Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. If we were to lose, for example, valuable intelligence, if we were to get Zawahiri tomorrow, or if we had captured Osama bin Laden instead of killing him, and were able to interrogate him, that is a value that cannot be placed on that in terms of preventing future attacks and understanding how Al Qaeda is planning things in order to prevent future harm to Americans; isn't that right?

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague.

Ms. AYOTTE. I would agree with Ranking Member Inhofe, and I want to thank him for his leadership. Absolutely, these are not common criminals. These are not people who have robbed a bank. These are people who have attacked our country and who seek to get other people to attack our country. That is the reason why we wouldn't want to mingle them with criminals or bring them to the United States so they can be told they have the right to remain silent. We have to protect our country by knowing what they know.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2255. Let me just say what we cannot afford. What we cannot afford is to read terrorists Miranda rights and tell them they have the right to remain silent. Why can't we afford that? Because if we lose the opportunity to gather valuable information to protect our Nation, then we cannot prevent future attacks against the country. Here is the problem we face. Here, shown in this picture I have in the Chamber, is the current head of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. If we capture him tomorrow, I ask my colleagues this: Do you want to send him to a secure detention facility where he can be fully interrogated under the laws of war and held there in detention under law of war authority or do you want to send him to a prison in the United States where we cannot know--the legal questions are many--where there is a real risk that he will not be able to be held in law of war detention and will be told you have the right to remain silent, and we will lose opportunities to gather intelligence to protect our country. My colleague from Illinois talked about the worst criminals whom we put in prison. I am a former murder prosecutor, and I put some of the worst murderers in prison. There is a difference. We are not dealing with criminals; we are dealing with terrorists. The priority has to be to gather information and protect our country. If we catch Zawahiri tomorrow, bring him to a prison near you, give him a lawyer, tell him he has the right to remain silent, those legal questions are not dealt with if we adopt the alternative amendment that allows the administration to transfer people such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, to the United States. What do we do with future captures, such as Zawahiri? How do we ensure we can gather information? By the way, that is priceless. If we can stop a terrorist attack by interrogating someone--the price we can save for America, we cannot put a number on that. If you believe, with a rising reengagement rate of 29 percent--which is higher than last year in terms of people we have had at Guantanamo, we have let go but have gotten back in the fight against us--that we should weaken the standards this administration has to meet to transfer people from Guantanamo to third-party countries, then that is essentially what is done in the Defense authorization. My amendment will restore existing law to ensure that there are strong national security waivers the administration must meet before they transfer prisoners to countries where they are getting back in the fight against us, where they are getting out and getting back in the fight, including against our troops. So this is a fundamental question. We cannot afford right now, with what is happening around the world, to close the one secure detention facility we have, and it is clear we can conduct law of war detentions there. We still remain in a fight against terrorists. We cannot treat them like common criminals. That is what is at stake. If you believe this man shown in this picture should come to a prison near you, that is not what I have heard from my constituents or the American people. That is why my amendment will prohibit the transfer of the mastermind of 9/11 to U.S. soil and keep him in Guantanamo, a top- rate detention facility that keeps terrorists, as opposed to common criminals, secure. Finally, I would say, as we look at the prohibition on Yemen, my amendment, which is also cosponsored by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and many other Members in this Chamber, would prevent transfers to the country of Yemen. Without my amendment, the administration could transfer terrorists to Yemen. What does that mean? Yemen is where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is centered. We have actually had terrorists who have been released from Guantanamo and gone back into Al Qaeda leadership and been found in Yemen and there have been prison breaks in Yemen. Yet if my amendment is not adopted to prohibit transfers to Yemen, the administration can transfer detainees from Guantanamo to countries such as Yemen, and the security requirements are weakened. The world is not a safer place from last year to this year, unfortunately. The reengagement rate of Guantanamo prisoners has increased from last year to this year. Why are we weakening the national security provisions? Let's keep existing law in place. Why do we want to send Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to the United States of America when we have a secure facility at Guantanamo? Why do we want to take any risk that if we are blessed enough to have our men and women in uniform--who do a fantastic job-- capture Zawahiri tomorrow, that he may have to be told ``you have the right to remain silent'' because there are legal ambiguities when he is brought to this country, as opposed to law-of-war detention and interrogation in Guantanamo? This is what is at stake. We cannot afford to think we are no longer fighting a war against terrorists. We cannot afford to treat people like him as common criminals. As much as I believe in our criminal justice system, it was not created to gather intelligence, which is what we need to do to make sure America remains safe. I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 2255, which is cosponsored also by Senator Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee; Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee; as well as Senator Fischer, Senator Rubio, and Senator Barrasso.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment No. 2175. If you want to bring the 164 Gitmo detainees to the United States, that is what this amendment will allow the administration to do. The plan they are going to submit requires no congressional oversight, no approval, and though the chairman said they will not get any additional legal rights, he does not answer the question what about constitutional rights if they are brought to our soil. Will they have to be told they have the right to remain silent? If we catch Zawahiri, the current head of Al Qaeda, tomorrow, will he have to be read Miranda rights? Because that is what is happening when we bring them to U.S. soil now. That is the real question. That is not required to be answered by their plan the administration wants sent, and we have no oversight over that plan. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to share many stories I am receiving from my constituents about them receiving cancellations of policies they wanted to keep and higher premiums under this law. Each story is very sad, and I feel badly for the people of my State and across this country who are suffering under this law. My constituents are pleading for relief. This is only one example. A small business owner from Peterborough, NH, who voted for President Obama twice, told me that her family has a household income of $50,000 and their total health insurance will now cost over $19,000 for the year, which is more than their mortgage. Their local hospital isn't even on the exchange. In New Hampshire we only have one insurer on the exchange and 10 of our 26 hospitals have been excluded from that exchange. This constituent from Peterborough wrote: We are frustrated, afraid, and angry beyond words. . . . I urge a postponement of implementation of the Affordable Care Act while those with the power look harder at the average American and come up with a better plan. Life shouldn't be this hard. Citizens from across New Hampshire and this country are crying out for relief. I hope the President will listen to them and call a timeout on this law so that we can come together and, rather than what was done in this Chamber--passing a partisan law--come together for bipartisan health care solutions.