and worked with Israel on. Finally, we need to get to a point where Gaza is demilitarized and they are put in a position where this threat cannot continue. That is what we need to get to thinking about. But we need to allow Israel to deal with the threat of these tunnels and the missiles so the children in Sderot will not continue to be targeted, so children--not only Israeli children but also Palestinian children--can live in peace in the region. That cannot happen when Hamas continues to be a terrorist organization that threatens all children in the region. Thank you.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to recognize Thomas J. Minkler of Keene, NH, as he nears the end of his term as the 109th chairman of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, also known as the Big ``I.'' Tom was installed as chairman of the Big ``I'' in September 2013, and he has been a strong and thoughtful leader for independent insurance agents across the country. Tom is president of the Clark-Mortenson Agency, which is headquartered in Keene. Previously, he served as chairman of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of New Hampshire, as New Hampshire director on the Big ``I'' national board, and as president of the Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents. As I recognize Tom, I would also like to acknowledge his wife Heather Minkler. She serves as chief executive officer of the Clark-Mortenson Agency in Keene. Together, Tom and Heather are a truly dynamic team. They always find time to give back to the community, serving as members of numerous charitable organizations and civic boards when they aren't managing their agency, which has 52 employees in five office locations in New Hampshire and Vermont. I am pleased to join Tom's colleagues from across New Hampshire and the Nation in congratulating him as he finishes his term as chairman.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I certainly wish to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen. As she has stated, New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax. There is absolutely nothing fair about the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, especially for a State such as New Hampshire. It should be more appropriately named the Internet sales tax collection act, because that is what it is--the Internet sales tax collection act. I certainly appreciate the work I have done with my colleague, both of us fighting the Marketplace Fairness Act, because there is nothing fair about it for New Hampshire and, frankly, nothing fair about it for online businesses across this country. This act would ask our online businesses that have been thriving and growing--many people have started these businesses from their homes and we have seen those businesses flourish in our home State of New Hampshire--to become tax collectors for States that are greedy for revenue, and it would trample on the decision of a State such as New Hampshire not to have a sales tax. What it would mean for online businesses is they would have to become the tax collector not just for the 50 States, but they would actually have to become a tax collector for over 9,000 taxed jurisdictions in this country. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare for an online business. Talk about an act that is going to put onerous burdens on an area of commerce that we have seen such great growth in. Talk about an act that is totally misnamed because there is nothing fair about it; it really is an Internet sales tax collection act. In my home State of New Hampshire I have had so many online businesses write me about how this act--this MFA act--is going to hurt their business and is going to place onerous requirements on our businesses. Not only would they be forced to collect taxes for these other jurisdictions--over 9,000--but can we imagine what will happen once one of those jurisdictions--a municipality that is allowed to tax--changes their tax amount? Then, suddenly, they have to update their collection method. Guess what. If they get it wrong, they are subject to being sued in some other State, some other jurisdiction. This is going to hurt the development of more online businesses because it creates a big bureaucracy. It is totally inappropriate. Why are we asking these thriving online businesses to become the tax collectors for States? The reason we have over 9,000 jurisdictions they have to collect for is because it is not just States; in some States even the municipal level has its own sales tax that can be collected. What a mess. Then we see what is happening in Washington. The majority leader rule XIV'd a bill, and what he did is he attached the Marketplace Fairness Act, which I prefer to call the Internet sales tax collection act, to what was just passed in the House of Representatives: the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Talk about ironic. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is legislation I strongly support. This legislation is going to prevent taxes over the Internet, taxing the Internet that could hit all of us in some way, so that we can protect the freedom of the Internet and the growth we have seen on the Internet. It is widely supported on both sides of the aisle, as my colleague from New Hampshire said. So the irony is that here we have an act that is so widely supported--the Internet Tax Freedom Act--providing a tax-free Internet--and the majority leader decides to attach to it the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, which is really the Internet sales tax collection act. That legislation creates new onerous burdens on online businesses to become the tax collectors for over 9,000 tax jurisdictions. We can see the irony of it. Here we have bipartisan support for freedom from taxes on the Internet that should be extended to allow the Internet to thrive and grow and continue to grow, and the majority leader, without a hearing--because when he rule XIV's it, there is no committee hearing. It doesn't go through the committee process where we can have hearings on the burdens this will place on online commerce and on online businesses not only in my home State of New Hampshire but in other businesses across the country. There was no hearing for this. It is an issue both sides of the aisle agree with: Let's keep the Internet tax-free. Then the majority leader attaches onto it with no hearing, under rule XIV, this onerous requirement which I like to call the Internet sales tax collection act. Of course, in Washington, they always name these acts to make us think it sounds good, so they call it the Marketplace Fairness Act. That is the irony. Only in Washington would we have rammed this through this process, without a committee hearing--legislation that protects Internet freedom, that has strong bipartisan support, attached with it new onerous burdens on Internet businesses to become the sales tax collectors for the Nation. I join in what my colleague from New Hampshire just said. I think it is wrong that this bill is being pushed forward with the Internet Tax Freedom Act that has such strong support, that should be brought to this body as a stand-alone bill, not with these new burdensome requirements that are set forth in the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, otherwise known as the Internet sales tax collection act. The people of this country deserve to have a free, tax-free Internet. The online businesses of this country that are thriving and growing shouldn't become the tax collectors for States and municipalities that are greedy for more revenue. It is their job to collect their taxes. It shouldn't be an online business's job to collect taxes for over 9,000 jurisdictions, because we can only imagine how many changes will happen and what kind of paperwork nightmare that will create for those businesses. I have heard it from our businesses firsthand. I hope this body will oppose any effort to vote for a bill that connects Internet tax freedom with Internet sales tax collection, because the two are antithetical. One works against the other. One ensures the freedom of the Internet to be tax-free and the other one creates new burdensome requirements on online businesses and actually works against, in my view, the thriving commerce we see over the Internet and has resulted in more choice for all of us as consumers in this country. Malaysian Airlines Crash Madam President, we all learned today, very shockingly, that there was a Malaysian Airlines flight shot down over Eastern Ukraine and