Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss something of deep importance to me and, I believe, to our country. Last night the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor to speak on the continuing resolution, which is essentially the only bill we will consider this year to fund the government. It is over $1 trillion in taxpayer money. He came to the floor and propounded a unanimous consent request that only contained a handful of amendments that could be brought to the continuing resolution. Many germane and, in my view, reasonable amendments that had been advanced and brought to the attention of both sides well in advance were denied an opportunity for a vote on the floor. Because of that, I objected to the consideration of the continuing resolution and the unanimous consent request. Frankly, I think that when we are spending over $1 trillion in the only funding bill we are going to vote on, essentially, this year-- appropriations bill--we should be allowed to have votes on amendments, particularly germane amendments, as many of my colleagues have had, and my own amendment, which is one that would strike funding for, essentially, a missile to nowhere, which will never produce a missile program or a product our military will ever be able to use. My amendment is very straightforward. The amendment would strike funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System Program, called the MEADS Program, by $381 million-- These funds were appropriated for this program--and would actually transfer the funds to the operations and maintenance portion of the defense budget so the money could be used for our men and women in uniform for things they actually need as opposed to $380 million for a missile to nowhere for which we will never get a result. When we are almost $17 trillion in debt, it is truly shocking that we would continue to spend money on a program the Army says it does not want. In fact, in the Defense authorization last year, the Armed Services Committee actually prohibited funding for the MEADS Program. This is something that was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis last year in the Defense authorization bill that prohibited any further funding for this missile to nowhere. Yet it got included in the appropriations, in this continuing resolution, despite the fact that we are not going to get anything our warfighters can use from $380 million of spending. In fact, when Secretary Hagel was asked about whether the Pentagon would comply with this law, he said: Yes. Let's just review where we are with this program. The Army has already invested over $2 billion for this program, and we are not going to get a result. It was underperforming. So according to John McHugh, the Secretary of the Army, in 2011, he said: The Army has invested over $2 billion and that's only the partial cost of the program. Frankly, it was under performing. What else has been said? Frank Kendall, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, said: MEADS is a program that the U.S. decided not to procure a year ago. . . . So why, when our country is facing sequestration, when our men and women in uniform need to make sure the defense dollars we are providing them are actually resources that they can use for their needs to protect them, to protect our country, are we spending $380 million on something we will not procure, for which we will not get a result? To me, this is outrageous. If we cannot cut spending for this, how are we ever going to deal with the underlying drivers of our debt, with our nearly $17 trillion of debt? In fact, this is what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said. I have great respect for Chairman Levin, and he said this about the MEADS Program: We feel strongly that it's a waste of money. I stood up on the floor last night because I have bipartisan support for this amendment. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is about making sure we do not waste money at a time when our warfighters need the money for support and training, at the time they are facing sequestration and we are facing real threats to our country. We cannot afford to spend more money on a missile to nowhere. So I am very proud I have bipartisan support from Senator Begich, Senator Shaheen. Yet it is shocking to me that I cannot get a vote--it is germane--that we cannot strike this funding or get a vote on this Senate floor to strike this funding from this continuing resolution and to make sure the funds actually go to the operations and maintenance portion of the defense budget so they can use this money, warfighters can use it for needs they actually have. I also want to mention that the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste supports my amendment. The CEO of Concerned Veterans for America has said: MEADS is the quintessential Pentagon program that lives on indefinitely despite the fact that it will never see the field of battle. With our Nation drowning in $16.7 trillion worth of debt, Congress must undertake serious reforms to defense spending to maintain a sustainable fiscal path that preserves American power. Concerned Veterans for America has supported this amendment. Basically, this is common sense. This is the kind of thing people see at home and say: How could you possibly spend $380 million on a missile to nowhere when we know our men and women in uniform can use those funds for equipment they can use in theater, for training they can use to be prepared? It is really unconscionable that we will not allow a vote on the continuing resolution for something that has bipartisan support, for something that was actually struck by the authorization committee on both sides of the aisle, both in the House Armed Services Committee and in the Senate Armed Services Committee. When the majority leader took to the floor last night, he said: Oh, we have made reasonable accommodations. I do not see what is reasonable about giving a handful of amendments with over $1 trillion of spending. On Wednesday, Senator McCain brought forth an amendment--last Wednesday, so