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to discuss the negative impact that ObamaCare is having on the people of New Hampshire. I shared dozens of compelling stories from my constituents, who are telling me that they are seeing their coverage canceled and they are seeing their premiums rise. These sad stories continue to arrive in my in-box every day, and these are real people. They are having great difficulty with not only the Web site but structural problems that exist with the law itself. They deserve to have their voices heard on the floor of the Senate. I will say, as one of my constituents said to me: Lives in New Hampshire are depending on it. Last week President Obama said he was sorry to those who are now receiving cancellation notices. But a simple apology falls short because the structural problems we are now seeing with this law, including the cancellation notices that too many of my constituents are receiving, were problems that many in this Chamber, even before I got elected to the Senate, warned about before the law was passed. Here are some of the stories I want to share from people in New Hampshire and how they are being impacted by this law. Jeanne in Meredith wrote me she was diagnosed with breast cancer 2\1/ 2\ years ago. She was laid off from her job of 20 years and then went on COBRA. Jeanne traveled to Mass General in Boston to receive care and when her coverage ran out she worked with her insurance agent to receive coverage that she could afford and that would allow her to continue with her subsequent treatments without any interruptions. She has now told me that what she has worked out in the plan she had has been canceled. She wrote me: I liked my plan. And I not only liked my doctors, I consider them my lifeline. If I purchase a plan under the Exchange, I lose access to all my doctors in Boston, and I am finding that I will also lose my oncologist in Nashua as well. This can't be happening. Lori in Littleton wrote me. She told me she and her husband recently were notified that their coverage will be canceled. When she learned about the new plan that was being offered to comply with ObamaCare, she said: We were shocked that the cost would be $400 a month more than we are currently paying. This is way beyond our budget. So we began to explore the so-called Exchange to shop for all of our choices. Once again, we were very frustrated to learn that New Hampshire has a monopoly with only one carrier [on the exchange]. What I have also heard from my constituents is concerns that they are receiving notices that their premiums are rising as a result of ObamaCare. Sara in New Castle wrote me that her premiums for a high- deductible plan that complies with ObamaCare will be double her current premium. Moreover, Sara said that she ``will no longer be able to go to Portsmouth Hospital. My primary physician, gynecologist, eye doctor, and children's pediatrician are all excluded from the ACA plan that I will be forced to purchase by the end of 2014.'' She finished the letter she wrote to me by saying: ``No, my family is not better off with the ACA.'' John in Pembroke wrote: The new law is called the Affordable Care Act. What a hurtful joke that is to hard-working Americans. My existing policy is being canceled. After I called Anthem to inform them they must have misheard the President and the other supporters of the ACA, they told me that my existing policy did not meet the standards for the new law. I was shocked. The new higher plans from Anthem in the best case scenario are more than double my existing plan. David in Nashua wrote me that recently he saw his coverage canceled like too many others. He wrote: When working with Anthem to get a plan that will have the closest coverages and plan services with similar deductibles and copays, I was disheartened to learn it will cost me an additional $110 per month--about 40 percent more than I was paying. He continued: To get comparable services to what I had it will cost an additional $45 per month. All said, I am looking at an increase of $155 per month. David said he is looking at a 57-percent increase in costs and an additional $1,800 per year. He said to me: This is grossly unacceptable, has been misleading from the words conveyed by the President and downright frustrating to have to deal with such a problem. A couple from Amherst, NH, wrote me and said: . . . because of the Affordable Care Act our health insurance plan is being canceled and the least expensive plan, either within the exchange or outside of it, will more than double our cost. The least expensive plan we can obtain will increase our monthly premium from $582 to $1,183 per month. Our annual premium under the new health care law will increase from $6,984 to $14,196--an increase of [over $7,000] per year. They further wrote to me: President Obama promised us that if we liked our plan, we could keep it. But ours has been canceled. President Obama promised us that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor. President Obama promised us that under the new health care law we would save $2,500. But our premiums will be increasing by over $7,000 a year. A couple from Center Sandwich also contacted me. They said their rates will double and cost them an additional $7,000 per year. They wrote: We are both in our second careers and in our 50s, working hard and doing two jobs. Blue collar couple who are very healthy. Under this so-called Affordable Care law, our rates are going to double! Scott from Concord wrote: I currently have a great family plan through my work. This plan costs me $240 per month. On January 1st this plan will cost me $600 per month. I can't afford to pay such a high premium. Now I am forced to get a plan that has a 50% greater deductible, and much higher co-pays. I also heard from a mother from Manchester. She has a little girl who is scheduled to have surgery at the beginning of January. As any mother would be, she is worried, and now she has been told her plan has been canceled. She wrote: I looked, and my current plan is not available through the Exchange. I will have to purchase a plan with a high deductible. The new plan will cost over $1,200 per month, increasing my premium which is currently just over $1,000 per month. The new plans, through the Exchange, have a smaller network of doctors, so I could be losing my doctors too. Finally, I am hearing frustration and concerns from my constituents about the Web site. David in Bedford wrote: My wife and I are semi-retired and have been trying since October 1 to obtain health insurance through HealthCare.gov. We have also used the telephone option but we were unable so far to obtain coverage. He finished this message to me by saying: We are very concerned with being without coverage on January 1, 2014. I heard a similar concern from a resident in Greenfield who also expressed deep concern about private information put on the Web site. I heard the same from a registered nurse from Milford. She expressed frustrations about how the exchange is working. There are many more pieces of correspondence I have received from my constituents. I will not share them all on the floor today, but their voices deserve to be heard. Because of this law, people in New Hampshire are losing the coverage they thought they could keep. They are getting premium increase notices, which they cannot afford to pay, that are attributed to ObamaCare. Finally, as I have previously said on the floor, some people are having their hours cut because it defines the workweek as a 30-hour workweek. Unfortunately, the people who do want to continue to work more hours are being harmed. As I have done before, I come to the floor today to call for a timeout on ObamaCare. We need a timeout because we are seeing that the problems with this law are much deeper than a Web site. We hope those problems will be fixed. Of course, they have not yet been fixed. The Washington Post reported today that they may not even be fixed with what the administration has represented--at the end of this month. That said, what about the canceled policies, the premium increases, and the lost hours? It is time to have a timeout where we do what should have been done in the beginning. Instead of passing a law of this magnitude on a partisan basis, people need to come together to address health care, rising costs, access, and the issues the American people want us to take on. This law is not the answer, and the American people--and the people of New Hampshire--deserve better.