that, reportedly, 295 people lost their lives in that incident. Reportedly, 23 Americans were listed on the manifest. I wish to offer my thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims of that plane that went down over Eastern Ukraine, and I want them to know they are in our thoughts and in our prayers. I wish to raise the issue as following: There is an investigation going on. We don't know yet who is responsible or if anyone is responsible. The facts will come forward as to why this plane went down. But it has been widely reported that the plane was, in fact, shot down. Some of the reports have said it was done by a medium-range surface-to-air missile system. We know that most recently there has been tremendous violence in Eastern Ukraine. If the investigation of this plane going down reveals that either Russia or Russian agents are responsible or indirectly responsible for shooting down this civilian airliner, there should be serious consequences. What we know is that Vladimir Putin and the Russians have been responsible in fomenting the situation that has occurred in Eastern Ukraine where there has been violence, there has been recruiting, training, and funding of Russians and Russian agents, sending them to Eastern Ukraine to fight the Ukrainian Government, interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine. This was following the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, the territory of Ukraine, by the Russian Government, and the Russians have taken over that portion of Ukraine. We will wait to see what the investigation reveals for the downing of this plane. Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones. But I believe there should be serious consequences if we find out it was either Russian agents, Russian equipment, or Russia directly that was responsible for this airliner going down. Yesterday the administration announced it would impose and was imposing greater sanctions on Russia for their activities of fomenting violence in Eastern Ukraine. I want to thank the administration for finally coming forward and putting forth more serious sanctions against Vladimir Putin, against the Russian Government, for what they have done to interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine. It is an important step forward, and I hope Vladimir Putin understands there are even greater sanctions that can be imposed if the sanctions that were announced yesterday by the administration that involve some sectoral sanctions against major industries in Russia and individuals--if they do not heed the warning that is coming from those sanctions, I hope Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government understand there are much tougher sanctions that can also be imposed if they do not heed the sanctions that were put in place yesterday and stop fueling the violence in Eastern Ukraine. We need to understand the context of what we have seen happen in Eastern Ukraine. The separatists, the so-called separatists, in Eastern Ukraine are funded, equipped, and supported by the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin could end the violence in Eastern Ukraine tomorrow if he chose to. He essentially has operational control of what these violent separatists are doing to interfere with the sovereignty in Ukraine. He is responsible for the violence, and I would call on him to end that violence, to stop funding these separatists, to stop providing them with equipment that is being used against the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military, and to allow the people of Ukraine to determine their future. That is what they want. I had the privilege of going to Ukraine for their Presidential election, and I was inspired by the people who went to the polls. I will never forget being there at the first polling station that day in the Presidential election and an older gentleman came to the polls and cast his ballot and said: For democracy. The people of Ukraine want to determine their own future, just as we determine our future in this country. Vladimir Putin and Russia should allow the people of Ukraine to decide their future. They should stop interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine. This is not a Ukrainian uprising of disenfranchised Russian-speaking Ukrainians. What is happening in Eastern Ukraine is a Kremlin- instigated, armed, funded, trained, and fueled aggression against the people of Ukraine and their duly elected government. This is cynical and blatant aggression by Putin against Ukraine, and Putin continues to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and security by arming these separatist rebels, massing Russian troops at the border of Eastern Ukraine in a very threatening way, and also threatening to increase further coercive measures against Ukraine. The people of Ukraine need our help. The Ukrainian people are willing to risk their lives and have been risking their lives to defend the sovereignty of their country against President Putin's aggression, but the Ukrainian Government desperately needs our assistance. In particular, the prior administration of Ukraine that left-- President Yanukovych was very aligned with Russia--gutted their military and much of the equipment they need to be able to defend themselves. Let me say, they have gone there and bravely defended themselves, even without having some of the equipment they need that was really lost by their military because of the prior administration and neglect of the Ukrainian military. Ukrainians need assistance--and not only the sanctions the administration has issued, which could get tougher but they need military assistance from our country. We have to keep in mind the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum. In return--our country, the Russians, were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum--in return for security assurances, the least we can do for them is give them the means to defend themselves. I know the Ukrainian Government has asked us for antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, small arms, the sharing of intelligence so they can defend their own border. It is the least we can do for them, given that they gave up their nuclear weapons. What country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again if we will not even give them some basic military assistance so they can defend themselves? They are not asking us to send our troops in. They are not asking for things like that. They are willing to defend themselves and they need our help to do so. Finally, President Obama said in his June 4 speech in Poland: ``Our free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.'' I call on the President to continue to take action and to stand by those words. Those words meant a lot to the Ukrainian people, and it is important that we follow through on those words because it is in the national security interests of the United States to stand with the people of Ukraine and their legitimately elected government as they seek to protect their sovereignty. If we are not willing in these circumstances to stand by giving them some basic military support they have asked for, after having given up their nuclear weapons, then what lessons will other actors in the region and around the world take from that? I think lesson No. 1 is: Why would you ever give up your nuclear weapons? In a world where we are hoping to reduce proliferation, this is not a good message for us to send. No. 2: What will our allies in the region think if we will not stand against Russian aggression under these circumstances? You have already seen concerns, of course, by the countries in the region that can be impacted by Russian aggression, whether it is Georgia, Moldova--concerns we have seen for further support from Poland, important allies in the region. To put it in perspective of why we need to give this military support--in addition, we do not know what happened, but we will find out, with the downing of this commercial passenger plane and the tragic loss of 295 individuals. Over the last month, we have seen that on June 14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport, killing all 49 people on board; on June 16, Gazprom--Russia's giant state-controlled gas company--announced they are cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine. Just this Monday, a Ukrainian cargo plane was shot down and Ukrainian officials believe it was shot down by missiles fired from Russia. Last night, a Ukrainian fighter jet was shot down. Ukrainians also believe