almost a week ago--he brought forth an amendment to strike other unauthorized funds from the continuing resolution and to leave those funds for the military to use for priority items and for things our men and women in uniform actually needed. Do you know what happened? There was a motion to table brought against Senator McCain's amendment. Essentially what he was trying to do is what I am trying to do today--to stop money that has not been authorized, to stop spending money when our men and women in uniform need us to allow them to use these resources for the basic needs they have. That is why he brought this amendment to the floor. Do you know what happened? There was a motion to table filed against his amendment, and I think there was a real shock on the floor from both sides of the aisle because on a bipartisan basis that motion to table failed because both sides of the aisle realized that when we are facing sequestration, when we are facing a dangerous world, when we owe it to our men and women in uniform, we cannot continue to fund things that are not priorities, we cannot continue to fund missiles to nowhere. And that amendment was eventually adopted by voice vote. This amendment is just like that amendment. The American people are tired of us not allowing commonsense amendments to come to the floor for a vote. With $1 trillion in spending, if we had started voting on amendments last Wednesday, after the floor was shut down--and I think there was a shock among leadership that Senator McCain won his amendment on a bipartisan basis and was able to overturn the motion to table his amendment. If we had started voting on amendments then, we would have already passed the continuing resolution. So it is an absolute cop-out to say that we are somehow faced with a government shutdown, that somehow we cannot have votes on the Senate floor on amendments that are important, germane, and relevant. Before I yield, I wish to support my colleague Jerry Moran because he was also denied an amendment that is an important amendment. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. The FAA has notified 189 towers across the country that it is going to cease to fund the towers' operation because of the sequester. Senator Moran has a commonsense amendment that would make sure it restores 95 percent of this funding by taking money from other areas in the FAA budget that will not disrupt operations. Well, there is a tower in Nashua, NH, at Boire Field that was on the list of the FAA despite the airport's importance to both the United States and New England and despite a recent investment of over $24 million by the FAA to upgrade the airport's runway. Senator Moran's amendment, which he is also being denied an ability to bring on this floor to have both sides vote on--he has strong bipartisan support--this amendment would ensure that towers like the tower at Boire Field in Nashua, NH, my hometown, would continue to operate. Yet we will not be given a vote on this Senate floor despite the strong bipartisan support Senator Moran has for his amendment, just as I have bipartisan support for my amendment. So I have to ask, what is the problem? Why can't we just vote on the amendments--start voting, keep voting, get it done? We can pass the continuing resolution. We can continue to fund this government. But do you know what. We can make improvements to the continuing resolution by striking money for the missile to nowhere, by making sure the air towers that the FAA is shutting down continue to operate in this country. I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have many more ideas as to how we can improve this continuing resolution, but the American people will never know about those ideas because we are on a Senate floor where we are not being allowed to vote, to vote on the amendments that matter to the American people, that strike wasteful spending, that improve this important piece of legislation. I think if we had started voting last Wednesday, we would have already allowed every person in this Chamber to have a vote on their amendment, as the Senate was intended to operate. This is intended to be the most deliberative body in the world. Yet, if you cannot bring up an amendment that is germane to strike spending for a missile to nowhere, it really renders the operation of the Senate at this point not what the Founding Fathers intended, and it puts a gag on the American people; that their elected representatives cannot come here and get votes on things that are going to strike funding like this, that are going to make sure air towers continue to operate in this country. I think we owe it to the American people that their elected representatives can come down here and get a vote on amendments that matter, that make a difference, that can improve this continuing resolution. Frankly, this notion that we cannot have votes on it--obviously, people do not want to have votes on it. They want to continue funding missiles to nowhere, whether it is their parochial interests or whatever interests that are driving them. It is wrong. We have to stop it. Bring this amendment to the Senate floor. Let's vote it up or down now, and let's move forward. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise today to address some comments that were made. I came to the floor earlier to talk about $380 million of funding for the MEADS Program, which is the missile to nowhere. I sought, and continue to seek, to offer an amendment to the continuing resolution and the appropriations bill before the Senate right now to strike that funding, and then to transfer the funding from this missile to nowhere to the operations and maintenance fund so that our troops can use the money for important needs they have, especially in light of sequestration. My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin--for whom I certainly have great respect--came to the floor earlier to counter what I had to say. In fact, the Senator from Illinois said essentially that the U.S. taxpayers have truly invested in this program, and he suggested that if we were to cancel funding for this missile to nowhere, we would be incurring damages, or that our allies who have entered into this MEADS Program with us--under the agreements we have entered into, our allies--in particular the Germans and the Italians--would be able to seek damages from us, so, therefore, we would incur damage costs by terminating it. I want to point out, first of all, not just in my view, this is wrong based on the plain language of the memorandum of understanding we have with our allies. In fact, I go back to first-year contracts class in law school. When you have an agreement with someone, you start with the language of your agreement and the language of the contract. The language of the contract of the memorandum of understanding we have on the MEADS Program in 2005 with Germany and Italy says very clearly: The responsibilities of the participants will be subject to the availability of funds appropriated for such purposes. So a first-year contract student would know that if we do not appropriate funds for the missile to nowhere, then we will not have legal obligations to our allies. In fact, that is essentially what the Department of Defense said to us when they wrote in a report to Congress about this with regard to the 2013 funding. Please understand the history of this. In 2012, in the Defense authorization, the defense committee said very clearly: This is it. We are not going to fund a program anymore that is not going to get us a result. We are not going to waste taxpayer dollars anymore. So understand, this is the end of our obligation. As a result, the Department of Defense said clearly to the Senate Armed Services Committee: [i]f Congress does not appropriate FY 2013 funding, the U.S. DOD [Department of Defense] would take the position that the FY 2012 funds represent the U.S. DOD's final financial contribution under the MOU. The U.S. DOD would also take the position that failure to provide FY 2013 funding would not be a unilateral withdrawal from the MOU . . . So contracts 101, very clearly, if we cut off the appropriations for the missile to nowhere and make sure that this fund goes to actually something our warfighters need and can use, we will not be subject to a claim by our allies because we expressly protected the taxpayers in the 2005 MOU that was entered into. In addition, I will say that there is another portion of the agreement itself. Section 5 of the 2005 MOU states that our maximum commitment from the United States had to be $2.3 billion. Yet between 2004 and 2011, we have already spent $2.9 billion on a missile to nowhere that we are not going to get a result from. So not only do we have no responsibility because we clearly put in that if we did not appropriate for this, then we would not have further responsibilities under the MOU, but in addition to that, we have already paid $2.9 billion, and the MOU says our responsibility is only $2.3 billion. So I come to the Senate today to say, with great respect to my colleague from Illinois, his claim that somehow terminating this contract is going to subject the United States to damages is wrong and is not supported by the plain language of the agreement, and we should not continue to fund a missile to nowhere. I will end with this. If you look at the history of this MEADS Program, what has happened? The House Armed Services Committee said in 2013--excuse me, the 2013 authorization: End funding for this program-- zero. The Senate Armed Services Committee said: End funding for this program. It is a missile to nowhere. Zero. The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee said: End funding for this; We are not going to appropriate for this. Zero. The only committee that has appropriated for this is the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, and if we stop that appropriation, we can end the missile to nowhere. That is what my amendment is about. That is why I hope we will have an amendment and a right to be heard on the continuing resolution. I wish to make sure money goes into the operations and maintenance fund so it can be used for our troop needs during a difficult time in addressing sequestration. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I have filed an amendment. I filed it last week. It is a reasonable amendment that both sides have been aware of. It is one that is also germane. It is to strike funding, $380 million in funding from the continuing resolution for a missile defense program that will never protect a single warfighter. It is a medium extended air defense system. In fact, it has been called a missile to nowhere, and my amendment would transfer those funds to operation and maintenance so they could be used for our warfighters, particularly as sequestration is pending, for real purposes instead of a program we will never realize anything from, that would protect our warfighters. I reserve the right to object.

Ms. AYOTTE. I object.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue I am very concerned about, which involves a man who was recently captured overseas. His name is Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, and he is Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Here is a photo of him sitting next to Osama bin Laden. In fact, he appeared with Osama bin Laden right after the 9/11 attacks on our country. He is Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, captured overseas and brought to the United States of America. The Attorney General has made the announcement Osama bin Laden's son-in-law will be tried in New York City in a civilian trial rather than being brought to Guantanamo Bay for further interrogation and held in military custody. I am very concerned about this issue as this is a man who, based upon the relationship he had with Osama bin Laden in 2001 and 2002, served as a spokesman for al-Qaida. He urged others to swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden. On September 12, 2001, he appeared with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He is shown in this photo. He warned the United States and its allies, ``A great