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues, and I will start by thanking my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, for the important work she has been doing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I also want to thank my colleagues for supporting an amendment that was brought forward recently and passed by this body, the Portman-Ayotte-Heller- Hatch-McCain amendment, to strengthen the protections within the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for religious institutions. I firmly believe people should be judged based upon the quality of their work. Discrimination has no place in the workplace. In my home State of New Hampshire, we have a long bipartisan tradition of working to advance commonsense policies, and New Hampshire already has in place a State law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I appreciate that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is legislation that is important in terms of who we are, our values, and making sure people are only judged based on the quality of their work in the workplace. I also appreciate the legislation on the floor right now includes important protections for religious institutions. I have long been a strong supporter of the rights of conscience, of the rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution to religious freedom, and so these protections are very important within this bill. I was pleased to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to strengthen those protections by passing an amendment that will help ensure religious organizations cannot be retaliated against for exercising their religious freedoms. Specifically, the Portman-Ayotte amendment affirms the critical importance of protecting religious freedom in the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. It ensures that government cannot penalize a religious employer because it qualifies as exempt from nondiscrimination requirements of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The amendment protects religious institutions from adverse actions by the government on the basis of adhering to their religious tenets. In practical terms, the government may not use activities protected by the religious exemption as a basis to deny a religious employer a government grant or tax-exempt status or any other benefit that may be conferred by the government. I want to thank my colleagues for passing this amendment which will strengthen the protections for religious institutions within the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak today.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise to talk about the impact ObamaCare is having on the people of my State, the State of New Hampshire. It has been over 1 month since the health care exchanges opened, and in that short time we have already seen so many problems with ObamaCare. Frankly, it is a mess. The failure of healthcare.gov is a travesty that has revealed deeply troubling incompetence in terms of implementing a Web site that people can use and have access to and is secure and protects their private information. Frankly, we are in a position where the Web site is merely the canary in the coal mine. The flaws in this law are much deeper than the Web site. Even former supporters of ObamaCare are telling me it is not working. I am hearing from my constituents about this, and frankly I feel very badly for them because so much of what is happening to them is as a result of how the law was drafted years ago. For example, I heard from Maryanne in Lisbon, NH. She said: We hope this would be a solution. But instead it will be more of a financial drain. The American people are the ones who are paying the price right now. They are getting cancellation notices, seeing their premiums go up, and losing their doctors. Workers are suffering. Many of them have seen their hours cut to 29 hours because of an arbitrary mandate defining full-time workers as those who work 30 hours a week. Others are fearful they will lose their employer-sponsored coverage altogether. Business owners remain reluctant to expand--worried they will trigger the looming penalties from ObamaCare. Most tragically, we now know that the law was sold to the American people under false pretenses. The President said: ``If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.'' In fact, yesterday we checked the Web site and that claim is still on there. I am hearing every day from New Hampshire residents who are telling me they are seeing their health insurance policies canceled. In fact, in the newspaper this morning there was a headline in New Hampshire that announced that about 22,000 individuals will see coverage canceled at the end of the year. Granite Staters have been writing to me. I wish to share their concerns with the entire country because I know this is not just happening to people in New Hampshire, but these are the real people who are being affected by ObamaCare. Lynn in Greenland wrote: The President was wrong. I can't keep my coverage if I like it and I can't keep my preferred hospital and his plans are the ones that are subpar . . . it's bringing me to tears on a daily basis. Please help. Edward in Marlow is self-employed. I feel so badly when I receive letters such as this. He has a rare disease and a high-deductible plan. He wrote: I received a notice from Anthem last week that they will be canceling this policy. Is this what President Obama meant when he said no one who currently has their own policy and likes it will lose it. . . . I am devastated that I will now have to go out and secure another policy somewhere which could cost me significantly more. Jennifer in Canaan wrote: I received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating that my current health insurance plan was being discontinued because it did not conform to the law under the Affordable Care Act. In other words, the plan I was promised I could keep was made illegal by Washington politicians. Michael in Atkinson said: Kelly, we have been told this would expand options. The fact is we are now being told what we can and what we cannot do and where we can go. To say that I am upset would not begin to describe how I feel. Richard in Alton Bay said: I am a small business owner in New Hampshire and have been with my health insurance provider for over 10 years. I was recently informed that the policy I have had for all of these years (and I like quite a bit) will be canceled due to the provisions in Obamacare. When I contacted the company, they said they are planning to transition me into a plan that costs more and offers substantially less benefits and protection than my original plan. . . . I am outraged at this. . . . Jamie in Littleton wrote: Today we received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating my husband's individual health care plan, which he's had for 15 years, will be changing to conform to ACA laws and will no longer be in effect come September 1, 2014. Louis in Sunapee wrote: What just happened? I received a cancellation notice from my insurance company . . . and the coverage I am eligible for is MORE expensive? Help me! President Obama has made the promise that ``if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.'' For those who are seeing their plans canceled, we know that is simply not the case. There is another issue that New Hampshire is facing, and that is a matter of choice in keeping not only the doctor you want to keep but also going to the hospital you want to go to. In New Hampshire, there is only one insurer who is going to participate on the exchanges at this point, and to keep costs down, the insurer has decided to limit its network, so 10 of our 26 acute care hospitals are not part of the exchange and are excluded. For example, the capital of New Hampshire is Concord. One of the hospitals that has been excluded is Concord Hospital. I worked in Concord for years. Concord Hospital is going to be excluded. All the people in that area who rely on that hospital and had their children and treatments there will now be