Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I yield.

Ms. AYOTTE. It does. We have all visited Walter Reed and we have all met our wounded warriors who are heroes. They have sacrificed more than we could ever ask anyone to sacrifice for our Nation. Some of them don't have arms, legs. They receive a medical retirement because of their service and their disability as a result of the service they have rendered so gravely for our country, and they get cut under this too. I don't think the cut to them is teensy-weensy or minuscule. Only in Washington would this be minimized in terms of how people are viewed as minuscule or teensy-weensy in light of the service they have given to our country. I thought this description of it was wrong and offensive and demoralizing in terms of the message it sends to our men and women in uniform. I think the encouraging part of where we are right now is that so many in this body have come forward and said we need to fix this and recognize this does have an unfair impact on our military retirees and, of course, those who have received a medical retirement. Whether I disagreed with my colleagues voting for the agreement, regardless of where my colleagues stand on the agreement, I think it is time for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and do the right thing and fix this on behalf of our men and women in uniform, especially our wounded warriors. Obviously, this body realizes this is not minuscule and this is not teensy-weensy in terms of the impact on our heroes and those who have sacrificed so much for our country. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues over the last couple of days coming forward with different ideas about how we can fix this and do the right thing on behalf of our men and women in uniform. I have introduced a piece of legislation that would come up with billions of dollars for a pay-for to fix this. I know others have different ideas. But I know this: We can put politics aside. We can fix this for our men and women in uniform. After we go home for the holidays, I think when we come back in January, this should be a No. 1 priority in this body, which is to do the right thing for our military retirees, for those who are our wounded warriors. The number of people I have seen speak out on this issue in the last few days gives me encouragement that we will be able to do this and do it quickly on their behalf, to right this wrong. Some of them are 19 years in. Maybe they have done multiple tours in Afghanistan and are thinking of retiring. We need to let them know we understand their sacrifice, we should not have singled them out, we will get this right, and that we understand that of all the people who should not have been singled out in this agreement are those who take the bullets for us and whose families have had to go through multiple deployments. I think about the fact that when someone has done a 20-year military career and one has had multiple deployments, the spouse can't have the same kind of career as if they were able to live in one place. They sacrifice so much because they are traveling around the world and the retirement they receive obviously recognizes that. So as we leave for the holidays, I hope when we get back, we get this right, we take this up, we honor the service of our men and women in uniform and do what is right.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to discuss two amendments I had filed to the budget agreement that would have addressed an egregious part of this agreement, which is the cuts to military retiree benefits. In particular, I think the most egregious part of it is to those who have been disabled. We have all been to Walter Reed and seen and met our brave heroes, some who have lost limbs, serving our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet in this agreement we are cutting their cost-of-living increases for the retirement they earned on behalf of our country. So yesterday I came to the floor to talk about what I think is an appalling part of this budget agreement, but also to say, Why can't we amend the budget agreement and fix this now? I offered two possibilities of how we could do that with two amendments I filed on this budget agreement. I am sure others could find in the trillions of dollars CBO has said we are going to spend over the next 10 years--$47 trillion--we can find $6 billion rather than taking it from our military retirees. What happened yesterday on the floor was there was a motion to take down the tree so we could actually amend this budget agreement and fix provisions such as that, and it was voted down. So now we have no ability to amend this budget agreement, so I cannot bring the amendments I talked about yesterday to help our military retirees and ensure they do not get singled out in this agreement, which I think is appalling and wrong. But I also cannot bring an amendment that I also filed that addresses an issue that is very important to the State of New Hampshire. That deals with an objection I have to a particular provision in the budget agreement that would make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation requiring online retailers to become the tax collectors for the States and the rest of the Nation--this so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that the Senate passed earlier this year. Within this budget agreement there is what is called a reserve fund that allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to bypass certain procedural limitations that are normally allowed and procedural objections you have and all Members have to these types of legislation--budgetary objections--and these procedural objections are waived when these types of reserve funds are passed. This provision, which I fought on the Senate floor on the Senate's budget--it did eventually get passed--is included in this agreement, even though since this body passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, the House has refused to take it up. The House has wisely found that there are major objections to this piece of legislation, which would require businesses--many of these businesses around the country that we see thriving on the Internet--to become the tax collectors for the rest of the Nation. In fact, my State of New Hampshire does not have a sales tax. What it would require is that businesses in New Hampshire--online businesses that have written to me--it would place tremendous burdens on them. They would have to become the tax collectors for nearly 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, trampling on New Hampshire's choice not to have a sales tax, and also putting a tremendous burden on businesses to do the jobs of the States in becoming tax collectors for the rest of the Nation. This legislation is bad for the economy, and I think it is bad for businesses, and particularly businesses in my home State of New Hampshire. So I object to the provision, the reserve fund, that is in this budget. I have filed an amendment that would strike that provision. But, again, no amendments are going to be heard on this budget agreement because the majority leader has filled the tree and said there will be no amendments heard, no matter the merits of the amendment, no matter how important the amendments are, including amendments I talked about that impact and help address the real egregious provision that impacts our military retirees. This is just another example of an issue that is very important to the State of New Hampshire. Were I allowed to bring my amendment forward, I would have again expressed my opposition to this reserve fund that is within this budget, that is objectionable, that makes it easier to pass future legislation, a future version of the Marketplace Fairness Act, that will put a tremendous burden on businesses in New Hampshire. It is wrong to have online businesses become the tax collectors for the Nation. I believe we should be allowed to amend this budget agreement, to vote on these amendments, and particularly on issues that are important to our men and women in uniform, as I have described. But not only that, this issue on the remote collection of sales taxes by online businesses throughout the country is a very important issue to the State of New Hampshire--which does not have a sales tax--but not just to the State of New Hampshire, to online businesses across the country that do not and should not have to be the tax collectors for States throughout the Nation. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, would the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership on this important issue. What I want to ask the Senator is this. Some have come to this floor and said: Pass this budget agreement, and we will fix this later. Does the Senator think that is a good way to solve this problem?