the Russians were involved in shooting down that fighter jet. We will find out what happened to this passenger plane but it was in airspace where there have been instances of Russian agents directly involved in shooting down Ukrainian planes. So it is important that we give the Ukrainian people the capacity to defend themselves under those circumstances. It is the least we can do, given that they are willing to stand up for their own sovereignty, that they are strong friends of the United States of America. If our allies in the region think we will not stand with the sovereignty of Ukraine under these situations, it is going to create a situation where our allies will not feel they can rely on the United States of America. It also creates a situation where allies, friends, rivals, bullies, potential adversaries take the wrong message from it. For example, thinking about what is happening right now with the negotiations with Iran, if we are a country not willing to follow through to assist our friends--under circumstances where, for example, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons--with some basic military support, what kind of message will that send to the negotiations going on with Iran right now as to why they should give up their nuclear program? So this is a very important moment for the United States of America. I again want to say that the steps the administration took to impose additional sanctions this week are a very important step. I support those. I hope Vladimir Putin and Russia heed what those sanctions mean. Those sanctions will have an impact on the Russian economy, but we can impose even stronger sanctions against Russia if they do not stop funding and causing the violence in Eastern Ukraine and interfering with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people. The people of Ukraine have our respect. They have stood for themselves. They had a free and fair election that I was able to observe. They elected their President, and now they want to determine their own future, and they want Russia to respect the sovereignty of their country--what any country in this world should be able to expect: that another country will respect their sovereignty. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin has been a bully in all of this and has not respected the sovereignty of Ukraine. He should understand the sanctions that were issued this week are a message to him to stop what he is doing in Eastern Ukraine, and we can issue even tougher sanctions--and should issue tougher sanctions--if he continues to act like a bully who thinks he can go into other countries, take their territory, and push people around in those countries, as we have seen in Ukraine. This matters to the world because we cannot have people like Putin thinking they can invade another country without consequences. Finally, I would hope we would provide more support to the Ukrainian military, given that they have been willing to stand for their own defense, to secure their own border, to stand for their own sovereignty, but it is very difficult for them to do so when they are facing Russian-supported separatists, Russian tanks, Russian antiaircraft equipment, and more sophisticated technology than they have at the moment. We can help them by ensuring that they have the equipment to protect themselves, to protect their border, and to let Russia know there will be consequences if they continue to interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine or any other country. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President. I have to dispel some of the myths that are being told about the Hobby Lobby decision. First of all, one of the biggest distortions I think has been this hashtag campaign #NotMyBossBusiness because before the Hobby Lobby decision--and as now--employers cannot deny their employees access to birth control. So let's be clear. Employers cannot deny their employees access to birth control. So the #NotMyBossBusiness hashtag and I think some of the statements that are being made on the Hobby Lobby decision are a misrepresentation or distortion of what that decision stands for. You do not have to take my word for it. In fact, the Washington Post Fact Checker yesterday debunked several of the outrageous claims that are being made about this decision. In fact, here are some of the things we know are true about the Hobby Lobby decision: ``Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives.'' ``Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives.'' The majority opinion of Hobby Lobby actually states expressly that ``under our cases, women (and men) have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives.'' In fact, what the Fact Checker found in response to one lawmaker's claim about the Hobby Lobby decision--who claimed that it means employers can restrict the ability of their employees to use contraceptives--the Washington Post stated: No boss under this ruling has the right to tell an employee that they cannot use birth control. That's simply wrong. I think that is very important for the American people to understand, for the women of this country to understand. Also, the Washington Post, when debunking many of the claims made about the Hobby Lobby decision, said: ``Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person's religious freedom.'' In fact, what the decision does is focus on the fact that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was a law that was passed with overwhelming support in the House of Representatives and in this body-- in fact, by our count, as I understand it, over a dozen Democrat Members of the current Senate actually supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in some way. It was signed into law by President Clinton. So it used to be bipartisan that we would support religious freedom in this body. The notion that somehow Hobby Lobby as a closely- held corporation would have to give up all their religious beliefs seems to me to be antithetical to what we supported on a bipartisan basis in this Congress, which is the religious freedom of Americans that is reflected in the First Amendment to our Constitution. In fact, contrary to the misleading rhetoric, the Hobby Lobby decision does not take away a woman's access to birth control. That existed before the Hobby Lobby decision and it exists today. That existed before ObamaCare and it exists today, thankfully. No employee is prohibited from purchasing any FDA-approved drug or device. Contraception remains readily available and accessible to women nationwide. Prior to ObamaCare passing in this body, over 85 percent of large businesses already offered contraceptive coverage to their employees. One thing that has not been mentioned is the ObamaCare mandate that has been the subject of the Hobby Lobby decision does not even apply to businesses that are under 50 employees in this country. So there are millions of women for whom the mandate that is addressed in the Hobby Lobby decision does not even apply to. For lower income women, there are five programs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that ensure access to contraception for women, including Medicaid. In fact, more than 19 million women were eligible for government- supported contraceptive assistance in 2010, and that has not changed. So for those who would distort the Court's decision and insist that we cannot stand for religious liberty while simultaneously ensuring that women continue to have safe, affordable access to birth control-- it is just not true. We can do both and we need to do both on behalf of the American people because people have deeply held religious beliefs, and it was so important to our Founding Fathers that they put respect for religion and protection of people's ability to choose what they believe in in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Americans believe strongly that we should be able to practice our religion without undue interference from the government. That goes to our character. So what happened in the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby is reaffirming that, but it did not say an employer will somehow now be making the decision whether a woman can have contraception. That is not what it said. In fact, employers have no right under the law to even know what my prescriptions are or any other woman's prescriptions are for contraception. So any suggestion to the contrary is entirely misleading. The decision applies to closely-held businesses whose owners have genuine religious