excluded if they are on the exchanges. This is a real impact on people's lives, and I feel very badly for my constituents. A doctor in Peterborough said he was once a supporter of ObamaCare. He described the consequences simply. In a letter to me he said his patients have one of three terrible options now, and that is because the hospital in his area has been excluded from the exchange. First, they can switch doctors and drive a considerable distance to a hospital that Anthem does include in the exchange; two, they can purchase insurance outside of the exchange at considerably higher rates than they could this year; or, three, they can stick with their current doctor, risk having no insurance and pay the government a penalty for being uninsured. With the hospital he is associated with excluded from the exchange, he said, it is the ``Less Affordable Care Act'' for his patients. This doctor gave me a troubling practical effect of what his hospital being left out would mean for his patients. He used this example: Consider the pregnant woman who has delivered all of her current children at our hospital. She is now expecting in February. She must now either drive our twisty New England roads, in the dead of Winter, to a hospital 55 minutes from her home to deliver her baby, or pay considerably higher insurance premiums to stay where she is comfortable and safe. He is one of numerous citizens across New Hampshire who has expressed similar concerns about local hospitals being excluded from the exchange. I wish to share some of the other concerns that have been written from my constituents. Vicki in Seabrook wrote: The list of doctors and medical facilities that will take my insurance is limited and my Massachusetts doctors are not on the list. . . . The one closest to me, Portsmouth Hospital, is not on the list. Kathleen in New Castle wrote: The exchange choice will not allow me to use my docs, including primary care who is affiliated with the Portsmouth Hospital. All oncology physicians are located in Boston, not covered. Margaret in Strafford currently goes to Frisbie Memorial in Rochester, which is not part of the exchange. She explained the impact in this way: I would no longer be able to go to Frisbie Memorial Hospital, which is four miles away. I could no longer see the gynecologist whom I trust. I could no longer use the surgeon who saved my life when emergency surgery was required. I could no longer visit the same internist. If I were to develop heart problems, I could no longer go to Portsmouth Regional Hospital. Gregory in Rochester said his primary care physician is at Frisbie. He said that means he will have to go to another hospital, he said, ``I do not know and does not know my health condition.'' Robert in Strafford said he has gone to Frisbie for 40 years. He wrote: I've had multiple different insurance companies but have always been able to keep the same doctors. Now because of ObamaCare, Frisbie is out of the loop. This is totally unfair to all the people who live in the area. What gives? Teresa in Peterborough said that none of her current physicians, including her primary care physician and her OB/GYN, are in the exchange. She wrote: The nearest providers in this network are 45 minutes west, 60 minutes east or 90 minutes north. This will be very costly to me in terms of time taken off to attend appointments at these distant offices/hospitals. And since I am self- employed, a day off to go to the doctor is one day without income. A single mother also from Peterborough wrote: If my 17-year-old son does get sick this winter, I will be required to take a minimum of \1/2\ day off to bring my son to Keene or Manchester to find a primary care physician who will accept the insurance through affordable care (not that I can even afford that route). I am also hearing heart-wrenching stories from New Hampshire citizens about how their premiums are going up. As you know, when this law was being sold, it was sold as premiums going down, but that is not what I am hearing from my constituents. Christopher in Rindge wrote: My insurance is going to double on January 1, 2014. Even the options that conform to the health act are double the amount I am paying today. It doesn't make any sense that my insurance would go up by double when this is called ``affordable'' health care. Rick in Pembroke wrote: Last year, the sum total of my family's health care cost $2,300. . . . I have been looking at health insurance for my family. The lowest insurance will cost $566.40 per month. The family deductible will be $11,500. Even if I spend the same as last year on actual health care, I will have to pay an additional $6,800. This isn't fair and it isn't affordable. I don't know many people who can budget for an additional $6,800 a year. Brendan in Sanbornton said: I am self-employed and my wife and I pay for our health insurance through Anthem that provides coverage for us and our 15 month old daughter. Presently, we pay about $580 per month for a major deductible plan with a total family deductible of $7,500. A couple of weeks ago, we received a letter from Anthem informing us that our ``old'' policies don't meet the requirements of the new ACA and therefore, we were going to be canceled. When researching new options on Anthem's Web site, we found that our deductible was now going to be $12,000 per year at an increased cost of about $150 per month! We feel as though the country has been misled about being able to `keep their current coverage.' Holly in Charleston wrote me: I buy an individual policy to cover myself, but my policy went up 25 percent on October 1st and one of the reasons stated in the letter I received from Blue Cross was to cover the implementation of ACA. As a result, I dropped down to a less expensive plan and guess what? I got a letter telling me I was okay until 2014 when that plan will no longer be available because it doesn't comply with the new rules and regs. I heard from Patty in New Ipswich and she said that after her insurance company told her to find a plan, she signed up for the least expensive bronze plan available. She says: Still not only will my premium be $75 a month higher for a total of just under $600 per month for me, but in addition to that, I have a $5,400 annual deductible. Also, the prescription plan that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi mandated also has a $5,400 deductible, so effectively that is not a prescription plan at all. In fact, this plan is basically a very expensive catastrophic plan and nothing more. It is not affordable and I am disgusted. Barbara in Merrimack and her husband don't yet qualify for Medicare. Their existing plan is being phased out, so she checked the exchange. She wrote: The product that was closest to what we currently have is Silver and is just too expensive. The cheapest coverage we could find is in the Bronze category and will cost $1,228.32 per month and will have a deductible of $5,950/individual and $11,900/family. That means that all basic services and medications will be out of pocket. Medications will be covered at 40 percent of the copay. $1,228.32 equals $14,739.84 per year and it is more than my mortgage!. . . . Unlike the government, I can't raise my debt ceiling. Anita in Sutton wrote: What was supposed to help people like my husband and I who are self-employed--and he has a chronic illness--only hurts us. Our premium went up $2,287.70 per month and this is now with a $4,000 single/$8,000 family deductible . . . nothing like a 30 percent increase for one year . . . Having to hoist yourself up each day and go to work and try to carry on is hard enough with this chronic illness, now we have to pick and choose what bills we can afford to pay . . . Jane in Troy said she tried to enroll her son in the Federal program, and this is what she wrote to me: The quote was $600 a month! Do you know of any 20 year old who can afford $600 a month? Tim in Merrimack wrote me: Contrary to the original intent of the Affordable Care Act, individuals who obtain insurance on their own are paying radically escalating costs based on individual coverage for a healthy, non-smoking 51-year old male available for January 1, 2014, on the healthcare exchange in NH, the results are as follows: Premium--25 percent increase from $4,200 to $5,300. Deductible--20 percent increase from $5,000 to $6,000. 