Ms. AYOTTE. Of all the people who deserve our effort, doesn't the Senator think we could stay here as long as we need to before the holidays--a little bit of inconvenience for us--to fix this? Because one thing I see from this is we are saying to our military retirees: Do not worry. Trust the politicians in Washington to fix something they voted for. Here we are. We know the problem is here now. People yet have not had a final vote on this budget agreement. Yet they are still saying: Oh, we know the problem is there, but we are going to vote for it anyway. I do not understand this. If you are someone who is serving our country, what kind of message does that send?

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. I could not agree with the Senator from South Carolina more. I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say the fact that disabled veterans are included in this, those who have had a medical retirement--we have talked about them; we have been to Walter Reed; we have seen those who have sacrificed so much for our country and are getting a cut to their cost-of-living increase in their retirement under this agreement--that this was somehow a ``technical glitch'' or something. If it is a technical glitch that we know is there, why are we going home before it is fixed? I do not understand it and even putting one shred of doubt in their minds that we stand with them, and that we know this problem exists in this bill, and that it can be fixed.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me just say, we can do the right thing. We do not have to set our expectations so low that we cannot come together and find a pay-for that is acceptable to both sides of the aisle that says what we should say to our men and women in uniform; and that is: Thank you. Thank you. God bless you. The first responsibility of our Nation is to defend our Nation and to keep it safe. Of all the things that would keep us here--would keep us here till Christmas--I think this is one of the most important things we could do for the people who go in there first for us and ensure that we have the privilege of being on this floor, have the privilege of going home and spending the holidays with our families. So of all the things, to say that this is not possible, I think it is very possible, and we should have the will to do it for our men and women in uniform. We should have the will to do it for those who have been disabled because of their brave service in the line of duty for this country. I would hope we would rise to the very best of this body and fix this and not go home for the holidays with any uncertainty for our military retirees or our men and women in uniform of where we stand, and we stand with them. With that, 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. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue about which I am deeply concerned. While I certainly appreciate the work done by Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray on the recent budget agreement, in my view there is a provision in this agreement which makes it a deal breaker. That provision is, there is $6 billion taken from our current military retirees over the next 10 years from their cost-of-living increases to pay for this budget agreement. I do not believe we have to take from the backs of our men and women in uniform to pay for more spending. I believe there are other ways we can find $6 billion in the trillions and trillions we will spend over the next decade, rather than taking it from the men and women in uniform who have sacrificed the most for our country. What troubles me most about this particular provision of this budget agreement is our military retirees under the age of 62 were singled out. There are some changes to the contributions that Federal employees will have to make to their retirement, but those changes are only made prospectively to new hires. Our men and women in uniform were not grandfathered under this agreement. They are the only ones singled out under the agreement to have their benefits cut. What I find most appalling is the question we pressed and we pressed the Department of Defense for an answer to, and that is: What happens to our disabled veterans? Many of us have been to Walter Reed. We have seen the injuries our men and women in uniform have sustained fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan. Some did multiple tours in Afghanistan and also served our country in Iraq. When you have a disability that occurs in the line of duty, you are entitled to a disability retirement, and this agreement will also cut the cost-of-living increases for our disabled veterans, which I find appalling, particularly with some of the horrific injuries too many of our men and women in uniform have sustained in defending our country and taking bullets for us all. Under this agreement, an E-7--sergeant first class--who retires at age 40 could stand to lose $72,000 by the time he or she turns age 62. To put that in perspective, the average retirement for an E-7 is roughly $25,000. So in that period, this cut of 1 percent to their COLA could equate to $72,000. Think about the impact that has on our veterans and our men and women in uniform who have done so much for our country. Why are they being singled out in this agreement? The other issue I wish to raise is this notion about which some have said: We have to vote for this agreement or we are going to face another government shutdown. I think that is a false choice. We may be in a rush to get home to our families for the holidays, but the notion we can't find $6 billion somewhere else on a bipartisan basis for our men and women in uniform is a false one. We can keep this government open, we can address the budget issues, but we should not do so on the backs of our men and women in uniform singled out in this agreement. Right now, as this agreement stands, the so-called amendment tree has been filled. That means any amendments which either side would want to offer cannot be offered right now because the majority leader has filled every part of the amendment tree, not allowing individual Members to offer amendments. Were I allowed to offer amendments, I have filed two amendments which would address this issue for our military and have found other pay-fors to address the issue. Those are just two ideas which I came up with. I am sure if we committed in this body to working on this issue, we could quickly find $6 billion that would not be taken from the backs of our men and women in uniform and would not be taken from the backs of our disabled veterans, who have already suffered too much on behalf of our Nation. I do not believe this is too much to ask of us. We are blessed to be in this country and blessed