army is gathering against you.'' He also called on all Muslims to battle the Jews, Christians, and Americans. He also promised more 9/11-style attacks. Right after our country was attacked on September 11, he appeared with Osama bin Laden warning of more September 11 attacks. He said, ``The storms shall not stop, especially the airplane storms.'' In 2002, he reportedly arranged to be smuggled to Iran where he was held under some form of house arrest. Obviously, we need to understand why the Iranians were allowing such a prominent member of al-Qaida to be kept in their country. We have deep concerns about Iran, which is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is threatening our country and right now marching toward nuclear weapons capability. It has threatened to annihilate Israel and threaten our country, while he was under loose house arrest following his direct allegiance with Osama bin Laden. In addition, American authorities have tied him to an October 8, 2002, attack on the U.S. Marines while training on an island off the coast of Kuwait. This was a situation where one of our marines was killed and another was seriously injured. The attack was conducted by al-Qaida fighters with direct ties to Mr. Abu Ghaith, who is Mr. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Kuwait actually stripped Mr. Abu Ghaith of his citizenship because of his role in recruiting Kuwaitis to become members of al-Qaida. Last week he pled guilty to charges in Federal court in New York City. I am concerned when we take a top member of al-Qaida after his capture overseas, such as Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, bring him to our courts in New York City, and then all the full rights of our civilian court system apply to this individual. This includes the right, when one is in custody and interrogated, to hear Miranda rights. My former role was as attorney general for the State of New Hampshire. I have great respect for our civilian system; however, our civilian system was not designed to deal with situations where we are at war. Mr. Abu Ghaith falls clearly within the definition of what this body has authorized as the use of military force against an enemy belligerent. When we bring him to New York City, we must Mirandize him and inform him he has the right to remain silent. We lose valuable opportunities to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and to discover if he was with Osama bin Laden. We have photos of him one day after the September 11 attack. What does he know about al-Qaida? Who else was involved? What does he know about their network? During the time he spent in Iran, was he still communicating with members of al-Qaida? Obviously, he was because we allege he helped commit an attack in 2002 in Kuwait which killed at least one marine. Who was he communicating with? What future attacks are they planning? What associations has he made with members of al-Qaida? When we tell someone such as this he has the right to remain silent and give him a lawyer, we lose opportunities to protect our country. When we are at war, as we are with al-Qaida, we need to focus to discover as much information as possible about al-Qaida: who they are targeting and who are the members of al-Qaida. Obviously, all of us supported the President's decision to take out Osama bin Laden. Who are the other members of his network? What information are we losing when we bring him to a civilian court system instead of bringing him where he belongs as an enemy belligerent in Guantanamo Bay? It seems to me inconsistent that the administration would take the position--and I support them on this--they would kill top members of al-Qaida overseas. Yet they are so averse--when they capture someone-- to bringing them to Guantanamo Bay. It is their preference to take them into a civilian court system in the United States of America, where they must read Miranda rights to that individual rather than take them where they belong, to Guantanamo Bay. I have visited Guantanamo, which is a secure detention facility where people are treated humanely, kept very securely, but not on U.S. soil. We may keep them in Guantanamo Bay under the law of war and interrogate the individual as long as we need to. Let me remind everyone the intelligence we gathered, which allowed us to find and take out Osama bin Laden, took a matter of not just months but years to gather. To take someone such as Sulaiman Abu Ghaith and immediately, after he is captured, very quickly bring him to New York City, we lose the opportunity to go back to him over time to understand the full amount of information he may have about al-Qaida. This is why we have a distinction under our law between the law of war and our civilian system. He is not a bank robber. He is not an average criminal who should be treated the same way as any other criminal in America. He is someone who has sworn to kill Americans and has asked others to take the oath for al-Qaida, which is at war with our country. I am very worried about the fact the administration seems to be bent on bringing these foreign terrorists to the United States to give them all of the rights of our civilian court system rather than focusing on ensuring we have all the intelligence we need to protect our country. I would like to also speak about another individual and the inconsistency we have here. This is Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen. He was radicalized, possessed both American and Yemeni citizenship, and became a leader for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He advocated for violent jihad against the United States and has been linked to a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States. These include links to the September 11 attacks against our country and links to the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting. The administration made the decision in September 2011 to take out Mr. al-Awlaki overseas in Yemen. I certainly support their decision in that regard. I want to point out how inconsistent it is that we are willing to use the drone program to take