82 percent increase in less than 2 years--$2,900 in June of 2012 to $5,300 in January 2014. Then I heard from Erik in Hancock. He said he has seen a 46-percent premium hike. He wrote to me: What has been done to our health care system? This is the Unaffordable Care Act. In some cases, the cost of insurance is rising because plans must include coverage for services that consumers don't want based on their individual situation or don't need based on their individual situation. For example, Jeff in Hudson says that his premiums will go up nearly 40 percent because of ObamaCare. He said: It seems that some of the cost drivers are for coverages which my wife and I do not need or want, but are required to have due to the law. For instance, we must have maternity coverage even though we do not plan on having more children. (We are in our early 50s.) We must have pediatric dental insurance, even though we have no children under the age of 18. Doug in Bedford wrote me: The maternity issue is a trap for seniors. Carol in Newport wrote: Can anyone please explain to me why at 60 years of age I need an insurance plan that requires maternity provisions? Can anyone explain to me why I would be required to pay for pediatric standalone dental when I have no children? Since this is mandated by the government, why would I have to pay an insurer fee, exchange fee, and reinsurance fee? She said the most affordable plan she has seen has been $504.15 a month--which she can't afford--and a $6,350 out-of-pocket deductible. Carol asks: If I cannot afford the premium, how can I afford the deductible? Others I have heard from are worried that their employers will drop their coverage, finding it cheaper to pay the fine than to provide coverage for their workers. Benjamin in Greenville wrote: My portion, currently about $5,000 a year will jump to $20,000+ per year to maintain my current coverage. I make ``too much'' money to be subsidized. Tell me senator, where do I find $15,000 a year, $1,250 a month, $288 a week in my already tight budget? He wrote me: No more vacations. No more dance lessons for my kids. No more family date night once a month. No more Christmas presents. Another theme I have heard in the letters I have received from my constituents is a feeling that those in the middle are being squeezed the most. Donna in Newport wrote: My employer is now canceling the company sponsored health plan as of January 2014, which costs me $2,288 per year. In shopping for a new plan, I am seeing the possibility of a $22 subsidy to help me with a monthly cost of $400, an increase in my health care costs I cannot afford. I am the middle class, a tax paying and proud American that did not ask for this Act and now suffering because of it. Cheryl in Acworth wrote: Not only do I have to pay twice the premium, but it will be post-tax--a double hit. If I was poor, I would be okay or if I worked for a large employer I would be okay but for those of us trying to make a good living and be responsible productive citizens, we end up carrying this . . . This is not the American dream at all. Joseph in Salem wrote to me: On September 30th I received a letter from Anthem informing me that my new payment to keep my current plan which I have had for over 8 years will increase $212.47 on January 1st. That is a $2,548.80 increase for 2014. This is what ObamaCare is doing to the middle class. Roberta in Nashua is like many of my constituents pleading for help. She wrote: Please hear my plea and see what you can do to allow people like me and my husband to keep our care and not be forced into purchasing exchange insurance which is so costly and will be a financial hardship for us. IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE! In addition to canceled policies, patients losing their doctors, and higher premiums, I have also heard about another aspect and consequence of ObamaCare from people who are working hard, trying to make ends meet, and those are workers who are seeing their hours cut. Under the law, employers must provide coverage for employees who work 30 hours or more per week. Many of these employers, not surprisingly, have decided to reduce hours rather than comply with this new mandate. So this is what my constituents are writing me about--these hard-working people trying to make a living. I heard from an EMT from the Monadnock region who wrote to me and said: My employer notified the 75 of us who work there that effective January 1st, our hours will be cut due to ObamaCare. So our incomes will drop and make it harder for us to buy our own insurance. An educator from the Upper Valley wrote: Our school district and surrounding ones are cutting back para-professional jobs to 29 hours. Many of these people were full time. Instead they hired several part-time people to cover the once full-time positions . . . Now they are no longer entitled to any benefits. Many of these individuals have worked 15 or more years with a school district as full- timers. I have heard from business owners as well. They have told me that the looming mandates in the law are causing them to think about eliminating coverage for their employees even though they don't want to do it. They want to do what is right for their employees. Steven in Nashua wrote me: I am a small employer. I would be very tempted to dump my plan for my employees, give them a few extra dollars and just get out of the health care business. I have also heard time and time again about how looming penalties under ObamaCare are causing businesses to think twice about growing and adding new workers. I heard from Matt on the seacoast. He wrote to me and said: On a business level, I don't know if I will expand because I would not be able to pay the penalties or the health insurance for my staff members. These are just some of the stories I am receiving from New Hampshire about hardships ObamaCare is causing for people who are working hard, who want to make ends meet, who want to keep the health care plans they have now. I feel terribly bad for these people. It breaks my heart. I have worked hard. I have sponsored many efforts and voted to repeal this law. I have called repeatedly over the last several days for a timeout from ObamaCare. We do need a timeout because of the concerns I just talked about in this Chamber that I am hearing from my constituents and that I know many Members in this Chamber are hearing. We need the President to call a timeout. I came to the floor several times during the government shutdown and I said it was wrong to shut down the government to try to defund ObamaCare because of the harmful impact of a government shutdown. I even took the step of calling on Members of my own party: Please, do not go forward and shut the government down. Now it is time for the President to see the impact of this law and understand from someone who in some instances has stood up to her own party on the government shutdown--I am asking the President of the United States to hear from the people of this country who are being impacted negatively by the health care law, and I say: Call a timeout, Mr. President. It is not working. They are having difficulties with the Web site. They are worried that their personal information will not be protected on the Web site. But, as I talked about today, the problems are much deeper, with people receiving cancellation notices, with people receiving premium hikes they cannot afford, with hours being cut for workers who want to work and make a living in this great country. I would ask the President to call a timeout, to bring people together. This law was passed out of this Chamber on party lines. I would argue the best way to address health care in this country and to address real concerns I know people had with the status quo as well is to bring a bipartisan group together because what we are seeing now is not working. My constituents have also taken the time to point out to me--in addition to the major problems they see with ObamaCare, they have shared a few ideas with me as well about where they think we should go from here instead of ObamaCare. I want to share those ideas as well. Many of them agree that competition in New Hampshire is effectively nonexistent. Let's face it. We have one insurer on the exchange. One suggestion I saw--and it is one I agree with--is to allow for the purchase of insurance across State lines. Why shouldn't insurance companies have to compete on a national basis? I also agreed with a constituent who said we need to place our focus where it belongs: crafting legislation that reduces health care costs rather than trying to create an artificial health insurance marketplace. Another constituent wisely pointed out that there should not be a cookie-cutter set of policies, such as the ones that result in seniors purchasing coverage that includes maternity care. Instead, people should be able to shop for coverage that suits their particular needs, and we should respect that different people have different needs in health care. There are many other ideas that I know we could work on together. These are just some of the ones my constituents have written to me, and I know they have written me other great ideas as well. Finally, an overarching theme I have heard is that Americans are tired of being victims of partisan gamesmanship, and I agree with them. We have had too much partisan gamesmanship on so many issues in the Congress. They are tired of the politics. They want us to work together to solve tough problems, and I agree with them. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I renew my call for a timeout on ObamaCare. Let's have both parties come to the table and find health care solutions that work for the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today I wish to honor the remarkable service of a great New Hampshire statesman: Councilor Raymond S. Burton of Bath. Councilor Burton has devoted his life to serving the people of New Hampshire--and it is been a labor of love. He has served with great distinction, remarkable diligence, Yankee wit and wisdom, and a deep and abiding love for the people of northern New Hampshire. For 18 terms, he has represented District One on the State's Executive Council, distinguishing himself as a tireless champion for the North Country. Ray is the longest serving Executive Councilor in New Hampshire's history. He has also served for 22 years as a Grafton County Commissioner, and is now the board's Clerk. His position as a county commissioner allows him to double his efforts to improve the lives of the people of northern New Hampshire, which is his life's work. This past weekend, Councilor Burton made the very sad announcement that he will not seek reelection to either elected post next year. This was no doubt a difficult decision for Ray, given his decades of service. I look forward to being in Council District One on Friday to join with Ray's many friends and supporters to honor his unmatched record of service to our state. I am confident that he will continue to give 110 percent to serving his constituents, just as he has done for decades. But his announcement represents a tremendous loss, not just for the people of the North County, but for citizens across New Hampshire. Daniel Webster once said, ``. . . in the mountains of New Hampshire, God Almighty has hung out a sign to show that there He makes men.'' Webster was referring to our beloved Old Man of the Mountain. But he could have just as easily been talking about Councilor Ray Burton, a gold standard public official of unmatched stature. No one brings the same level of dedication, commitment, and enthusiasm to public life as Ray Burton. To him, public service is not just a privilege--it is a calling and a true joy. And no one is better at constituent service than Ray Burton. District One is vast, stretching from Pittsburg on the Canadian border south to the Lakes Region, and from the Connecticut River Valley to the Mount Washington Valley. He has logged countless miles traveling the villages, towns, cities and counties of his district, frequently behind the wheel of a classic car. And if he is not driving an antique car, you will frequently find him on a snowmobile. Seventeen hour days are not unusual for Councilor Burton. He has been known to start days in Claremont and finish way up in northern Coos County, before returning to his cherished home in Bath. No community gathering or meeting is too small for Councilor Burton. If it is important to his constituents, it is important to him. He has said for many years that he always runs for office like he is three votes behind--a real statement, given that he has served on the Executive Council for nearly 4 decades, frequently was the nominee of both the Republicans and the Democrats, and comfortably wins reelection by double digit margins. It just goes to show you how seriously he takes the job and how eager he is to make a difference in the lives of his constituents. The fruits of his labor can be found across Council District One, whether it is an improved bridge or road, or an initiative to strengthen the economy and create jobs. It can also be found in quieter ways: the constituent he helped with a state agency, or the citizen who needed a hand with local or county government In addition to handing out his trademark combs, Ray gladly gives out his office number, his home office number, his car phone number and his email address--and he encourages people to use them. They call for help in times of need--and he delivers results. In fact, a former State commissioner once joked that when she switched on her computer on Monday mornings, she would find two dozen emails from Councilor Burton. That would not surprise me, given his view that the concerns of his constituents are of paramount importance and should go straight to the top. I can personally report having received dozens of inquiries from Ray--signed with his familiar line, ``May I hear from you?'' When not traveling his district, Ray is an enormously respected leader in Concord, where he first arrived in the late 1960s to work as a Sergeant at Arms in the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. Remarkably, he has served at the Statehouse during the administrations of 10 governors. In 1976, he was first elected to New Hampshire's Executive Council, an executive branch panel that functions as a check on executive power and dates back to 1680. It is a position he has held since 1981, earning the honorary title of ``dean'' of the council. When I served as New Hampshire's Attorney General, I saw up close that Councilor Burton is someone who does his homework, asks tough questions, and fights with every fiber of his being for what he believes is right. I also saw how deeply he loves our State--and how hard he fights for the people of northern New Hampshire. Beyond his tremendous efforts on behalf of his constituents, Ray also deserves great credit for working to prepare future generations of leaders. After his election to the Executive Council, he initiated a student internship program, which has become legendary in New Hampshire. Over the years, 140 interns have served Councilor Burton. Many of these young men and women have gone on to great careers in politics and government, carrying on his proud tradition of excellence in public service. I know that Ray's interns are a source of tremendous pride to him, and I commend him for continuing a program that has served so many so well. I am pleased to join citizens across New Hampshire in thanking Councilor Burton for his decades of extraordinary service to our State. No one has fought harder for his constituents than Ray Burton. And for generations to come, public officials will look to Ray as a model-- striving to match his tremendous energy, his inherent decency, and his extraordinary commitment to strengthening our beloved state.