to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy in this country because of our men and women in uniform and what they have done to defend our Nation. Make no mistake, a military retirement is not like any other retirement. When you retire from the military, you understand that you can be called back. You can be called back at any time. And who is most likely to be called back? Our younger veterans. In fact, since 2001, thousands of our veterans who thought they were going back into civilian life have been called back by our government to serve their Nation again. They didn't get to say yes or no. They agreed to do that even though they thought they would be retired. That is what distinguishes a military retirement from other retirements, or an average civilian retirement. They earned this for defending our country. I believe we should fulfill our responsibility to them, and that they should not be singled out. Of all the groups to be singled out, they should not be the group to be singled out, especially after everything they have done for our Nation. I ask that we take a few moments in this body and come up with $6 billion some other way instead of taking it from the backs of our men and women in uniform. Why don't we have an amendment process that would allow us to address this issue and allow us to fix this now? To those who are saying: We will fix this later, that is such a Washington answer. For those who are serving our country right now in Afghanistan, what kind of comfort is that to them that we will fix this down the line after we vote on this agreement? How about fixing this now? I ask my colleagues to fix this now on behalf of our military, the best in the world, those who have sacrificed the most for our country. If this body is to pass this agreement, I would call on our Commander in Chief to veto this agreement. Bring us to the White House. Make the House and the Senate sit together so we can resolve this issue. As the Commander in Chief of this country, don't accept the cuts to the military and have our military retirees singled out, particularly our disabled veterans, in this agreement. We can get this done. We can get this done before the holidays. Yes, we will suffer some personal inconvenience, but think about that. That is nothing compared to what our veterans have done for us and continue to do for us every single day in this great country. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate Chief of Police Nicholas Giaccone of the Hanover, NH Police Department for his 40 years of dedicated service to the law enforcement profession, the Town of Hanover, and the State of New Hampshire. Chief Giaccone began his law enforcement career in 1973 as a patrol officer with the Town of Hanover, home of Dartmouth College. Nicholas Giaccone was promoted to detective in 1977; detective sergeant in 1987; and assumed the role of acting chief of police, then chief of police in July of 1994. As a detective sergeant, Nicholas Giaccone helped lead the investigation into a double homicide of two graduate students, which culminated in the successful prosecution and conviction of Haile Selassie Girmay on March 2, 1993. He was chief of police when two Dartmouth professors, Half and Susanne Zantop, were killed inside their Etna home in 2001, garnering national headlines for days. Chief Giaccone's diligence in ensuring the department properly handled the vital physical evidence at the scene, led to the successful convictions of Robert Tulloch and James Parker. They were sentenced on April 4, 2002. During his long tenure as a police chief, Chief Giaccone has been a leader in promoting community oriented policing; in improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire; and in promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Giaccone has worked tirelessly with community leaders, New Hampshire's Legislature, and other public officials, to better the administration of justice and promote public safety. As Chief Nicholas Giaccone celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done, and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important issue I spoke about on the floor yesterday; that is, eliminating sexual assaults in our military, making sure victims are supported, that they get the support they need. Yesterday on the floor I talked about important reforms we are doing together on a bipartisan basis to make sure victims receive special victims' counsel, so each victim is now going to receive an attorney who represents him or her in the system, and stands up for their rights. We make retaliation a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice so that victims of sexual assault understand if they are retaliated against, there will be a crime for that. In fact, those who retaliate will be brought to justice. There are many other dozens of reforms that are in the Defense authorization, but today I want to talk about a very important issue. I see on the floor Senator McCaskill. I want to commend her for her leadership on this issue. She has been a tremendous leader. Senator McCaskill, Senator Fischer from Nebraska, and I have offered an amendment that will further strengthen historic reforms that we discussed yesterday on the Defense authorization, including allowing a victim to formally express their wish about how their case will be handled, in addition to their being, of course, provided special victims' counsel, to provide the prosecuting attorney the ability to disagree with a commander's decision, which I will talk about more, and to have a review of that decision by the civilian head of each force. Then we eliminate things such as the good soldier defense. Then those who feel like they have been discharged from the military or how their discharge has been described will now get an opportunity to have their case reviewed. So we are not only looking forward, but we are going to look backward to make sure that victims of crimes know they will be treated with dignity and respect. I have come to this issue as someone who was a prosecutor. Most of the cases I prosecuted were murder cases, but I also had the chance to serve as attorney general of our State, where I worked with not only murder victims but also victims of sexual and domestic violence. This is a set of crimes that is unacceptable in society, but particularly unacceptable in our military, where we expect the very best from our military. I looked at this issue very carefully, the issue that has been discussed so much on the floor today, that is, in handling sexual assault cases and other types of cases, should the military justice system be changed fundamentally to take the commander out of the decision on whether a charge will be brought after an independent investigation. I came down on the side of we need to hold commanders more accountable, not less accountable, because everything within our military, of course, is deployable. We have the finest men and women who serve our country in the world. We have to have a military justice system structured in a way that it can bring justice in Afghanistan as easily as it can bring justice in the United States of America, wherever our men and women are situated. If we take commanders out of the decisionmaking process, then fundamentally we are holding them less accountable for the results of how these cases are handled. So I would like to talk about the proposal Senators McCaskill, Fischer, and I have that I think will hold commanders much more accountable. Right now, as we look at cases of sexual assault in our military, we want victims to understand they can come forward. When they come forward, and we want them to come forward, they will get the support they need and deserve; that their perpetrators will be held accountable for the crimes they have committed. We want commanders to establish a climate within their unit to say no tolerance when it comes to sexual assault. If you do not handle a sexual assault case properly, you will be relieved of your command. That is what this is about. So in our proposal, rather than remove commanders from the decisionmaking--let me say how this works so people understand. Right now, a victim of a sexual assault or another serious crime comes forward. They do not have to come forward through their chain of command. They can come forward through a health care professional, they can come forward through a 911 call, they can come forward through their pastor to report a sexual assault. Then it is independently investigated. From there, that investigation is presented to a JAG lawyer in the chain of command who then makes a recommendation to the commander of whether a charge should be brought and whether they should be going to a military trial at that point. So to take out of that the decision of the commander is now to leave the victim in a situation where--let's put this victim in Afghanistan. They are in a situation where the case has been investigated. It comes back. The commander now does not take responsibility for whether a charge is brought. The commander is now put in a situation where: I am sorry, that decision is being made by another set of JAG lawyers who are outside of the chain of command, so go talk to the lawyers over here, not me. It puts the commander in a bystander responsibility rather than taking responsibility for these decisions. So what we have done is made commanders more accountable. When the JAG lawyer comes to the commander for a recommendation, saying this case should be brought on a sexual assault case, if the commander says: No, it should not, that will go all the way up to the civilian secretary of whatever force is involved, whether it is the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, each branch, and will be reviewed separately. That will hold commanders more accountable than turfing it over to a lawyer over here where the victim has to hear that: I am sorry, I cannot tell you what the decision is on your case because there is a lawyer over here making this decision. Even in a case where the commander and the JAG lawyer both agree that a charge should not be brought, under our proposal there will be another review of those cases up the chain of command to say someone else should look at it. There should be accountability. There should be accountability at every level of our military to ensure that victims of sexual assault will be supported and that these cases will be handled and the perpetrators will be brought to justice. There has been a lot of discussion on the floor today. All of us want more victims to come forward and feel that they can report their case, because not enough of them have come forward. Yet the evidence shows that if we take commanders out of it, we are not necessarily going to get any more reporting. In fact, we have cases that may not be brought to justice. The evidence shows that commanders are being more aggressive than the actual JAG lawyers in terms of cases that are being brought. If we look over the last 2 years, there are 26 Army victims where the JAG lawyer said: Don't bring the case. The commander overruled the JAG, went to trial, and the perpetrator was convicted. There was justice for this victim. Under this proposal those cases would not have gone forward because the JAG lawyer said: No, don't bring it. There were 16 cases in our Marine Corps over the last 2 years where that would have happened as well, where 16 victims wouldn't have received justice. There was one Navy victim, and nine Air Force victims would not have seen a conviction for their perpetrators--the rapists, who deserve to go to trial, to be convicted, and to be judged. Those cases would not have gone forward. When I hear Senator Gillibrand's proposal--and I respect her so much, and there is so much we agree on, and I respect the work that she has done and the work that we have done together on many of the provisions that I have talked about--the discussion that taking it out of the chain of command will cause more reports to come forward, then if less cases will go to conviction, if I am the victim, how does that make me feel more as if I want to come forward and report my case? Maybe my case won't be brought or there is a set of cases that would not ever be brought if a commander--who has responsibility within his or her unit for this--hadn't recommended this case go forward. The other argument we have heard a lot about is many of our allies have taken it out of the chain of command, including Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Germany, and Australia. There has been a misunderstanding, because as we researched this issue as to why our allies took it out of the chain of command, we discovered the truth is they took the decision out--of whether a commander would make the decision to go to a trial on a sexual assault case or other serious felony--to protect defendants, not victims. I can assure people--with all due respect to defendants, and I have defended cases as well because they certainly have rights under our laws and I respect that--this is about protecting victims. Our allies changed their system to protect defendants. What we are trying to do is to have a victim-friendly environment where people will come forward and where perpetrators will be held accountable. If we look at those countries such as Canada, Great Britain, Israel, and Australia, that have changed their system, they have not seen any greater reporting. In other words, it is one thing if we looked at it and said when they changed their systems the victims came forward. That is not the case. That is not what the evidence shows. Facts are stubborn things. As a former prosecutor, I want to make decisions on how to address this very real and important problem based on facts. The facts are that there are cases that wouldn't have been prosecuted if we took it out of the chain of command--perpetrators that should have been held accountable. Our allies did it, but they haven't seen any greater reporting, and they did it to protect defendants. What do we want to do? Let's hold our commanders more accountable. This is what some former peers of our military have said, such as COL Lisa Schenck, U.S. Army retired former Judge Advocate General, who spent 25 years in the military. We asked her about these two proposals. She said: If you take out the convening authority--meaning the decisionmaking process from the commander--you are essentially gutting the military justice process. If you take the court-martial process away from the convening authorities for sexual assaults or for major offenses, that allows them to say: Hey, the JAGs are dealing with it. They need to be held accountable, and they need to be part of a process. We don't want to create a situation where we say: I have turfed it to my lawyer over here, and the lawyers over here are going to make the decision. Commanders should be held accountable for those decisions. In fact, we had a woman who is currently in the Marine Corps come to the Republican Conference, a woman commander. She is very impressive to have reached the level she has in the Marine Corps. She works training our marines. I was very impressed with her experience. She has commanded at every level. She said: If you want to get this done for victims, don't make the commanders bystanders. This is what makes me very worried. If I thought that taking the commanders out of the decisionmaking process would help victims further, I would do it. As she describes: If you make a commander a bystander--which is what the proposal on the table of Senator Gillibrand is, who I very much respect, and I know her passion is very real for this and I share it. I don't want commanders to be bystanders. If they are bystanders, then how do we relieve them from command when they don't do their job on this because we have taken the decisionmaker standard from it. This is another issue that concerns me. We have spent a great deal of time, rightly so, trying to address the issue of sexual assault in the military. The Gillibrand amendment that is on the floor doesn't only take sexual assault out of the chain of command, it takes out murder, manslaughter, death or injury of an unborn child, stalking, rape--we talked about rape--larceny and wrongful appropriation, robbery, forgery; making, drawing, or uttering a check, draft or order without sufficient funds; maiming, arson, extortion, assault, burglary, housebreaking, perjury, and frauds against the United States. We need to understand that the reason we have the military justice system structured this way is because we deploy to places such as Afghanistan. Not only in sexual assault cases will the decision of the commander--whether or not to refer the charge for a trial--be changed under the Gillibrand proposal, but in all of these crimes in which we have not received any testimony about. We have not received evidence that the commanders are mishandling murder cases, manslaughter cases, arson cases, extortion, assault, burglaries, fraud. This is very much a fundamental change, not only in an area we all care passionately about getting right, to make sure that victims of sexual assault are supported, but all of these crimes will now be removed from the chain of command. How will that work in Afghanistan and Iraq? I am trying to figure this out. There have been over 900 cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I understand it, where some type of trial has had to be held because of offenses that were committed in Afghanistan, all different types. I am not only talking about sexual assault, I am talking about all different types of crime. How is that going to work? Are we going to say we will wait to see whether we should bring this to trial? The lawyers are located somewhere else. We don't know where; it could be in the Pentagon. So we will wait for the lawyers from the Pentagon, or wherever this separate set of lawyers are located, until we have justice in places such as Afghanistan. This is for all of these cases on all of these crimes about which we haven't even had any testimony before the Armed Services Committee to address an issue that we all care very much about. There were 900 cases from Iraq and Afghanistan. As we know, Iraq could have been as much of an issue in terms of having a deployable, military justice system to ensure that victims of all types of violent crimes, no matter where they are, will get justice and that perpetrators, no matter where they are, will be held accountable for their actions. This is what this is about. I thank the Chamber for all of the work that is being done, for all of this work done on this important issue. I know that after we vote on all of these proposals--Senator Gillibrand's proposal, as well as the proposal that Senator McCaskill, Senator Fischer and I have--that we will be working together to make sure that there is accountability on this issue. Reforms have already been passed that are in the Defense authorization. They are very important items such as the special victims' counsel that I mentioned earlier. I see Senator McCaskill, and I know that she and I, as members of the Armed Services Committee, are not going to let this issue go. There will be follow-up to make sure that the military is held accountable. We have the best military in the world. This does go to the core of our readiness of good order and discipline. We can't have good order and discipline if we put commanders on the sidelines. We will hold them more accountable under our amendment, amendment No. 2170. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. Would the Senator from South Carolina yield for another question?

Ms. AYOTTE. So under the situation where the Senator says we have commanders who aren't going to ignore what is brought before them in an investigation from their JAG lawyers, particularly on a sexual assault, let's assume they did do that. Even though the evidence isn't there, they do it. Under our proposal--the proposal of myself and Senators McCaskill and Fischer--if the commander makes the decision not to bring the sexual assault case and it then goes up for review before the civilian secretary of whatever force is at issue--the Army, the Air Force, the Navy--what does the Senator think that will do in terms of accountability?