out someone like al-Awlaki, and yet we will not use all the tools in our toolbox to ensure Osama bin Laden's son- in-law is held at Guantanamo and fully interrogated to give us the time we need to gather the full information he has. It is very inconsistent, and I think the administration should be detaining enemy belligerents in Guantanamo and ensuring they are interrogated. I wish to mention one final person, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Let's not forget the administration's first decision with the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was to bring him to New York City for a civilian trial in New York close to Ground Zero, as they are now making the decision with Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. The public outrage was great over bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York City due to the amount of security it would take to secure someone like him. There was the concern he should be treated as an enemy of our country and tried by a military commission in Guantanamo. He was transferred there eventually by the administration, but only after great pressure from both sides of the aisle in Congress to say it would be appropriate that the mastermind of 9/11 belongs in Guantanamo before a military commission. I think we find ourselves in the same situation now with Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. There can be no doubt he is a top member of al- Qaida; that he had close relationships with Osama bin Laden; that he is charged with conspiring to kill Americans. These are very serious charges, and there can be no doubt that he falls within our operation and the use of military force; that he is an enemy of our country and that we should be treating him in a similar fashion as to how we treated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Most of all, we need to prioritize intelligence gathering to prevent future attacks against our country rather than focusing on bringing them immediately into our civilian court system. A man such as Osama bin Laden's son-in-law should never hear the words ``You have the right to remain silent.'' We can't afford to have him be silent. We need to know everything he knows to protect our country, its citizens, and to prevent future attacks on America and our allies. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I will, and then, obviously, I would like to make a few comments.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the two cloture votes on bills dealing with the sequester today, there be set a time, to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, that without intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to proceed to my alternative bill dealing with the sequester which is now at the desk.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair, and I thank very much the Senator from Rhode Island for allowing me the opportunity to continue and for sorting out the order on the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator for that.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator for his statement and for his support and I certainly join in the comments and concerns that were just raised by my colleagues Senators McCain and Graham. Here is where we are. We are in this position where, frankly, as Senator McCain said, this is a charade. Both parties are acting out this play where we are going to have one vote on the Democratic alternative that is going to fail, and then we are going to have another vote on one Republican alternative that is going to fail. So I put pen to paper and came up with some other ways to cut spending, which comes to about $250 billion in savings over the next 10 years, in order to address sequester and also to have an alternative because I believe the American people see through this charade of what is going to happen today and that, ultimately, as prior speakers have said, the sequester was set up to be resolved in a way where we had alternative savings that did not undermine our national security and some of the core services that could be put at risk in the way the sequester is structured. I firmly believe, when we look at what has happened, this bill was ill-conceived from the beginning. I didn't support it. I didn't vote for it. One of the fundamental problems with it was it was a kick-the- can-down-the-road exercise where we gave our responsibility to find the $1.2 trillion in savings--the sequester--to a supercommittee, rather than the Senate and the Budget Committee doing our job of budgeting and prioritizing. So stepping back, that is what has led us here. But I am also disappointed in my Republican colleagues, and that is why I offer an alternative of spending cuts, because it seems to me, the way this is structured we have already taken $487 billion in reductions to our defense. I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. For 1 year on that committee, I have been listening to our military leaders at every single level when asking them about the sequester. From the highest leaders, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, we have heard things such as we are going to shoot ourselves in the head, we are going to hollow out our force, and America will no longer be a global power, which is what General Dempsey once told us, as a result of sequestration. This morning, we had leaders of our military before the Armed Services Committee and I asked Assistant Secretary Estevez: If we go with the flexibility approach, does this address the impact on our national security? In other words, will this address making sure we can still meet the needs of our national security? Let us not forget this is happening at a time when Iran is marching toward a nuclear weapon, when we have conflict in Syria, and when we are still at war. By the way, with this sequester, the way it impacts the Department of Defense, our war funding was not exempt. Over 50 percent of spending, as this was set up from the beginning, was exempt from the sequester, which of course is no way to find savings throughout the whole