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate Director Sandra Matheson of the NH Attorney General's State Office of Victim/Witness Assistance, OVWA, for more than 30 years of dedicated service to the State of New Hampshire. A former law enforcement officer and crisis center director, Ms. Matheson was on call to respond to homicides for over 12 years, where she learned first hand about the unique needs of victims. She coordinated New Hampshire's efforts to establish victim/witness services in all 10 counties and to establish the New Hampshire Victim Compensation Program in 1989. During her long career, Ms. Matheson was responsible for founding and overseeing the OVWA homicide victim unit, which provides 24-hour statewide direct services in all of the State's homicide cases, from death notification throughout the judicial process. She has also developed and presented numerous trainings on traumatic grief and loss, homicide, and the extensive impact these crimes have on the families left behind. She developed and presented the State's first death notification training curriculum and she is a regular instructor at the NH Police Standards and Training Academy. She is on the faculty of the ME/NH Victim Assistance Academy, where she teaches the sessions on homicide and drunk driving, among others. Ms. Matheson was an instrumental part of numerous statewide initiatives aimed at standardizing the systemic response to crime victim issues, and has built a strong, effective, collaborative relationship with numerous State and community partners. She was a founder of the NH Domestic Violence, Child Fatality and Elder and Incapacitated Adult Fatality Review Committees, and served as chair of the Attorney General's Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, the NH Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, SANE, Advisory Board, the Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Protocol Projects, the Sexual Assault Domestic Violence Conference Committee, and is a partner of the New Hampshire AmeriCorps Victim Assistance Program. She has been a key player in getting legislation passed to help victims of crime, including drafting the NH Crime Victim Bill of Rights in 1991. A recipient of numerous awards for her work with victims and families, in April of 1994 Director Matheson received a National Victim Services Award from President Clinton and was honored at a Rose Garden ceremony for ``outstanding service on behalf of victims of crime.'' Most recently in 2013, the National Association of Attorneys General selected Sandra for the ``President's Award'' for her extraordinary work over the years. On a personal note, as New Hampshire's Attorney General, I was honored to work with Sandra. She is smart, passionate, and tireless in serving victims of crime and in making NH safer. She represents the very best of what it means to be a public servant. As Director Matheson celebrates her retirement, I commend her on a job well done, and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing her well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I have come to the floor a number of times during this government shutdown to say how absurd this has been for the American people, that we have found ourselves where we are, to have the government shut down, and those who brought forward a strategy to defund ObamaCare--the exchanges have opened anyway. That is why I never supported this strategy, because I did not think it was smart for the country, or achievable. We have been coming up against the debt ceiling issue, so I come to the floor today, after having come to the floor on several occasions, expressing my concerns and frustration. I thank our leader Mitch McConnell and the majority leader Harry Reid for coming together around an agreement ending the shutdown, to address the debt ceiling, even if on a short-term basis, so we can get out of the hole we are in, and start to deal with the big-picture problems facing the Nation. Around this, I was very heartened that a bipartisan group of Senators came together to solve this problem, led by Senator Collins from Maine, and seven Republicans and seven Democrats. Let me say among the 7 Democrats was my colleague from New Hampshire Senator Shaheen, who I see in the Chamber. If the Chair would recognize Senator Shaheen, I want to thank her, because what we have been able to do in New Hampshire is that she and I, even though we come from opposite sides of the aisle, have been able to find ways to work together on behalf of our State and on behalf of the country. She was in this group of seven Senators as a Democrat, I was there as a Republican, both representing the State of New Hampshire, ready with an agreement to solve this crisis. So I want to recognize my colleague and thank her for being part of a group that wanted to solve these problems for the Nation.

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I agree with that. We cannot go through this again. It is incumbent on all of us to work together even though we come from different parties so that we do not go from crisis to crisis in managing this Nation. I do hope with this agreement we are able to come to a longer term budget for the Nation, a longer term fiscal agreement for the Nation to address our $17 trillion debt, to address the challenges facing our economy, to work together to show people we can solve problems on behalf of this country, and that we can make sure we are not continuing to go from crisis to crisis as we represent New Hampshire and this Nation. I know both of us joined that group because we had had it with what was happening here and we were ready to solve the problems together.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I want to continue to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle. We were working together with our leadership. I mentioned this was an effort led by Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, Senator McCain, Senator Johanns, Senator Kirk, Senator Flake, on the Republican side of the aisle, and on the Democratic side of the aisle, Senator Manchin, Senator Begich, Senator Pryor, Senator Shaheen, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Donnelly, Senator Heitkamp, and we were even tripartisan because we had Senator King with us as well in these efforts. I think what we demonstrated is we can come together as a core group. When things break down here, there are many of us who desire to solve the problems facing the Nation. We know we cannot do it with one party alone. It took two parties to get us $17 trillion in debt; it is going to take two to get us out of this hole. Just like this fiscal crisis, it takes two parties to get us out and solve the Nation's problems. I think that is what we learned from this experience. I want to thank those who have worked so hard on it. Let me say: I am blessed to be a mother. My children just turned 6 and 9 years old during this whole crisis situation. It has been hard to get home during this time. My family is still in New Hampshire. I still live in New Hampshire. My daughter Kate asked me: Mom, why can't you just get the government open? What is wrong? Well, why can't you get this solved? It is a such a commonsense question that I got from her and from our son Jacob. Think about the lessons we try to teach our children. Are we not always trying to teach them that when they get into a conflict, you have to work it out? That, yes, you do not get to get everything your way, that it is not always your way. Well, those are the lessons I think all of us, regardless if we are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, try to teach our children. So I found myself in a hard position here where she is asking me the tough question. I had to say to her: You are right, Kate, we have to work together; otherwise, we are not going to get this solved. Even though I feel very strongly about my principles, I know my Democratic colleagues do also. What kind of lesson am I showing if I cannot help get this resolved? That is why I was proud to be part of a bipartisan agreement. Let me bring us back to why we got into this government shutdown for a moment, because the other thing, being a mother of two children, when something goes wrong, I always ask my children when they make a mistake: What did you learn from this? What was the lesson you learned from the mistake? I did not believe the defunding ObamaCare strategy was going to succeed from the beginning, not because I am not a strong opponent of ObamaCare. I absolutely am. But the fact of the matter was that the government shut down and the exchanges opened anyway. Yet the government was shut down, and we put all of those people who were worried about whether they were going to get their paychecks, veterans worried about what is going to happen--we can go on and on. I have heard the impact in my State. By the way, all the flaws those of us believe that do exist in ObamaCare were all overshadowed by the fact that the government was shut down. I do want to fix this law. I want to repeal it. I want to replace it with commonsense reform. But this was not a strategy to make that happen. I guess I would ask the question that I ask to my children: What did we learn from all of this? What we learned is this was not a successful strategy from the beginning. That, yes, you can be against ObamaCare, as I am. I am for repealing it and replacing it. But shutting down the government was not a smart strategy and not the right direction. I hope we never do this again. I hope we learned our lessons. I ask my children to do that, I am going to ask myself to do it, and I am going to ask others to do it. Let's move forward. Let's work together. Let's find ways--as we get to January when the funding for the government expires again, and February, let's take on the big challenges facing this Nation, the $17 trillion in debt. Let's get a budget for the Nation. Let's move forward from here, learn our lessons, work together, and get it done for the American people.