convictions. In this case, the company's owner, the Green family, agreed to provide coverage for 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods that are required under ObamaCare, including birth control pills. So I want people to understand that. They only had a moral objection to the remaining four methods. In the narrow ruling, the Court agreed, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--an act that was introduced into Congress by the late Senator Edward Kennedy from Massachusetts and then-Congressman Charles Schumer from New York. Again, it was supported by over a dozen of my Democrat colleagues at the time. They brought forth the law because they were concerned at the time about another Supreme Court decision which held that generally applicable laws that have nothing to do with religion could effectively prevent Americans from fully exercising their religious rights. And guess what? It passed a then Democrat-controlled House by voice vote and was approved by a Democrat- controlled Senate by a vote of 97 to 3. There is not much that happens around here 97 to 3. When President Clinton signed it into law, he said: ``What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion.'' In the Hobby Lobby decision, the government did not even try to meet that standard. They have tried to meet that standard with other religious organizations, but they did not even try in this situation to contend what the Court found to be genuinely-held religious beliefs on a very limited basis. There have been a lot of misrepresentations about the breadth of this decision. The Court's majority opinion explicitly states that the ruling does not ``provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.'' Additionally, the Court said that ``our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs,'' meaning that someone must show a genuine religious objection. The government can overcome it if they are willing to show that they can do it in a less restrictive way. They did not even try in this case. Well, some Americans may disagree with the family who owns the Hobby Lobby stores. All Americans believe religious freedom is a fundamental right that should not be abridged. When President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, he said: Our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder, but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties. I come to the floor today because I want people to understand this decision. Employers cannot tell you what kind of contraception you can have as a woman. Employers cannot even know what kind of contraception you have as a woman. That is protected under HIPAA laws, privacy laws that are very important. Finally, this notion that it is not my boss's business--of course an employer cannot tell you that you cannot go fill a prescription for contraception. I think that to suggest otherwise is really to distort what the facts of this case are. I believe we can protect people's fundamentally-held religious beliefs and provide women safe, effective access to contraception. Because of that, I will be introducing legislation on the Senate floor. That legislation would reaffirm that no employer can restrict an employee's access to contraceptives. Finally, it would also ensure that we look at ways to potentially give women greater access to contraceptives. The legislation I will be introducing would also ask the FDA to study whether women can purchase contraceptives over the counter and whether it would be safe and effective for adult women to be able to do so. So we should have the FDA look at this issue to see if women can perhaps have even greater access than they do right now. But the American people need to understand that the Hobby Lobby decision did not change women's access to contraceptives. In fact, under our HIPAA laws, no employer can know what kind of contraception you may have been prescribed or are using. No employer can tell you that you cannot fill a prescription for any kind of contraception that you think is appropriate and that your doctor thinks is appropriate for you. Finally, I would say our bill also does one other important thing; that is, it repeals the restrictions ObamaCare put on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts. ObamaCare actually reduced the amount someone can put aside on a tax-free basis to pay for their own health care. ObamaCare also restricted the use of those accounts for purchase of over-the-counter medications. I have had many of my constituents complain to me about this. We would like to eliminate those restrictions and give people greater ability to set aside money on a tax-free basis to pay for their own health concerns, including over-the-counter medications. One thing I would say finally is that I have heard so much from my constituents about the concerns they have with ObamaCare. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who voted for ObamaCare, now come to the floor and complain about the Hobby Lobby decision. Well, I would argue that we are where we are today because they decided that ObamaCare was the way to go for health care in this country. I have heard from a lot of my both male and female constituents about the real concerns they have with ObamaCare that I hope we will debate on this floor. I have heard from people who lost policies they liked, who are paying more for coverage than they were before, have higher deductibles. I have had women write me about concerns that their employer is going to cut their hours because of ObamaCare. Talk about a bad mandate. It redefined the 40-hour workweek. It is now a 30-hour workweek. So people are losing hours. In my own State of New Hampshire, right now 10 of our hospitals are excluded from the exchange. We are not a very big State. It is a big deal. So some people have lost access to the doctor with whom they had a longstanding relationship or the hospital where they had their first child. Now, if they are expecting their second child and they are on the exchange, that hospital is excluded, and they are in a situation where ObamaCare is restricting women's rights as far as what hospital they can go to, when they could have gone there before. Those are the real issues as we think about what has happened with ObamaCare. There are so many other issues I could talk about, stories my constituents have written to me. But I would hope the American people understand that employers cannot restrict your access to contraception. We will reassert in our bill that no employer can do that. We will look at the FDA studying whether women can potentially have greater access to contraceptives in a safe and effective manner by looking at whether adult women can safely purchase contraceptives over the counter. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful man, Stephen Savage, the chief of the Plaistow Police Department, who passed away on Friday after a 3-year battle with cancer. We are deeply saddened by the loss of Chief Savage, a beloved member of the Plaistow community, who dedicated his life to serving his fellow citizens. For Steve, family came first. He was a devoted father, husband, and brother. We hold his wife Kristin and their sons Billy and Michael in our hearts, and we will keep them in our prayers. We share in their grief and we will be there to support and comfort them during the difficult weeks ahead. From a young age Steve was called to serve, and he answered that call. After graduating from Stevens High School in Claremont, NH, in 1965, he enlisted in the Air Force and served our country in Vietnam. He obtained the rank of sergeant and earned several commendations for his military service. Steve was a very patriotic person. After returning from Vietnam, Steve went on to earn a degree in criminal justice from Northeastern University. He joined the Newport, NH, police department in 1969. That was the beginning of an exceptional career in law enforcement which would span more than 40 years-- including positions with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Baltimore, MD, Police Department. After coming home to his beloved State of New Hampshire in 1977, Steve was named chief of police in Haverhill, NH. He served as police chief in Haverhill until 1986, when he was appointed police chief in Plaistow, NH. Steve served as police chief in Plaistow for 28 years. He was the longest serving police chief in Plaistow's history. In Plaistow Steve was a friend to all and was a constant presence at the local ballfield where he coached baseball and volunteered his time with Friends of Plaistow Recreation. In addition to all of his responsibilities as police chief, Steve was a highly respected leader in our State's law enforcement community. He served as past president of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association, where I had the privilege of working with him when I was attorney general. He served as president of the Rockingham County Chiefs of Police Association and as a member of many law enforcement organizations. Steve was a great leader, and he was so well respected by all members of law enforcement throughout New Hampshire. His talent, dedication, and expertise helped set a gold standard of excellence for New Hampshire law enforcement. In a fitting tribute just a few weeks ago, the Plaistow Police Department named its tactical training center in Steve's honor, ensuring that his legacy will not be forgotten by the people of Plaistow or the people of New Hampshire. He touched so many lives during his distinguished career, and one of them was mine. I had the privilege of getting to know Steve, Kristin, and his family when I served as attorney general for the State of New Hampshire. Steve was such a kind, compassionate person and devoted to serving others. He was a man with a big heart. He had a vibrant personality that would light up a room and a great sense of humor that never faded despite his diagnosis. I was so proud to call Steve Savage my friend. I feel fortunate to have known him, and I will treasure our friendship always. There is so much I admired about Steve Savage. He worked tirelessly to keep his community safe. When he was diagnosed with cancer 3 years ago, he didn't let up. He just kept going, spending every moment he could with his family while also continuing to lead the police department and taking part in the community activities he enjoyed. In fact, in May he served as grand marshal for the Plaistow's Memorial Day parade. Steve and his family--and particularly his wife Kristin--faced his illness with such inspiring courage. As we know, cancer hits so many people. They found a way to turn what was a tragedy in their family into a good cause to help others. The Savage family and the Pollard School worked together to organize the Run of the Savages, a 5K run to benefit the Dana Farber Cancer Center and the Jimmy Fund. Even in sickness Steve wanted to help others fighting the disease, a profound reflection of his generous and caring spirit. I know the Run of the Savages will continue, and I will certainly run in it again. It is a reflection of how much the Savage family has given back to the community and what an inspiration Steve's life can be for others facing the horrible disease of cancer. Steve was determined to live life to the fullest, and he did so right up to the very end. Our State lost a truly great public servant with the passing of Steve Savage, New Hampshire's law enforcement community lost a brother, and so many of us lost a great friend. The Savage family has lost a loving dad and our hearts ache for Kristin, Billy, and Michael. We will continue to keep them in our prayers and stand with them during this difficult time. They are an amazing family. Steve went beyond the call of duty in everything he did as a father, as a police chief, and as a friend. And because of Steve, New Hampshire is a better place. I feel honored to have known him. His legacy will live on through all of those lives he touched. We will forever honor his memory, and we will continue to be there to support Kristin, Billy, and Michael. We are just thankful that someone such as Steve Savage came to serve our State and has been a friend to so many of us. Thank you, Mr. President. Order of Procedure I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be charged equally to both sides of the aisle.

Ms. AYOTTE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to honor the town of Unity, NH. This great American community is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding, and I am proud to recognize this historic event. Located in Sullivan County in the western part of the State, the town of Unity includes the villages of Unity, East and West Unity, and Quaker City. The origins of Unity date back to 1753 when the territory then known as Buckingham was chartered through a series of grants from New Hampshire Governor Benning Wentworth and the Massachusetts government. Unfortunately, this grew territorial tension among the local residents, so in 1764 the town of Unity was formally incorporated. Today Unity is home to approximately 1,700 New Hampshire residents who take great pride in living their lives as their town name intended them to, in unity. The Unity Town Hall, which today serves as the official location for Unity Town Hall meetings, was constructed in 1831. It was originally a Baptist meeting house, but the town of Unity purchased the building for $25.00 in 1877. It has since undergone renovation but still stands proudly today where in the bell tower hangs a famed Revere Bell which will ring forth in celebration of Unity on July 11, 2014. Unity is an example of a quintessential New Hampshire town whose citizens embody everything that it means to be great Americans. So today we honor the 250th anniversary of Unity, NH. We commend its citizens and recognize their accomplishments, their love of country, and their spirit of independence. But more importantly, we look forward to the next 250 years and the great things this town will have to offer.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of LCpl Brandon Garabrant, a proud marine from Greenfield, NH, who was tragically killed in action in Afghanistan last week. Lance Corporal Garabrant was an extraordinary young man who cared deeply about his country. Before he even graduated from ConVal Regional High School last year, he had already graduated from marine boot camp at Parris Island. Brandon was eager to serve and he followed in the footsteps of his great-grandfather and his grandfather in joining the military to serve our country. Long before he joined the Marines, Brandon had already earned a reputation as someone who was passionate about serving others. Volunteering with the Temple Volunteer Fire Department starting at age 17, he became a full-time member of that fire department when he turned 18. The fire chief at Temple, George Clark, was quoted as saying Brandon ``was all about helping people,'' adding that ``no matter what needed doing, he was always the first guy there.'' Chief Clark said even when Brandon was home on leave he would get in touch and he would ask how could he help, a true reflection on Brandon's commitment to serving others as reflected in his service to our country. Lance Corporal Garabrant was proud to be a marine and enjoyed the important work he was doing. He was a big-hearted young man with a bright future ahead of him, and he represented the very best of New Hampshire and the very best of our great Nation. Brandon was taken from us far too soon. As we mourn his tragic loss, we commit ourselves to forever honor and cherish his memory and to carry on the proud legacy of service he leaves behind. Brandon was a true American hero for the sacrifice he made for our country, for our freedom. At this very sad time we also support and comfort his family who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. In the difficult days and weeks ahead, my thoughts and prayers will remain with his mother Jessie, his father John, as well as his brother Jacob and his sister Mykala. May God forever bless LCpl Brandon Garabrant. May we honor his selfless sacrifice for our country. If it weren't for people such as Brandon, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have in this great country. If it were not for marines such as Lance Corporal Garabrant, who stepped up to serve his country and volunteered on behalf of our great Nation, we would not have the free speech rights we enjoy or any of the other rights we enjoy. My thoughts and prayers will remain with his family. My thoughts and prayers will remain with all of his fellow soldiers who have lost a friend, and my thoughts and prayers will remain with all of those in the Greenfield community, with the fire station, with Chief Clark, and all of those who have lost a great American hero. Thank you, Madam President. I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I know we have pending now the appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, and Science, which contains an important issue I have offered an amendment on, along with Senator Chambliss, who is the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, as well as Senators Wicker, Inhofe, Cruz, Graham, and Blunt, all of whom serve on the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Vitter and Senator Kirk. Our amendment would prohibit the administration from transferring to or releasing to the custody or control of any foreign country Guantanamo detainees whom our own Guantanamo Review Task Force has recommended for continued law-of-war detention. This is a task force that looks at all the circumstances surrounding those who are being held at Guantanamo, including whether they continue to represent a danger to our country and to our allies if they were to be released. Our amendment does three things. It prohibits the transfer to foreign countries of these detainees, that this group the administration put together to review each of the detainees and their status at Guantanamo has recommended them for continued law-of-war detention. These are the worst of the worst. These individuals have been determined to be the most dangerous to continue to present a risk to the United States of America and to our allies if they were to be released. So our amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply says they cannot be transferred to third-party countries--or transferred to the United States of America, for that matter--and that they shall remain at the secure detention facility, Guantanamo Bay, based on the recommendation of the Guantanamo Review Task Force. Our amendment would also prevent the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries that have had prior instances of Guantanamo detainees being transferred to that country and then those detainees getting back in the fight against us. It is pretty common sense. If we have a history with a country where we previously, under either the Bush administration or the Obama administration, transferred the detainees there and then they have been released and have gotten back in the fight against us or our allies, why would we want to transfer them to this type of country again? Because, obviously, these countries cannot guarantee the security of these detainees, and it puts us and our allies at risk. Finally, our amendment would prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries that have failed to honor their previous commitments to the United States of America to monitor, detain, or control the travel of former Guantanamo detainees. Again, if we have had a prior agreement with a country and we have transferred a detainee or detainees there, and they have failed to honor those agreements, why would we want to transfer detainees there now? The most recent instance of this was the five Taliban dream team who were transferred to Qatar, because the country of Qatar actually had a prior instance where they failed to honor their commitments to us with regard to how they would treat the detention and travel restrictions on a Guantanamo detainee. I am deeply concerned about the national security implications of the five detainees who were transferred in the prisoner swap. In fact, having asked our intelligence officials about what will happen to these five detainees, what I have heard from them is on a scale of 1 to 10, 4 out of 5 of those detainees are a 10 for 10 on the likelihood to get back in the battle against us or our allies. The fifth is about an 80- 10 scale. We have a 29-percent reengagement rate or recidivism rate from those we have held at Guantanamo, meaning 29 percent of them get back in the fight against our country, against us, against our interests after they have been captured and put in Guantanamo. So we have a history here, and it is important if the administration is going to transfer anyone out of Guantanamo they not transfer individuals who have been found too dangerous to be let loose because they have been designated for continued law-of-war detention and they present too much of a risk to our country and the world. Second, to not transfer these individuals to countries where we have already transferred people in the past--and guess what, they couldn't keep them secure and they got back in the fight against us and our allies. Third, to prohibit transfer to countries that have not honored prior commitments when we have transferred a Gitmo detainee there, and that would apply to the country the President most recently released the five Taliban dream team to who, unfortunately, are going to get back in the fight, and that 29 percent are those who have reengaged in the fight or are suspected of reengaging in the fight against us. Our amendment is straightforward. It is focused on making sure the terrorists held at Guantanamo--the most dangerous of those individuals who present a threat to our country--are not put in a position where they can get back in the fight against us or against our allies. We have to think about the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line to capture these individuals, in some instances, and honor our commitment to them to make sure we can hold the country safe and secure, to not allow those who have been deemed the most dangerous at Guantanamo for continued law of war detention to be transferred to a third-party country or not allow us to transfer them to countries where we already have a history of either detainees getting back in the fight from that country or the country not honoring its commitment to the United States of America. My prior job was as a prosecutor. I will tell you, it is just a matter of common sense. This is a matter of protecting the American people from dangerous captured terrorists who we already have in our custody, to make sure we are not putting them back in a position where they can harm us again. I think that is something that America would expect of us. That is what I believe our amendment would do. I hope, as we take up this appropriations bill, this amendment will be considered so we can pass it to ensure that dangerous Guantanamo detainees are not put in a position again where they can harm us, our people or our allies because too many of them, unfortunately, have already committed acts against our country, our people, and our allies, and shame on us if we do not do everything we can to prevent that from happening again. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to honor the life of Laura LaPlante--a law student from Hancock, NH, who was preparing to graduate from the University of Chicago Law School when her life was tragically cut short last month. Laura was a student at St. Patrick's School in Jaffrey and at ConVal Regional High School in Peterborough, from which she graduated in 2006. After attending Columbia University, she returned to New Hampshire and graduated in 2010 from UNH--where she was a scholar-athlete who was at the top of her class. Laura continued to distinguish herself as a student in law school, where she became a campus leader. In addition to serving as the president of the school's chapter of the Federalist Society, she also served as treasurer of the Law School Republicans. Additionally, Laura devoted her time and energy to the Saint Thomas More Society, the Law Women's Caucus, and the Edmund Burke Society. Laura was a vibrant young woman whose kind and generous spirit and commitment to excellence--touched the lives of everyone around her. A high school friend of hers said: ``Laura is the kind of person everybody wants to be.'' And a former teacher and coach at ConVal said, ``She was the type of person that was always there for you''--adding that Laura was ``very selfless.'' She brought that same trademark kindness to Chicago, where one of her law school classmates was quoted as saying: ``Laura was one of those people who would take the time to ask how I'm doing and actually listen.'' These are just a few remembrances of this remarkable young woman. She was smart, outgoing, kind, and curious about the world around her. I know that Laura would have been an outstanding lawyer who brought intellect and integrity to the legal profession. And I also know that she would have continued to be a leader in her community. Tragically, we will never know the heights that Laura would have achieved. She was taken from us far too soon. As Laura's family and friends mourn her loss, I hope and pray that they will be comforted by their warm memories of her. She was a very special person whose uncommon kindness, caring spirit, and commitment to service brightened our world. Laura leaves behind an extraordinary legacy for all of us to carry on.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Norma Love--a venerable Associated Press reporter who is retiring at the end of the month after a long career covering government and politics in the Granite State. Norma's name is well-known to anyone in New Hampshire who has picked up a newspaper in the past three decades. She started in the AP's Concord bureau 31 years ago, and she has covered the statehouse for 29 of those years--spanning the administrations of seven Governors. It was at the statehouse where I first had the privilege of meeting Norma. We crossed paths on more times than I can count during my years in the attorney general's office. Whenever Norma called, I always knew that I would be talking to a consummate professional who holds herself to the highest standards of journalism. Norma understands that journalists have a responsibility to ask tough questions. She has always taken a firm--but fair--approach to her reporting, and that is why she is so deeply respected by public officials on both sides of the aisle. Norma could have been a reporter anywhere in the country, but she chose New Hampshire. During her decades of diligent reporting, she has been a witness to history--chronicling the people and places of her adopted State. While much has changed in the Granite State, and in newsrooms, since Norma arrived at the AP, her commitment to excellence in journalism has never wavered. The people of New Hampshire are so fortunate that Norma Love has been asking hard questions on their behalf for the past 31 years. Norma brings tremendous credit to the profession that she loves, and she will leave behind big shoes to fill in the statehouse press room. I am pleased to join with Norma's colleagues and many friends in wishing her the very best as she makes this transition and looks to new horizons. As we thank her for her many years of dedicated reporting, we send her every good wish for a long, full, and happy retirement.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to talk about what is happening in Ukraine, but before I do that, I cannot help but--having heard some of the discussion before this from my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Ohio--add to that discussion. First of all, the President didn't even notify the chair of the intelligence committee and the ranking member of that committee. And I think it is clear why he didn't notify the chair of the intelligence committee. Because there was widespread opposition from the intelligence committee to transferring these five particular detainees, and that was made clear to the administration well before this prisoner swap was made. Moreover, what I find not only shocking--that the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee weren't consulted about this, but what made my jaw drop was when I learned that our commander in Afghanistan had not been consulted in advance about the impact on the ground of this particular prisoner transfer in terms of the five Taliban detainees--which, make no mistake, what our intelligence community has said is that these five detainees, the five Taliban dream team--on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely will it be that they get back in the fight against us and our allies and against our interests? Four of them, we were told, are a 10 out of 10 that they will get back into the fight. That is why these five detainees were designated as high- risk by the board that is supposed to review these issues and decide whether prisoners can be safely transferred out of Guantanamo or whether they should be indefinitely detained. I just wanted to add that to this discussion because it is important to understand. I do believe we should bring our men and women home who have served our country, but these five detainees represent a real danger to us and our allies going forward, and that is why even the intel committee on a bipartisan basis didn't think this was a good idea. The notion that the President couldn't trust, for example, the ranking member of the intel committee, whom I have great respect for, and the chairman of that committee, whom we entrust every day to hold classified information, to ask at least what the intel committee thought, I just think that is absurd, that they would have somehow put at risk our soldier in Afghanistan. So I wanted to add that to the discussion. And it seems to me that if we really wanted to consult on the ground with our commander in Afghanistan, we would want to know from him in advance what he thought about putting the five detainees back in the battle space, regardless of what he thinks now about it because making a good decision means consulting the people who are knowledgeable about this in advance. What worries me the most about this transfer is the fact that five out of the five are likely to get back in the fight, and we don't have a good record on this. The estimates are that 29 percent of those who have been detained in Guantanamo have either gotten directly back in the fight or we believe have gotten back in the fight against our interests or the interests of our allies. That is the national security concern about this transfer. Ukraine I am here today to talk about the situation in Ukraine. As we look around the world there is so much happening and so much which is of concern to our country, but today I would like to focus on Ukraine and what Russia is doing in Eastern Ukraine to interfere with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, to interfere with their choice of how they want to conduct their country, the choices they have a right to make for their own country. Of course, this began with the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, but it has not stopped there. It has continued in Eastern Ukraine, where essentially we have seen violence and turmoil in parts of Eastern Ukraine. Make no mistake, the cause of that violence and turmoil in Eastern Ukraine is by the so-called separatists, and the cause is very clear: Vladimir Putin and Russia hold the key to that violence. They hold the key and are as responsible for that violence as they are responsible for the illegal invasion of Crimea. In fact, I would say Vladimir Putin has operational control of what is happening. He could ask those separatists to stop what they are doing. He could stop giving them arms. He could stop giving them the things he has been giving them, including the capability of shooting down Ukrainian planes, giving them the capability of tanks and arms. With everything the Ukrainian people are trying to deal with, what do they want? The Ukrainian people want to determine their own future. They want Vladimir Putin and Russia to butt out. They want Russia to respect their sovereign territory, and unfortunately none of this is happening. I recently had the honor of leading a delegation to Ukraine to oversee the Presidential election last month. I had the chance to sit down and meet with the now-elected President Boris Plushenko in Ukraine. I also had the chance to meet many people in Ukraine and see their elections firsthand. One of the events that was very inspiring to me was the first polling place I went to in Kiev. There was an older gentleman, probably in his seventies, who cast the first ballot of the day. As he cast his ballot, he said: ``For democracy.'' That was a very moving moment because that is what we saw throughout the polling places we observed in Ukraine. They had a very high turnout. The Ukrainian people came out to vote in their elections so they could choose their President, not a President chosen by Vladimir Putin. They came out to vote for a President chosen by the Ukrainian people, and they did it despite what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They did it despite the threats Russia made against their sovereignty and their country. I think they did it in spite of Russia and to send a message, as a people, to say: We are going to determine our future. Vladimir Putin, you are not going to determine our future. I found it all inspiring. Why does Ukraine and what happens there matter to the United States of America? First of all, if Russia believes they can go in and invade the sovereign territory of another country without consequences, what does that mean for the rest of Europe and the security of Europe? Unfortunately, we have seen history such as this before, where countries are invaded and other countries act in an apathetic fashion; there are no consequences as a result of that invasion. The President gave a moving speech in Warsaw, Poland, on June 4 of this year, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Freedom Day there. In that speech the President said: Ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself and by itself. We will not accept Russia's occupation of Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty. It means increased support to help our friends such as Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia, all of which are watching what is happening in Ukraine and wondering: Will we be next if there are no consequences for the invasion of Ukraine? To help them provide for their own defense, our free nations will stand united so further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia. In fact, as I went to Ukraine to oversee the elections, the President had said--with those impending Presidential elections in Ukraine--along with Chancellor Merkel of Germany, that if the Ukrainian elections were interfered with, there would be more costs to Russia. Well, guess what. When I was there overseeing the elections in places such as Kiev, where we had a record turnout, the Russians continued to foment violence in the eastern province. In Donetsk and Luhansk, the people there did not have the free right to vote and exercise their decisionmaking for the future of their country. Where were the costs for that? There were none imposed. In fact, the economic sanctions imposed by this administration have not had an impact on Russia. In fact, their stock market is back to where it was before the sanctions, and at this point they feel they have gotten away with it because the economic sanctions we imposed prior to those elections were imposed on individuals and some minimal sanctions on sectoral, but very limited, and we have done nothing to actually support the Ukrainians in helping them to defend themselves. What has happened since the President talked about the costs they would endure if they interfered with the election? Nothing happened even though the Russians continue to foment violence in the east. Flash forward to the Warsaw speech in Poland, where the President said if there is further aggression by the Russians, there will be costs if they interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine. Guess what happened since then. Since that time, the developments have been absolutely shocking, and I think the Russians are trying to take advantage of what is happening in Iraq and other things happening around the world. They are thinking we will lose sight of their illegal invasion of Ukraine and what they are doing in Eastern Ukraine. On June 12, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine reportedly acquired T-64 tanks and BM-21 rocket launchers from Russia. These are the types of vehicles--rocket launchers--Russia is supplying to their agents, essentially, in Eastern Ukraine. There have been tanks sighted. This is no grassroots movement. Tanks and rockets have all been provided by Russia to kill Ukrainian people who are trying to defend their sovereignty. This has all happened since the elections, adding on to the violence that was committed in Eastern Ukraine during the elections. The President said there will be costs. There have been no costs for tanks and missile launchers in Eastern Ukraine. In fact, on June 14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport killing all 49 people on board in the deadliest unrest in months in Eastern Ukraine. This is the type of transport the Russians--the agents they backed--shot down. In order to shoot down a plane such as this, they have to have the technology to do it, and guess who is giving them that technology. Russia. Yet there have been no costs to that because at this point the President has just talked. He has not imposed tougher sanctions on the economy of Russia nor has he provided the Ukrainian military with support. This is what it looked like when they shot down those 49 people who were killed. The Russian agents and the separatists they are giving the arms to did this--shot down that plane, and this is the actual picture of that plane. At this point what is the State Department's response? What has our administration said? We are highly concerned about the new Russian efforts to support the separatists. We are very concerned. If they don't deescalate, there will be additional costs. How many times will our President and the State Department say there will be additional costs if the Russians do anything further? How many times will the Russians again shoot down Ukrainian planes by giving these arms to their agents and their separatists? How many more Russian tanks have to cross the Ukrainian border before we will impose such costs? Words don't mean anything to someone such as Vladimir Putin, and he knows we keep talking and not acting, so he can keep shooting down their planes. He can make sure the tanks roll over the border--the Russian tanks. This is not a grassroots movement. They have tanks and rocket launchers to shoot down aircraft. This is a subversion where the Russians are also trying to repeat the playbook of what happened in Crimea to further take over the rest of Ukraine, and it is time for us to back up our words with actions. What kind of actions are we talking about? We are talking about legislation we have offered in the Congress. I have worked with Senator Corker and others on legislation that will impose tougher economic sanctions on Russia and will make a difference to them and their economy. We have financial sector sanctions, energy sector sanctions, military sector sanctions--sanctions that will send the message that, yes, this will hurt your economy if you don't respect the sovereignty of another country or if you continue to escalate the violence by providing not only tanks but also rocket launchers and shooting down planes of the Ukrainian people. When I had the chance to meet with the new President of Ukraine, he had a request of us. First of all, he wants to make sure we are tougher than we have been on Russia in terms of economic sanctions so Russia doesn't continue to invade their territory and, not only that, so they don't go into other countries in the region. We need to use the economic tools at our disposal so we are forced to use military tools down the line. We have economic tools this administration is not using to impose costs on Russia and to back up the words of our President rather than continuing to look the other way when tanks roll in and airplanes are shot down. What else can we do? The President asked me about supporting their military. No one wants to send a U.S. troop to Ukraine. No one wants to send our people to fight their battle, but this is what he asked of us: The former Russian-backed President gutted our military. Can you help get us some basic things for our military--body armor, communication equipment, night vision goggles, in addition, antitank and anti- aircraft capability. What would that do for them? They could defend themselves from the tanks. They could help push back against their planes from being shot down. So what they want is the ability and the help to defend themselves. Why should we give it to them? We should give it to them because not only is it the right thing to do so they can help defend themselves and we can push back against the Russian invasion in their country, but it is the right thing to do because we were a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. In 1994, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest memorandum that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia signed. Russia has violated this agreement because the agreement required all parties to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and the agreement required us to respect not only their sovereignty, but they expected some security assurance because they were giving up their nuclear weapons by signing this agreement. We haven't even given them antitank, anti-aircraft equipment so they can defend themselves after they gave up nuclear weapons. What other country in the world is ever going to give up their nuclear weapons when we are not even going to impose tough economic sanctions on a country that has been invaded. We have not even given them basic military equipment when they were invaded. I would argue, in looking at this playbook, no rational country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again in such an agreement if we don't actually follow through in what our President said, which is: There will be costs if the Russians continue to invade the territory of Ukraine.