Ms. AYOTTE. Would the Senator yield for a comment? Looking at the facts, the evidence we have reflects that commanders are bringing more cases, are pursuing more cases than those recommended by their JAGs in sexual assault cases. We received a letter from ADM Winnefeld, Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, basically pointing out that there were over 90 cases where commanders had a different view than their JAGs that a case should go forward. Guess what. Convictions were had and people were held accountable.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania Senator Casey for his leadership on amendment No. 2172, which is very important. I appreciate what he just said on the floor--the cases of the bravery of Afghan women, the leadership they have shown under tremendously difficult circumstances, and the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven for terrorists again. One of the keys to that is that no society can be free, no society can have true safety and security unless the women in the society also have safety and security. So I thank Senator Casey for his leadership in ensuring that we stand by the Afghan women because we cannot succeed in Afghanistan if women go back to what they endured under the Taliban, which was horrific and was wrong, and none of us should accept. So Senator Casey really has been a leader, and I thank him for being so concerned about what will happen in Afghanistan and working to make sure it never becomes a haven for terrorists again; that women in Afghanistan can live with security; that women and girls can go to school; that they can contribute to Afghan society and take part in free elections; and that Afghanistan will be a place where women will no longer be brought into soccer stadiums and violated. So I thank Senator Casey for this amendment and bringing it forward. I am very proud to cosponsor it. As Senator Casey mentioned, our amendment would ensure adequate staffing at polling stations by female officers so that when they have elections, this would improve the security of those stations, making sure women can come forward and vote. It would increase the awareness and responsiveness among Afghan National Army and national police personnel regarding the unique challenges women confront when joining those forces. Yes, women--some of them--are now joining the Afghan security forces to defend their nation. The amendment would focus on improving the recruitment and retention of women in Afghan security forces, and it would ensure that as we enter the bilateral security agreement that DOD will produce a strategy to promote the security of Afghan women and girls. These issues are very important. I commend our men and women in uniform for everything they have done in Afghanistan to prevent Afghanistan from being a haven for terrorists and to ensure that women and girls can live securely and won't be violated the way they were when the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan. The images so many of us saw were beyond the word ``outrageous.'' We can't even describe the horrific way women and girls were treated--worse than second-class citizens--under the Taliban. This amendment will ensure what we all understand to be the bottom line: that no strategy in Afghanistan can succeed if women are not an integral part of that strategy, if women aren't allowed to have the security, the dignity, and the freedom all people deserve. I thank Senator Casey for his leadership. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will adopt this amendment because last year when we considered Defense authorization, the Senate passed a similar provision by unanimous consent. So I hope my colleagues will do the same and pass the Casey-Ayotte amendment to promote the security of Afghan women and girls; as we look to the bilateral security agreement, as we look to working with our coalition partners as we are drawing down in Afghanistan, we will not leave the Afghan women and girls behind and we will ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven for terrorists again. I thank Senator Casey for allowing me to speak on this very important issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski for their leadership on this issue and for bringing this important discussion to the floor today. I also thank Senator Murkowski, who I see in the Chamber as well, who has been a leader. Also, I thank Senator McCaskill, who has been a leader in the Armed Services Committee with me. This has been an issue that has brought people together. It has brought people together for the right reasons. This is an issue that the women of the Senate have really driven, but it is important to understand that this is not a woman's issue. The issue of ending sexual assaults in our military is an issue for everyone. This is an issue about justice. This is an issue about fairness. This is about making sure that victims of crimes, both men and women, get the justice they deserve, the support they deserve in our military, and that they understand and appreciate that we want them to have a climate in the military where if they are a victim, they can come forward and receive the support they need and that they deserve. Finally, this is also about the character of our military. We are blessed to have the very best military in the world, but when there is a plague of sexual assaults such as we have seen in our military, it undermines the very fabric of our military in terms of our readiness, in terms of our preparedness, and in terms of the cohesiveness of our units. This is why it is not only important that we address and support the victims of these crimes, that we end sexual assault in our military, but that we have a climate in our military that says: If you are a commander and you do not stop sexual assaults, prevent sexual assaults, have a climate in your unit that says zero tolerance, this is not going to happen; if a victim comes forward in your unit and you don't handle this the right way, do the right thing, support victims, and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable, you will be relieved from command. That is the climate in which all of the reforms in this Defense authorization are brought forward, where we work together across the aisle with very strong provisions to support victims. One of those provisions is a special victims counsel. Senator Patty Murray and I introduced a bill, stand-alone, to ensure, based upon a pilot program in the Air Force, that victims of sexual assault will actually now have their own lawyer, someone to represent them and their interests, to know that if they come forward there is someone looking out for them. That is one of the provisions contained in this Defense authorization bill, to ensure that every victim will have someone who stands for them. In addition to that is retaliation. We have now made retaliation against victims a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is to say to victims that if they come forward and for some reason are retaliated against, then whoever does that will be guilty of a crime. This is sending the message to please come forward, we want to support you, and we want to be sure the perpetrators are held accountable. In addition, I believe that if we want to solve this problem, the provisions in this bill that people have worked together on are very strong. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member for their work together. We are going to pass in this Chamber unprecedented reforms that ensure that the military understands this is not an issue anymore that can be left in the closet. This is not an issue that can be quietly spoken of where victims feel they can't come forward. The reforms in this bill are very tough. They support victims. They hold commanders accountable, and they make sure we do not see what we have seen in the past, things such as commanders overturning the verdicts. That will be done under this bill. That is not allowed anymore if this bill passes on the floor. So I simply come to the floor today to say there is so much we have agreed upon that is going to address this issue in the military, and I thank all my colleagues on the floor today for their leadership. We will not let this rest. The one thing I do know, for those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee and those who are here in the Chamber who do not serve on the Armed Services Committee but serve on other important committees, including the Appropriations Committee, despite the unprecedented reforms I believe we are going to pass on a bipartisan basis to end sexual assault in the military and to ensure victims are supported, we are not going to let this go. This is not going to be something where we pass these reforms and that is the end of the story. Every few months we are going to be asking: What have you done to implement these reforms? Every few months we are going to be expecting a report back to the Senate to ensure that what we all have intended to occur here--that is the right thing for victims of crime, that is the right thing for our military--is getting done. So while I am very proud of everything we have done and we will do when we pass the Defense authorization bill on a bipartisan basis to stand against sexual assault in our military, this is not the end of the story. We will continue to pursue this to make sure that our military understands they are accountable, that victims of crime understand that while in the military they will be supported, that we will not let this go. I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their leadership and everything they have done to support victims of crime and to end sexual assault in our military.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia, who is the Republican ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Chambliss has seen so much in terms of the real threats that we face from terrorists in this country. I appreciate his leadership on ensuring that America remains safe and his leadership on this issue of ensuring that the Guantanamo detainees are not released to get back in the fight against us, to attack not only our soldiers but us and our allies. I would start with the Defense authorization, as it stands, and even the side-by-side offered by Chairman Levin, is a dramatic change from current policy of where we are now with regard to Guantanamo and the transfer of Guantanamo detainees internationally and to the United States of America between last year's Defense authorization and this year's Defense authorization. What has changed? The only thing that has changed is the fact that the reengagement rate of those who are suspected of having been released--who have been released from Guantanamo and are suspected or actually have reengaged in the fight against us--has increased, not decreased. Yet the status quo of where we stand now, if our amendment just described by Senator Chambliss is not adopted, amendment No. 2255--is that we would weaken what is required to be certified from people who are released from Guantanamo. In other words, the Defense authorization and the proposal offered by Chairman Levin would weaken the national security requirements that are currently in place; the standards which we have to meet before someone is transferred from Guantanamo to another country, even though the reengagement rate has actually increased. What else would it do? It would now allow the potential for transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States of America. This would include Guantanamo detainees potentially such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed whom Senator Chambliss has referenced. He is the mastermind of September 11. He is the key player behind the attacks on our country on September 11, and so we are going to allow the potential that he could be transferred to the United States of America. In addition, there is allowance for a potential transfer to the country of Yemen. As Senator Chambliss has talked about, the country of Yemen is the place where the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is centered. Not only that, in Yemen, there have actually been instances where we have seen prison breaks in Yemen. In fact, it is a very destabilized place. In June I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about Yemen, and he assessed it to be the most dangerous. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is located in Yemen, is the most dangerous Al Qaeda affiliate. Again, when we look at Yemen, there have been breaks from detention facilities there. Senator Chambliss has described the 2009 Christmas Day Bomber who received his training in Yemen. We have Guantanamo detainees who have actually been captured--whom we have let out previously--captured, killed or spotted in Yemen. These included Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's former second in command, Said al-Shihri and Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, alleged to be one of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's main religious leaders. We have instances where in Yemen there actually been have Al Qaeda terrorists, some who have returned to the leadership of Al Qaeda after we released them from Guantanamo and have gone back in. I ask, why are we lifting the prohibition of transfers to Yemen when there still is not a certification that can be made that they will not reengage and that Yemen even can detain these individuals or account for them in a place which is the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? Where we are now is very important in terms of the protection of our country. As Senator Chambliss mentioned, the administration has been so caught up in not wanting to transfer anyone into Guantanamo that we are left with a situation where we are potentially losing valuable intelligence to protect our country. I wish to speak about that. If we captured tomorrow the current head of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri, what would we do with him? Are we going to bring him to the United States or should we bring him to a secure detention facility at Guantanamo? The legal questions that are raised by this in terms of if we bring him to the United States, are we going to tell him you have the right to remain silent, even though he is the current head of Al Qaeda? Shouldn't the first priority be to collect information to protect our country, to know what they are planning, to know what they are doing, to know what could happen next? We now have the example that was given of Warsame, who was a terrorist captured overseas. Instead of being brought to Guantanamo, he was put on a ship for approximately 60 