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask that the senior Senator from South Carolina, the senior Senator from Georgia, if he comes to the floor, as well, and I be permitted to enter into a colloquy for up to 20 minutes.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about something that is fundamental to all of us, and that is the safety and security of our country. On October 5, our special forces did an excellent job in conjunction with our intelligence community, and I commend the administration for ordering the raid that captured a key Al Qaeda terrorist whose name is Abu Anas al-Libi. When they captured him, they put him on a ship. About a week ago, my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague from Georgia, who is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, stood up and we said: After successfully capturing one of the most important Al Qaeda members--which is a result of the great work done by our special forces and our intelligence agents--why are we putting him on a ship for purposes of interrogation instead of bringing him to Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which is a top-rated detention facility? At Guantanamo Bay we could do a lengthy interrogation of this person who has been associated with Osama bin Laden and the current head of Al Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki. He is also charged with participating and being involved in the 1998 Kenya and Tanzania bombings at the embassies that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. He has been described as a potential treasure trove of information about the activities of Al Qaeda and their plans. The information we have, which has been released publicly, is that he is someone Anwar al-Awlaki may have sent to Libya to try to make sure that they could have the Al Qaeda network in Libya. Let's not forget what happened on September 11, a year ago, in Libya where our ambassador and three brave Americans were murdered. Does Mr. al-Libi know anything about that? We will never fully know what Mr. al-Libi knows because after a week on the ship where our intelligence officials were given an opportunity to speak to him, he was transferred to a Federal district court, and today in Federal district court he pled not guilty to the 1998 bombings at the embassy. He was given a lawyer. We know that when these terrorists are given a lawyer, it gives them an opportunity to say: I will not talk to anyone anymore because I have a lawyer. They are told they have the right to remain silent. It is irresponsible for our Nation to capture a top Al Qaeda terrorist and tell them a week later: Here is your lawyer and your right to remain silent because the most important piece we have to protect our country is information to prevent future attacks and information that our intelligence officials can use about the Al Qaeda network to protect Americans and our allies. That information was given up because this administration is so worried and concerned about political points and closing Guantanamo Bay that they would rather transfer someone who is a key Al Qaeda operative to the Federal district court in New York and give him a lawyer a week later, instead of a lengthy interrogation designed to find out everything he knows. It took years to get the information that led to the bin Laden raid that captured and killed Osama bin Laden. Yet we only had a week of interrogation with a key Al Qaeda operative because they are so worried about adding more people to those who are present at Guantanamo Bay that they would rather put that political goal above gathering information to make sure America is protected. It is wrong, and we will never know what information we lost that could have protected Americans by only allowing this interrogation to go a week in military custody instead of a lengthy interrogation in a top-rated detention facility. One of the reasons that the administration has given is that he had medical issues. If he did have medical issues, guess what. Guantanamo Bay actually has top-rated medical facilities. Had we captured him and brought him right there--in fact, these are the same types of medical services that our own men and women in uniform are able to receive. He could have been treated there, and we also could have kept him there and made sure that we prioritized getting information about Al Qaeda from him to prevent future attacks against America and to stop the terrorists with this information. The more information we have, the better we can protect our country. Since I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been repeatedly asking the administration: What is your detention and interrogation policy? What if you capture the head of Al Qaeda tomorrow? And you know what I get from the top military leaders? I have gotten answers such as this: I would need lawyerly help on that one. We are still working on our detention and interrogation policy. While they have had years to work on this, we are left where we are: A top Al Qaeda terrorist who was captured in Libya and after only a week of interrogation was given a lawyer so they can accomplish their political goals instead of prioritizing and gathering information from someone who has known and been involved with Osama bin Laden and knows the current head of Al Qaeda, and finding out what that individual knows so we can keep America safe. I hope that the administration will stop doing this. We can't put politics above intelligence gathering to protect our country. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, through the Chair, if he still believes we are still at war with Al Qaeda? Also, how important is it that we gather information from terrorists who are captured, and that those interrogations be done on a lengthy basis instead of a short period such as a week?

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Let me make a correction for the Record. I used the name al-Maliki. It is Ayman al-Zawahiri who is the current head of Al Qaeda, and that is whose name I meant to say. The point is this: If we capture al-Zawahiri tomorrow, are we going to put him on the ship, and is he only going to be on the ship for a week when we gather information from him to ask him what future attacks he is planning against America and our allies? Does that make any sense? And then we are going to give him a lawyer and tell him he has the right to remain silent? No. What makes the most sense is that we have a detention and interrogation policy so that with people such as al-Libi, we take as much time as we need to make sure we find out everything they know about Al Qaeda to protect America, and if we capture Zawahiri tomorrow, we make sure we protect America by finding out everything he knows. That is what we are worried about and that is what we need to do for our country.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes, I will.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. al-Libi is someone who is alleged to have been involved in Al Qaeda for decades. He is someone who as early as the 1990s was working with Osama bin Laden. He is alleged to have been involved with--and that is what he is charged with in Federal court, as I mentioned--the 1998 bombings of the Kenya and Tanzania Embassies that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. He reportedly played a critical role as the intermediary between al- Zawahiri, whom we just discussed, who took over for Osama bin Laden as the head of Al Qaeda in an effort to establish an Al Qaeda-affiliated operation network in Libya where our Ambassador, of course, was murdered, along with three brave Americans, last September 11. He has been reported to be an Al Qaeda computer intelligence and operations security expert, and he is alleged to have been involved in Al Qaeda strategic planning. This is one of the most important captures we have had in years of Al Qaeda.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes.

Ms. AYOTTE. Right.

Ms. AYOTTE. That is right.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair.