Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor the Puritan Backroom in Manchester, a beloved New Hampshire restaurant that celebrates its 40th anniversary this month. The Backroom has earned its place as one of the Granite State's most popular family restaurants, serving up delicious dishes for four decades. Today, the Backroom is part of a tradition of outstanding hospitality that dates back for nearly a century in New Hampshire's Queen City. In 1917, Arthur Pappas and Louis Canotas, who immigrated to the United States from Greece, opened an ice cream and candy shop on Hanover Street. They started a restaurant the following year, the first of several in Manchester and beyond. In 1938, Pappas and Canotas opened an ice cream stand on Daniel Webster Highway, later adding a candy shop and a restaurant. In February 1974, the Puritan Backroom served its first meal, and it is now a fourth generation family business. There is something for everyone on the menu at the Backroom--from fresh seafood, to prime rib, to their saute specials. The restaurant is perhaps most famous for its fried chicken tenders, which come with duck sauce, and can be ordered in a few different ways--regular, coconut, buffalo or spicy. Or, you could get them broiled in the Backroom's special sauce. Or, you could have chicken tenders parmigiana or chicken tenders cacciatore. For dessert, you can not beat the Backroom's homemade ice cream. On hot summer nights, it is not unusual to see customers lined up in front of the ice cream stand, eager to choose from among dozens of flavors. You will find the standard offerings--vanilla and chocolate--alongside Backroom favorites, including: Baklava, Moose Tracks, and Mudslide. Speaking of mudslides, they're also on the drink menu, and the Backroom was once recognized for being the top buyer in the Nation of Baileys Irish Cream. The Puritan Backroom is more than just a restaurant. It is part of the heart and soul of Manchester, NH. It is a place for friends to meet and enjoy a meal. And it is a place for families to celebrate special occasions. I know that my family always looks forward to heading to the Backroom, where we know we will see familiar and friendly faces. The family ownership, management and staff of the Backroom have made this special restaurant a true New Hampshire treasure. The Backroom sets the standard for excellence in hospitality in the Granite State, and I am so proud to join citizens across our State in congratulating the Puritan Backroom on its 40th anniversary.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I have pending to the bill pending on the floor to fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees. Let me remind everyone of how we got to this point. It was right before the holidays and there was a budget agreement that was reached between the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Let me remind everyone in this Chamber that I serve on the Senate Budget Committee. No one on the Senate Budget Committee--at least myself, I wasn't included, I guess I missed it--brought to our attention the budget agreement before it was brought as a fait accompli to the floor, and that is one of the problems that brought us to where we are today. Only in Washington could you serve on the actual Budget Committee, they come up with a budget agreement and actually never show it to you--even though you are on the Budget Committee. Had they shown it to me in advance, I can tell you what I would have told them, that this idea to single out our military retirees is totally unfair. It is the wrong priority for America to single out those who have taken the bullets for us when, if we look at the changes that were made in the budget agreement to the contributions for Federal employees, they were prospective. Only new hires had to pay additional contributions. But for our men and women in uniform, those working-age retirees under 62--and originally our wounded warriors were included in that as well--took the cut. So when I did find out about it--and I see my colleague from South Carolina, who also serves on the Senate Budget Committee, is here--when we and others found out about it--also my colleague Senator Wicker from Mississippi--we pointed out from the beginning, before this body even voted on the budget agreement, that the cuts to military retirees were unfair; that of all the people we were going to single out, why would we single out the people who have taken the bullets for us? What kind of message does that send to those who have served us and sacrificed so much for our country? So I remember it. We came down here before Christmas, before the holidays. Senator Graham, my colleague from South Carolina, came down here, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, and we said to our colleagues then: Let's fix this. Let's fix this unfair cut now before we actually pass this budget into law, because we have time to do it. Do you know the response we got? We are in a rush. We have to get home to our families before the holidays, rather than fix what was wrong from the beginning. Right now I hear so many of our colleagues coming to the floor and saying: We have to fix this, even though they voted for this budget agreement.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes, I yield for a question.

Ms. AYOTTE. I would agree with that.

Ms. AYOTTE. Well, that is the irony of where we find ourselves. We have people who came to the floor, even though we warned them and said this is really unfair, why are we doing this to military retirees, we should fix this now and we can find other ways to cut spending--

Ms. AYOTTE. The answer is no. Of course we don't. We don't have to burden the next generation to fix what we should have fixed from the beginning, which was unfair from the beginning. That said, I have an offset----

Ms. AYOTTE. I have an offset that is pretty straightforward. We have two major refundable tax credits in our Tax Code, the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit, both of which, when you claim them, you actually get money back under the Tax Code. My amendment is pretty straightforward. When you file for the earned income tax credit, you actually have to put a Social Security number when you file for it as the tax filer. Also, if you have a dependent, you have to put a Social Security number. For the additional child tax credit, there was a Treasury IG report done under this administration in 2011 and it raised real concerns about the way this tax refund was being administered, because when you filed for it, you didn't have to put a Social Security number. Also, for any child for whom you were seeking a refund, you didn't have to put a Social Security number. My fix is very straightforward: All I am asking is, if you want to seek that tax refund for your child, you list a Social Security number for the child. Why is that important? It is important because the Treasury IG found with this tax refund billions and billions of dollars going out the door. In fact, with the amendment I just mentioned, we can save $20 billion over the next 10 years. There were investigations done of this tax refund, and guess what they found. Massive examples of fraud, which I will go through in detail, of people claiming kids who may not even live in this country; of people claiming kids who might live in Mexico, because there are absolutely no parameters on the way this is being interpreted right now. So here is the question: Should we fix fraud in our Tax Code and really address this issue, still allowing American children and children who the President has said are eligible--certain DREAMer children--to get this tax refund--real children in this country--or should we let this fraud continue and also add to our debt and not address the underlying problems facing our Nation? I don't understand why we can't pass something commonsense like this.

Ms. AYOTTE. Exactly.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. This is the earned income we are talking about.

Ms. AYOTTE. I don't know the amount.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes.

Ms. AYOTTE. The American taxpayer would save $20 billion over the next 10 years. This is about protecting the American taxpayer. Let me talk about some of the fraud that was found. In Indiana, they found 4 workers were claiming 20 children living inside 1 residence. The IRS sent these illegal immigrants tax refunds of a total of $29,000-plus. They also found many people were claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico. These are our taxpayer dollars going out the door in this way. An Indiana tax preparer, who acted as a whistleblower, said: We have seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms. The more you put on there, the more you get back, even though they are not verifying that any of these children live here or exist. That is our tax money going out the door. The whistleblower had thousands of examples. Another example from a whistleblower: We have over $10,000 in refunds for nine nieces and nephews, he said. It is so easy. I can bring out stacks and stacks. It is so easy, it is ridiculous. In North Carolina, investigators tied at least 17 tax returns totaling more than $62,000 in returns to a Charlotte, NC, apartment that 1 woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered 153 returns valued at over $700,000 in refunds. Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth over $1 million in returns. This is money taken into our treasury and turned back in. All I am saying with this amendment is if you can put a Social Security number for the child you are claiming the credit for, you can get this credit. That is all this is, making this consistent with the earned income tax credit. And in fact, the filer can be an undocumented worker in this country and have a child who legitimately has a Social Security number and get the credit for it. So I have modified my amendment to address that issue. What I am saying is this: Let us end fraud and let us take that money that is being taken from the American taxpayer--$20 billion--and take $6 billion of it to be used to restore these military cuts. This will make sure we do not burden the next generation and we fix a wrong that should be righted. Let me talk about some other examples of what we have seen. In Tennessee, a search warrant was prepared by the IRS for a tax company that was encouraging undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as dependents. Why can this tax preparer even encourage that? Because right now, when the refund for the additional child tax credit is filed for, you don't have to put anything about the child to prove the child even exists. So simply requiring a Social Security number for the child you are getting money back for would end that fraud. The IRS says the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years, and although his--listen to this--although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to receive back $17 million in refunds. Imagine that: $3.3 million in taxes his clients as a whole claim they have paid, and they received $17 million in refunds back. Pretty good deal, isn't it. Well, it is a bad deal for the American taxpayer. This amendment makes so much common sense I just hope I can get a vote on it on the floor of the Senate. In the past, when I have tried to bring this amendment forward, I have been denied a vote on many occasions. I hope the people of this country understand what the vote on the floor is. The vote on the floor is straightforward. This amendment fixes the unfair cuts to our military retirees and ensures we aren't breaking the budget agreement that was just passed or burdening the next generation with debt. In fact, my amendment will further reduce the debt because it saves more money than just paying for this fix. We can also fix this tax fraud and do the right thing by the American taxpayer. What worries me most is that because this is Washington, and this makes so much sense, I fear I won't get a vote and that my colleagues will use excuses to say: We shouldn't vote for this because--as I heard my colleague from Illinois on the floor this morning saying--we are going to harm children. Well, children will still be able to get this refund. Put a Social Security number down and American children will get this refund. Also children the President has already deemed eligible--so-called DREAMers. In fact, my colleague from Illinois who came to the floor this morning admitted already \1/2\ million of them have filed for a Social Security number, and they too could receive this tax refund. If we don't pass this amendment, there are two groups that lose: the veterans, but also, most importantly, all of us--the American taxpayer. Before I conclude, I wanted to mention the groups endorsing my amendment: the American Legion, American Veterans--AMVETs--Concerned Veterans for America, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, and the U.S. Coast Guard Enlisted Association. I hope my colleagues will vote for this commonsense amendment, so we can fix this unfair cut to our military retirees and pay for it and make sure we aren't also adding to our debt and burdening future generations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the attack on our consulate on September 11, 2012. I am here to talk about the fact that four brave Americans were murdered that day by an act of terrorism. One of those murdered was our Ambassador to Libya when those four Americans were killed at Benghazi at our consulate. I really want to talk about what I believe is a pattern of misinformation, misimpressions, and, frankly, misleading the American people about what happened there and, during an election season, what was represented about the attack on our consulate on September 11. Let me walk through some of the situation and the tangled web that was woven here. First of all, right after this attack occurred--we know that on September 16 Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on behalf of the administration on every major Sunday television show, and during that time people rightly wanted to know what happened. This was a big deal. An ambassador had been murdered, along with three other Americans in Libya, where we had gone in to remove, working with our NATO partners, Qadhafi and really had established alliances with Libya. So here we have a murdered Ambassador on September 11, and that day Ambassador Rice, during the context of a Presidential election, went on every Sunday television show, and when she was asked about what happened on that day, she blamed it on the spontaneous reaction to a hateful video. Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did some very good bipartisan work looking at what happened with regard to the attack at the consulate. That report contains something very telling. That report found that ``contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate there were no protests at the start of the attacks.'' In fact, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA received an email sent from the CIA's Chief of Station in Tripoli to him on September 15--4 days after the attacks occurred--and in that email the Deputy Director of the CIA, Mike Morell, was told the attacks were ``not an escalation of protests.'' Not an escalation of protests. Why is that important? It is important for many reasons because what ends up happening during this period is that Ambassador Rice is going on the Sunday shows to talk about this. She is designated to do this on behalf of the administration. We have always wondered why. Why did she go on, as opposed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or perhaps then-Secretary Panetta, the Secretary of Defense? But she is sent that day onto the Sunday shows, and on those shows she said this was a direct result of a heinous video--protests that came as a result of this video. Yet the day before, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA had already gotten an email from the people on the ground--eyewitness statements. There were survivors, people who survived this attack and who were interviewed to find out what happened. As you would in any situation where you have had a terrorist attack or a murder case, you are going to talk to the eyewitnesses on the ground. So there were eyewitnesses, and they were spoken to. As a result of those eyewitness interviews, the day before she goes on those Sunday shows, the Deputy Director of the CIA is told that there was not an escalation of protests, that what has been reported is not the case. Yet she went on the show and said that anyway. What is even more troubling is that this information is communicated to the Deputy Director of the CIA, and somehow there are talking points prepared that don't reflect this information. Moreover, somehow this information that was given to the Deputy Director of the CIA was not given to the President--or, I don't know, maybe they didn't like the story they received because during that period of time, if we look at this, on September 11 the President gave many media interviews during this period. It was during a Presidential election. On September 18, which is 7 days after the attacks on the consulate, 2 days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows, the President is on the Dave Letterman show. We have all watched the comedy show, the Dave Letterman show, and Dave Letterman asks the President about the attacks in Benghazi. On that show he talks about the video, this heinous video being a cause of what happened and the attack at the consulate. Yet, on September 15, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA already had some information that said this is not an escalation of protests. There were interviews done of the survivors on the ground. Yet on the Dave Letterman show a week later--in fact, 3 days after this information is received by the Deputy Director of the CIA--we have the President talking about the video. But it gets worse. Nine days later--9 days after the attack, so on September 20--the President gives another interview at the Univision Town Hall. This is 5 days after the Deputy Director of the CIA is given this information, apparently coming from the survivors. And what does the President say? What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests. That is what he says when he is asked about the attacks on our consulate. So here we are 9 days after the attack, 5 days after this information is given to Mike Morell, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA, and yet we have another interview on ``The View,'' another popular show, 13 days--almost 2 weeks after the attack on the consulate, and again the President of United States talks about this being about the video and a reaction to the video. So here we have the work that was done on this--clear misinformation about what happened that day and a very troubling pattern in the context of an election, where on those Sunday shows Ambassador Rice made sure to tell everyone Al Qaeda has been decimated because that was the narrative during this time period, that Al Qaeda has been decimated. So if this was a terrorist attack, that would be problematic to that narrative. In fact, we had testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee from then-Defense Secretary Panetta. When he testified before the Armed Services Committee, he said clearly: There was no question in my mind it was a terrorist attack. In fact, he said: When I appeared before the committee 3 days afterwards, I said it was a terrorist attack. Secretary Panetta made clear he knew from the beginning this was a terrorist attack. Yet the President, on September 12, even though the day of it he said, ``We won't tolerate any act of terror''--he is asked directly by the interviewer, Mr. Kroft from ``60 Minutes,'' ``Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe this was a terrorism attack?'' The President said, ``Well, it's too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.'' The President refused then to call it what it was, what his own Secretary of Defense knew--that it was a terrorist attack--because, of course, we know the narrative at the time was that Al Qaeda had been decimated, and if it was a terrorist attack, it didn't quite fit with that narrative. In fact, recently the President gave an interview on FOX News with Bill O'Reilly--on February 2--and this is what he said when he was asked about the attack on the consulate: We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said in fact there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn't be a very good coverup. I guess the President, when he told Mr. O'Reilly that, forgot about the interview he had given on ``The View,'' which was almost 2 weeks after this event--13 days after it. Almost 2 weeks later he was asked by Ms. Behar: I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say? Well, no act of terrorism then. He doesn't acknowledge it. He said: We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that [with] the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. This is in the context, of course, where his Secretary of Defense said he knew right away it was an act of terrorism. In fact, he came to the Armed Services Committee 3 days after and said it was an act of terrorism. Yet, again, within a week he isn't saying it was an act of terrorism when he is directly asked if it was an act of terrorism. In this recent interview with Mr. O'Reilly the President talked about the security at the consulate. In fact, there was a strong report recently done by the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis. In fact, one of the issues they raised deep concerns about is that the State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based upon a deteriorating security situation on the ground and that the threat reporting on the prior attacks against westerners in Benghazi--and there were many cables leading up to this too that had been made public--warranted there was sufficient warning that security should have been increased at the consulate. The President acknowledged that in his recent interview with Mr. O'Reilly, where he said: In the aftermath what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions that needed to be taken were taken. That is certainly confirmed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. So if that is the case, why is it that Ambassador Susan Rice was on the Sunday shows on September 16--she is sent on the shows to talk about what happened that day, and she responds in this fashion to this question directly and specifically asked by Chris Wallace in that interview: He says: Terror cells in Benghazi had carried out five attacks since April, including . . . a bombing at the same consulate in June. Should U.S. security have been tighter at that consulate given the history of terror activity in Benghazi? What is her response? Well, we obviously did have a strong security presence. She was on several shows--ABC with Jake Tapper; she was on ``Face the Nation'' with Bob Schieffer. During the course of those interviews, she was asked about the security at the consulate, and she described the security at the consulate that day as significant and substantial. What was the basis for that? Did anyone give her information that ``security was significant, substantial and strong'' that day? Because there was absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, everything in this investigation has shown that security was absolutely lax at that consulate, unacceptably so given the prior history of intelligence at the consulate, given the prior attacks that had been made on the British and on the Red Cross, and unfortunately this really was a death trap. So in the context of an election, why is she--and the President as well--not only pushing the video story but also saying that the consulate security was strong, it was substantial, it was significant, when there is no evidence to support that? It all goes to the contrary. There has been a lot of discussion about the video. Ambassador Rice goes on the Sunday shows and she talks about the video. She talks about the causal effect of the video in terms of the attacks on the consulate. What she essentially says is this: This was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video which was widely disseminated and which the U.S. Government had nothing to do with and which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. And we have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. This ``direct result of a heinous and offensive video,'' which she said on all those Sunday shows and which the President then also talked about in the interviews: 1 week later on David Letterman; the interview, 9 days after the attack, on Univision; and the interview almost 2 weeks later on ``The View''--why are they still talking about the video? From the beginning, I have thought the talking points were fascinating. These talking points were created for dissemination. Ambassador Susan Rice was given these talking points, she said she relied upon them, and there are serious deficiencies with these talking points. Even so, I challenge people to find any reference to a video in these talking points. I have looked and looked, and I couldn't see the word ``video'' in these talking points anywhere. Yet we have Ambassador Susan Rice, on behalf of the administration, on September 16 on every Sunday show, talking about the video. We have the President of the United States on David Letterman 1 week later, then 9 days later, after the attack, on Univision, and almost 2 weeks later, 13 days later on ``The View'' talking about a video. Yet there isn't a reference to a video in these talking points. I have never understood. Where did the video story come from? Do you think we will ever get the answer? I think we deserve an answer to that, especially now. Because of the recent Senate intel report, we know that the Deputy Director of the CIA, the day before Ambassador Rice first appeared on those Sunday shows to tell this story, received this email which reported that the attacks were ``not/not an escalation of protests.'' So if it is not an escalation of protests--let's look at these talking points again. These talking points do not refer to a video. We are not sure how that story got told. Why is it that the talking points that went out say: Available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex and that they were participating in violent demonstrations. Why wasn't what they learned the day before taken into account in terms of what was represented to the American people? I think a bigger question is, How is it that the Deputy Director of the CIA can receive relevant and important information and that information never gets to the President of the United States as late as 9 days later? On September 24, on ``The View,'' he is still talking about this video. Yet it turns out the video never had anything to do with this. It really raises so many questions in terms of the tangled web of this whole situation. I have yet to talk about what was an incredible change in these talking points, which was the removal of the reference to Al Qaeda. Before they went through various modifications, the original set of talking points talked about Al Qaeda or the potential of Al Qaeda- affiliated groups being involved in these attacks. Of course, that now has been confirmed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report recently revealed. But at the time, the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from these talking points. It was removed from these talking points, and Ambassador Rice was free to go on the Sunday shows on September 16, and she said Al Qaeda had been decimated. Imagine if the talking points kept the reference to Al Qaeda. Do you think she would have gone on every Sunday show and said Al Qaeda had been decimated? I would hope not because it was not true that Al Qaeda had been decimated, as evidenced by the attack on our consulate. So we still don't know who removed the reference and what happened with these talking points. But what really troubles me is the Deputy Director of the CIA, through the Senate Intelligence Committee report, received this email on September 15 which said the attacks were not an escalation of protests. He worked on these talking points. He was part of the group who actually had feedback on the talking points that went out the door. Yet somehow this wasn't included. The Al Qaeda reference was removed, and apparently no one, even after receiving the actual eyewitness interviews of what happened on the scene, ever thought to go to the administration--the President of the United States--and correct him: By the way, we are not sure this video really pans out, that it is a demonstration and that this is a protest in response to a video. Somehow that doesn't get up the chain of command? We have big problems if this kind of information is not getting up the chain of command. Why those representations were made when there was intel that contradicted it has never been answered. Finally, and most of all, the President said he was going to bring the individuals who committed these attacks to justice. Yet no one has been brought to justice. The families who lost loved ones deserve to have these terrorists brought to justice. And what we have seen in some of the reports--the intelligence committee itself essentially identifies that more than 1 year after the Benghazi attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks have still not been brought to justice. The intelligence community has identified several individuals responsible for the attacks. Some of these individuals have been identified with a strong level of confidence. So why hasn't anyone been brought to justice? Why haven't we pursued this to pick up the people who committed these terrorist attacks and to hold them accountable? The victims deserve justice, and they have not seen justice. I hope we will get those who murdered our Ambassador and three other brave Americans on September 11, 2012, and bring them to justice. It is totally unacceptable that has not yet happened. We have seen press reports of people like Abu Khattala--reported to have established Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, and identified as a prior commander of this group--identified by witnesses as being there that night during the attacks on our consulate, and yet we haven't picked him up or anyone else. In fact, he is sitting at cafes, and press in the United States are able to find him, interview him, talk to him, and yet we haven't brought him or anyone else in. There have been news reports that there may be a secret warrant for him, but he hasn't been brought in. Where is the attention to this? I have talked about this tangled web which has been woven, which is really troubling in terms of the misimpressions and misleading nature of how this has been represented to the American people. But I hope we will all focus on bringing the people who committed these terrorist attacks to justice because the victims of these terrorist attacks deserve justice. The terrorists who committed these acts against our consulate need to know that we are coming after them and that we are going to hold them accountable. If you commit a terrorist attack against our country, you should not be in a position to be out drinking coffee in a cafe. You need to be held accountable. We need to send a message to other terrorists: Don't mess with the United States of America, because right now they are getting the opposite message with no one being held accountable for the terrorist attacks on our consulate on September 11, 2012. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to thank my colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona, who have been relentless in finding the truth about what happened in Benghazi where our ambassador and three brave Americans were murdered. There are so many questions, but I would start with the accountability question the Senator from South Carolina raised. No one has been held accountable. Who has been held accountable for the failures? If we look at this intel report, it is very clear the intelligence community, according to this report, provided ample strategic warning that our people in Benghazi were at risk. There were failures, and no one has been held accountable. Why? As I look at these talking points, the question was raised: Why was the reference to Al Qaeda removed from the talking points? Who did that in the context of a Presidential campaign? But also, take a look at these talking points. There is no reference in these talking points to a video. Look at the actual language of the talking points. Why is it that the spokesman for the President, on September 13, is out there saying that this is a reaction to this movie? Why is it that Susan Rice, the Ambassador, is on television on multiple shows blaming the video? Not only was it absolutely wrong when she said Al Qaeda was decimated--and it was misleading, particularly the fact that Al Qaeda had been removed from the talking points, but there is no reference in the talking points to a video. So who in the administration made up the video story? That is important for the American people to know because it wasn't just Ambassador Susan Rice who relied on the video story. It was our President of the United States who talked about the video and talked about it, frankly, after the Ambassador went on all of the Sunday shows on September 16. In fact, the President said as late as September 18 when asked--basically, he talked about the video and said: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character--here is what happened--who had made an extremely offensive comment. So we have the President of the United States, as late as September 18, and then again on September 20--we have the President saying on Univision Network, responding to the possible involvement of Al Qaeda: Is Al Qaeda involved? Here is what we do know: That the natural protest that arose because of the outrage from the video were used by the extremists to see if they could harm U.S. interests. Where did the video come from? Even what the intelligence community came up with, which was deficient and which was clearly subject to political influence because it removed the reference to Al Qaeda, has no reference to a video. So I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Here is the most important question: Why has no one been brought to justice? The President, I believe it was on September 12, said: We will find out who did this, and we will bring them to justice. For those families, those victims, no one has been brought to justice. In fact, we have people such as Abu Khattala, who was a former commander of Ansar al-Shariah, who is believed to have been there that night sitting in cafes in Libya giving press interviews, and yet there is much evidence to suggest that he is likely to be involved in this, and many other terrorists, but no one has been brought to justice. So why is that? Why doesn't anyone have the curiosity not only to answer the questions of what happened that night but also to ensure that justice is done?

Ms. AYOTTE. May I also add to that the President--we heard testimony that obviously the Secretary of Defense and others knew right away this was a terrorist attack. Let's not forget the 16-minute interview where he is asked about that on September 12, and he said it is too early to tell exactly how this came about. When he is asked directly if this is a terrorist attack, he would not identify it as a terrorist attack. I will also add this. What is so sad about this is no one has been held accountable. The warnings were there. Not only were the warnings there from the August 16 cable that came from the embassy, from Ambassador Stevens, saying that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, but what has been lost in all of this? When we talk about the New York Times trying to erase Al Qaeda from this, the day before, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda, released a video just before September 11, 2012, just before this terrorist attack--which, by the way, occurred on September 11, of course, which should have given us a pretty direct clue that this was a terrorist attack. But al- Zawahiri issued this video acknowledging and eulogizing the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike and calling for terrorist attacks. Al-Libi was a Libyan who served as the second in command in Al Qaeda under Zawahiri and was a top leader in the Libyan Islamic fighting group. Think about the evidence that was there before, not only what we didn't do to protect that consulate but the warnings that a terrorist attack was coming.

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me ask the Senator from South Carolina this. Does anyone care that the Secretary of State claimed she knew nothing about this August 16 cable? She didn't know about these cables leading up to what had happened in Benghazi, about the warning the Red Cross left and the French left, the hole blown through the consulate, and the August 16 cable. Yet Secretary Panetta was aware of it. Chairman Dempsey was aware of it when he came before the Armed Services Committee, but the Secretary of State wasn't aware of it.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Indiana. As he said, I, as did my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio, moved to allow this bill to go forward for debate. I thought it was important that we have a debate on obviously the situation of struggling workers in our country and on the issue of whether to extend unemployment benefits for them. I have been clear that on the pending bill if there is a way we can responsibly pay for this temporary 3-month extension to do that, I would be willing to support that--except the current bill does not have a way to pay for it--because I do not believe we should be adding to our debt, $17 trillion, and our yearly deficits in order to do this. But let me say that I have a very commonsense amendment. It is amendment No. 2603. Let me say what it is about. My amendment fixes what is an abuse in our Tax Code. The Treasury inspector general found that individuals who are not authorized to work in this country are collecting billions of dollars in tax refunds by filing for an additional child tax credit. The disturbing part about this trend is that there has been a steady increase each year of billions of dollars collected by illegal workers seeking these refunds. Investigations of these tax refunds have found some gross examples of fraud; examples of refunds for children, children who do not live in the United States of America; examples of fraud of many children who may not even exist. For example, in Indiana, they found four unauthorized workers claiming over 20 children who lived in a residence, fraudulently collecting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars. They found examples of tax refund claims for children who live in Mexico, not the United States of America. In North Carolina, 1,000 tax returns were linked to 8 addresses--1,000 tax returns were linked to 8 addresses, refunding $5 million in tax refunds. Another example in North Carolina: 398 returns associated with 2 apartments--398 returns, refunding $1.9 million to workers who are not authorized to work in our country. There was no evidence that the children being claimed either lived in the United States of America or even existed, for that matter. My amendment is very straightforward in terms of the fix. The filer of the tax return who is going to claim the additional child tax credit would have to list a Social Security number. This is the same requirement for those who claim the earned income tax credit for which you can receive a tax refund if you qualify. So it would be simply to add that same requirement. What the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated is that we could save $20 billion over the next 10 years simply by treating this child tax credit just like the earned filers income tax credit, that filers would have to use a Social Security number as well. What would this $20 billion go for? With this $20 billion, we can pay for the recent cuts in the budget that were unfair, where our men and women in uniform, military retirees, were singled out for cuts to their retirement, to their cost-of-living increases, including, by the way, our wounded warriors, those who have medically retired, who got a cut to their cost-of-living increase in this recent budget. This was the only group that was singled out in this way, those who have taken a bullet for our country, many who have done multiple tours for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some who have suffered horrible wounds, including those many of us have had the privilege of visiting at Walter Reed. So we can pay for and fix the military retirement cuts, as many Members on both sides of the aisle have said we have a commitment to do, because we think that was unfair. What else can we do with this? We can also pay for the bill pending on the floor, the 3 months extension of unemployment benefits for American workers who are struggling during this period, who are trying to get back to work. Finally, we can also take the remainder of the savings and apply it to the deficit. Again, fix tax abuse, where there has been fraud, rampant fraud found by investigations by requiring a Social Security number, such as the earned-income tax credit, and in return it is a three-for. We can pay for the 3-month unemployment extension on this floor, we can fix the unfair cut to military retirees and to our wounded warriors, and we can help reduce our deficit.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, let me just say I share in the comments of my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio. The three of us voted in good faith to debate this bill. I did so because I thought we should try to debate this issue; that both sides, if they had an idea about how to pay for this in a responsible way, we should bring it forward. When I hear the majority leader say I have been waiting since Monday, I filed an amendment on Tuesday. That amendment is straightforward. That amendment is one that would fix fraud in our Tax Code that came to light in 2011 in a Treasury IG report. What it would simply require is those who seek the additional child tax credit to file a Social Security number just like those who seek the earned- income tax credit in this country. Why is that? Because the investigations of this tax refund people receive found they were claiming it for people who, No. 1, were basically not authorized to work in this country but were claiming it and, second, for children who may not even exist. Investigations found that for children who do not even live in this country. So a commonsense amendment that--by the way, would it pay for it? It would pay for 3 months of unemployment insurance for American workers and for this issue we have before this Chamber. It would pay for it to fix the military retirement cuts to the COLAs--that also impacted our wounded warriors--that were done in the most recent budget that were unfair, that Members of both sides of the aisle have come together to say we should fix and agree it is unfair. What else would it do? It would reduce the deficit. What I hear from the majority leader is: I hear that idea. We have heard that before. You may have heard it before, but we have not been allowed a vote on it. Are they so afraid of having a vote on something such as this that the people of New Hampshire whom I represent can't get a vote on, trying to fix this abuse in our Tax Code, on trying to solve this issue pending on the floor and to pay for it so we do not add to our $17 trillion in debt? By the way, is it so unreasonable? I happened to sign a letter from a Member of the Democratic conference who, after the Treasury IG report was issued that I am citing, was equally as concerned as I am about this abuse in the Tax Code, in fact, described it as improper payments and said it seemed reasonable to presume that unauthorized workers were not eligible for this tax credit and called on the Commissioner of the IRS--this is a respected Member of the Democratic conference who expressed concerns about it. That Member said: ``We need to stop these unauthorized payments immediately.'' That was in 2011 and we cannot even get a vote on this? We can reasonably disagree, but the only way we can express those disagreements in this body, as my colleagues have said, is to be allowed to vote and to be able to represent our States and to get votes on amendments. With that, I will ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2603.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would say, first of all, I voted in good faith, one of six Republicans, to debate this bill to solve this problem. I cannot get a vote. If the Senator from California objects to this amendment, then why don't we vote on it? This is nothing about protecting children--unless the Senator is trying to protect children who may not exist or trying to protect children who do not live in the United States of America. This is about protecting abuse within the Tax Code which, again--I have a letter from a Member of her caucus who recognized this problem as well, based on a Treasury IG report done during this administration. This amendment is about protecting the American taxpayer, and the American taxpayer needs some protection in this body when it comes to tax fraud. Let me say that we need to be able to have votes on behalf of our States and on behalf of the American people, and if we disagree, let's vote them down. I don't see what the issue is unless they are worried it is going to pass because it just makes too much sense. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with further amendments is pending?

Ms. AYOTTE. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If a motion to table the Reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful, would there still be Reid amendments pending that would prevent me from offering my amendment or any of my colleagues from offering their amendments which would pay for this and improve it and try to address the problems we are supposed to be debating on this floor?

Ms. AYOTTE. I have an important amendment, and that amendment would fix the abuse within the Tax Code that has been identified by a Treasury IG report and subsequent investigations. My amendment would pay for this 3-month unemployment extension for American workers--those who are struggling to find work. It is an amendment that would fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees and wounded warriors. I am concerned about the $17 trillion in debt and what it will do to the future of our children and this country, and this amendment would reduce the deficit as well. I would ask for a vote on my amendment, amendment No. 2603, but in order for the Senate to consider my important amendment and amendments that my colleagues have talked about--and I hope amendments on the other side that we should be voting on--I move to table the pending Reid motion to commit with instructions, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an amendment I will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment No. 2603. We all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a difficult economy, and I want to see people get back to work. Certainly a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment insurance--if it is paid for--will allow a transition for those who are out of work. What we need to do most in this Chamber is to give them an opportunity to get a good-paying job. The focus in this Chamber, most of all, needs to be on enacting progrowth policy that will encourage both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and create jobs. I have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a temporary extension of unemployment insurance. I voted to begin this debate because I believe both sides of the aisle can find a way to grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work in this difficult economy while making sure we don't add to the $17 trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy. I continue to believe that any temporary extension in a long-term unemployment benefit should be paid for in a responsible manner. So I have submitted an amendment, Ayotte amendment No. 2603. I think it is an amendment that makes a ton of sense. Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment pays for the 3-month extension of unemployment insurance. It fixes the unfair cut to the military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget I voted against. I felt this was unfair to those who have served in our military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits, unlike anyone else, and it included, by the way, those who were retired because they had a medical retirement. In other words, those who many of us--I know the Presiding Officer has visited Walter Reed, as have I; those who have lost arms, legs--they have received a medical retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well. So my amendment not only would pay for this temporary unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a transition to get them back to work, but it would also pay to fix and reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits--many who, by the way, have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of our country. It would also give approximately $7 billion toward reducing our deficit. The way I pay for this is to fix an egregious problem in our Tax Code. It is a problem that was identified by the Treasury IG. It is, frankly, egregious. This is a problem in our Tax Code that has allowed illegal immigrants to claim a refundable tax credit for children who should not be entitled to it--children that do not even live in the United States of America or may not even exist. Why? Because when someone claims this refundable tax credit, they do not have to include a Social Security number on their return. A Treasury IG report identified this problem. This amendment--a simple fix that would require a Social Security number for anyone who is claiming the additional child tax credit on their tax return--is estimated to save approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years. So paying for reversing the cost-of-living increase for those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are struggling to find work, and reducing our deficit by approximately $7 billion over 10 years--all three of those things are done by fixing an egregious problem in our Tax Code. The audit of the Treasury IG in 2011 reported that individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States of America received $4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. The audit found that the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives. The audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer ID number for tax purposes but are not eligible for a Social Security number because they are not authorized to work in the United States of America. Again, this saves approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years. Let me tell you how egregious this is. Here are some of the reports about this problem in our Tax Code. It is fraud. This is fraud we are going to fix here. This is good government. We should fix this now, regardless. This $20 billion is money that should not be going out the door over 10 years. Here are some examples from Indiana. In fact, I just saw walk into the Chamber one of my colleagues from Indiana, Senator Coats. In Indiana, a local television station found that an undocumented worker who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana by a reporter admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who do not even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children who live in one residence, and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling over $29,000. The local station has found many undocumented workers are claiming tax credits for children who live in Mexico. Many children who do not even live in this country are being used by those committing fraud on the IRS to claim this tax credit. In Indiana, a tax preparer who acted as a whistleblower to an Indiana news station said: ``We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents--most times nieces and nephews--on these tax forms. The more you put on there, the more you get back.'' The whistleblower had thousands of examples. Another example from the whistleblower: ``We've got an over $10,000 refund for nine nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to the words ``niece'' and ``nephew'' listed on the tax form nine separate times. ``We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return.'' ``There are seven nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to another set of documents. ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy, it's ridiculous.'' In North Carolina, investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax returns linked to eight addresses in that state last May, with refunds worth more than $5 million. Investigators tied at least 17 tax returns, totaling more than $62,000 in refunds, to a Charlotte, NC, apartment one woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered 153 returns, valued at over $700,000 in refunds. Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth $1.1 million in refunds. At another Charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398 returns to two apartments, totaling more than $1.9 million in additional child tax credits, with no guarantee that the children even existed or lived in the United States of America. Another North Carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. A search of that business and her home turned up more returns, dozens of uncashed U.S. Treasury checks, a FedEx box containing dozens of foreign birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp listing her as a notary. That fraud case by the IRS totaled over $5 million. In Tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the IRS claims that a Murfreesboro, TN, tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as dependents. The IRS says that the Tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years and although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17 million in refunds. The refunds left the United States on the hook for $14 million. So here is the question in this Chamber. The question is, Should we fix egregious fraud in our Tax Code, where we have people, who are not entitled to work in this country, claiming tax refunds for children, some of whom have not been determined to exist, some of whom do not even live in our country? Should we fix that in our Tax Code? Isn't that good government? And if we fix it, we can use the pay-for, the $20 billion that the Joint Tax Committee has estimated to save over the next 10 years, to do the following: to provide for a 3 month temporary extension of unemployment insurance to those Americans who are struggling for work right now; to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who are our wounded warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; and return $7 billion to the Treasury. So here is the choice. Only in Washington would this be the choice: We can fix the egregious problem with the Tax Code, where there is all kinds of fraud and save billions of dollars; we can fix it for those who have sacrificed the most--the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living increase--those who have served our country admirably, and our wounded warriors; and return money to reduce the deficit or what? We can be denied a vote. I hope I will get a vote on this amendment. It is pretty outrageous if I am not granted a vote on this amendment to prevent tax fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this country. If I cannot get a vote to take that $20 billion to help struggling workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the most and taken the bullets for this country and also to help fix our deficit--only in Washington would that be a tough choice for anyone. How do you vote against doing that? I really hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this commonsense amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding to the $17 trillion debt, that will allow us to say to our men and women who have sacrificed the most: We are not going to continue to target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living, when no one else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that--and particularly our wounded warriors--and to say to the American public: We are going to fix fraud in our Tax Code, and also take some money and apply it to the deficit. It makes so much sense that only in Washington would I even be asking the question on the Senate floor: Will I get a vote on this commonsense amendment that allows us to do important things for the Nation and fixes egregious fraud in our Tax Code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses that they should be put to. I end with the hope that I will get a vote on this commonsense amendment and that my colleagues will support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Carolina. I picked up an editorial this morning from the Washington Post that calls the cuts to the cost-of-living adjustments to military retirees minuscule and demeans this criticism. It calls the cuts teensy-weensy. I don't understand why anyone would want to support a measure that singles out--in other words, under this budget agreement, the group that got the cuts to their current benefits are those who have sacrificed the most for our country. To call this minuscule or teensy- weensy--I don't think it is so minuscule, as the Senator from South Carolina said, to an E-7 who makes about $25,000 a year in retirement and will lose close to $72,000 from the time he or she retires at 40 until they are 62. That is about 3 years of their retirement. That is not minuscule in a working family. This is not a minor situation. It is not minuscule to our veterans, those wounded warriors who have given the most, and who have, unfortunately, suffered so much.