days and then brought to the United States, where he was told you have the right to remain silent. Worse, recently, there was the capture of a man named al-Libi, and al-Libi actually had been involved in the beginning--in fact, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently said before the Homeland Security Committee that he was a founder of Al Qaeda with Osama bin Laden--and recaptured in Libya. Rather than bring him to Guantanamo Bay, he was put on a ship for only 1 week, 1 week. Then he was transferred to New York City and read his Miranda rights. This is someone who was alleged to have committed the bombing against the embassies in Africa in 1998 and someone who has decades of involvement in Al Qaeda and who was only interrogated on a ship for 1 week, rather than being brought to Guantanamo and fully interrogated to make sure we maximize the gathering of intelligence to protect our country. Now the administration wants to close Guantanamo. The alternative offered by Chairman Levin is that they should come up with a plan of where we would put these detainees in the United States of America. The question is why have we had to wait this long, first, to even have some information of what the plan would be and what to do. Second, why would we want the most dangerous terrorists in the world, some of them, to come to the United States of America, when we have a secure detention facility at Guantanamo? Why would we risk the legal questions that will be raised if we bring them to the United States? Do we have to read them Miranda? If we capture Zawahiri and we have no Guantanamo to take him to, do we have to read him Miranda because he is in the United States of America and we can't gather intelligence to protect our country? How much does it cost to make sure people are secure in the area where these terrorists are being brought? We don't even know where they will be brought because the alternative amendment, all it says is that they have to come up with a plan of where to put these terrorists rather than at Guantanamo. We don't know--the amendment does not provide for us as Congress to approve this plan. It only says the Secretary of Defense has to come up with a plan, and then he may take action to transfer the detainees, allowing them to be transferred to the United States of America. Stay tuned if the Guantanamo detainees are coming to your neighborhood because we don't know. This is why it is important that the prohibitions stay in place in the absence of any plan. Why should we bring them to the United States of America, given the dangerous nature of who they are? Also, why wouldn't we want to have a secure facility to ensure that we have a place to interrogate terrorists, to make sure we can maximize the information and understand what they know to prevent attacks against our country. Otherwise, we will continue to have a situation where terrorists such as al-Libi are only interrogated for 1 week and then they are told you have the right to remain silent. No terrorist should hear that right. I wish to say that what this provision does is it puts back in place the requirements that the administration has to meet a strong set of criteria before they can transfer to third-party countries. What was taken out? What was taken out, which is important, is the way they have weakened the requirements for transferring people, the requirements the administration must meet before transferring from Guantanamo to third-party countries. They have taken out language that requires the Secretary of Defense currently to certify that a country is not a state sponsor of terrorism or foreign terrorist organization. Now there is no longer a requirement that we even have to certify that. If our amendment is not passed and the alternative is passed, if there is a country or an entity that is a state sponsor of terrorism or a foreign terrorist organization, then they can transfer there. They have also taken out the provision that would consider whether we have previously transferred a detainee to the country and yet the detainee has gone back into the fight, has reengaged. In other words, if we made a mistake in the past and transferred someone out of Guantanamo to a country such as Yemen, they weren't able to secure that individual and that individual gets back into the fight, that was a consideration they had to take into account before they could transfer to that country. That is now being removed from the national security criteria, making it much weaker and easier to transfer to countries that are not only potential sponsors of terrorism but are also countries where we have already had a history of transferring detainees who have gotten back in the fight against us and our soldiers. We have seen some of these detainees show up in places such as Afghanistan against our soldiers. We have seen these detainees attempt to attack us and our allies. We cannot risk weakening the provisions to say we are going to transfer them and take our risks that they can do that again. We should keep the current law in place. The administration has been able to meet the current law. They have transferred six detainees under the current provisions. They do not have an excuse to say that we can't transfer anyone because they have already been able to transfer people. I ask unanimous consent to ask my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, a question about these provisions.

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask Senator Chambliss, if we eliminate Guantanamo--in other words, under this proposal they would be permitted to transfer people to the United States of America or that new captures be brought to the United States of America instead of to a facility such as Guantanamo, what are the risks we face in terms of losing valuable intelligence that we need to protect our country?

Ms. AYOTTE. I would say we have to go from the evidence we have before us, where we have a 29-percent reengagement rate. And let's face it. The easier decisions were made first, in terms of who should be released. Now we have some very hardcore individuals who are there. We already have a 29-percent reengagement rate of them getting back in the fight against us as terrorists, and so we face a grave risk of some of the most hardened individuals if we transfer them or we lessen the standard for transfer, which is what this is doing. It is taking away the issues I talked about--the consideration of countries we have already transferred to but people have gotten back in it--and making it easier to transfer and weaker in terms of the national security requirements that have to be met, and I am worried they will get back in and then harm us and our interests because we already have a history of that. I want to ask the Senator from Georgia an additional question. Some have cited the cost issue as the reason we should close Guantanamo. But to the Senator's knowledge, has anyone done the cost estimate of all the considerations that would have to be taken into account in the United States and also the security interests of the people of this country of transferring these terrorists to the United States? Finally, I would also say there are risks we face in losing intelligence if they have to be Mirandized, and things such as that. That is a huge cost in terms of protecting our country, is it not?