government, but we didn't exempt the war funding. So at a time of war, I asked the Assistant Secretary: Does the flexibility solve the problem to our national security? And he said: Certainly, flexibility will help us deal with it, but it will not solve the problem in terms of our national security. So that is why I decided to come up with some alternative savings. My proposal will not get a vote today. I think it is a time when, frankly, we should be bringing more ideas to the floor, not less ideas, and debating this vigorously in the Senate, instead of where we are right now, which is a charade. We are going to have one vote and another vote and then we are all going to go to our respective sides and say: OK, American people, we know there are real risks, particularly to the safety of this country, that we should be addressing. From my perspective, I believe we can address them through alternative spending cuts. Through all this, we have the President, who has called leaders of both parties tomorrow to the White House. I have spent a year working on this issue. He was at the Newport News shipyard the other day. We were there in July talking about the impact on that shipyard. We traveled to States around the country--to military facilities--to talk to the people there at those facilities about the impact of sequester. I think the President should have been on this much sooner, but now it is time for his leadership as the Commander in Chief--leadership we could have used this past summer when we were all talking about it. We could have been in a position to try to resolve it then rather than continuing to be in these crisis moments in which we find ourselves in the Senate. Where I am left on all this is that we owe it to our men and women in uniform to find alternative ways to save the money, still protecting our national security. Also, so people understand how this plays out, the way the cuts are taken in 2013--during a shorter period, not a full period--OMB has estimated on the defense end it is about 13 percent, on top of the $487 billion in reductions, and in nondefense spending it is about 9 percent over the additional $487 billion. So I would just simply ask for a time to stop this charade, and it is my hope we could actually get down to resolving this in a responsible way for our country. That is why I put pen to paper. People can be critical of my proposal, but I think that now is the time when we should have a vote on every proposal and we should have every idea come to the table because it is a time to stop the charade and it is a time to solve this problem. Let's make sure we protect our country at a very dangerous time. I will continue to work to do that for our country. I think we can do it, still addressing our deficit, still with savings, but we certainly need to do it, and having the charade vote we are going to have today will not solve it. The American people deserve better and we should be giving them better and solving this. I thank the Chair for allowing me the time, and I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. Would the Senator from Maryland yield for a brief comment?

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator, and I wanted to first say I know she is the new chair of the Appropriations Committee and I congratulate her on that. As we go forward, as we look at why we are where we are, if we can get back to regular order in the Senate, with a budget and a regular appropriations process, I think we would do a great service for the American people and eliminate this crisis-to-crisis mode. I know, as the new chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski will play a leadership position in doing that.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and congratulate chief of police M. James ``Jim'' Alexander, Jr., of the Lebanon New Hampshire Police Department for his more than 26 years of dedicated law enforcement service to our State and Nation. The Chief began his law enforcement career as a police officer with the Brattleboro, VT, Police Department in 1987. Chief Alexander then joined the Lebanon New Hampshire Police Department in 1990 as a patrol officer. He was promoted to patrol supervisor in 1991, sergeant in 1996, lieutenant in 1999, captain in 2002, and deputy chief in 2004. Jim was appointed Lebanon's chief of police on March 1, 2006. During his long career as a public safety professional, Chief Alexander has been a leader in promoting community-oriented policing, improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire, and promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Alexander has worked tirelessly with his peers and with other public safety officials to better the administration of justice. He is well known for his collaboration with local, county, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. He was recognized in 2007 with the Community Health Leadership Award, and in 2009 he received recognition for his extraordinary commitment and contributions to the Grafton County Drug Court Program. Under his leadership, the Lebanon, NH, Police Department was cited for the extraordinary assistance provided to the U.S. Marshals Service in helping to successfully end a dangerous 9-month- long standoff with convicted antigovernment activists. As Chief Alexander celebrates his retirement, I commend him on a job well done. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Deb, and their adult children, Nick and Jacqui, well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate chief of police Vinnie Baiocchetti of the Belmont, NH, Police Department for his 37 years of dedicated service to the firefighting and law enforcement professions, the town of Belmont, and the State of New Hampshire. Beginning his public safety career as a firefighter and emergency medical technician in 1976, Vinnie then joined the Laconia, NH, Police Department in 1983 as a part-time police officer, became a full-time officer for the Gilmanton, NH, Police Department in 1984, and was promoted to sergeant in that agency in 1991. He joined the Belmont, NH, Police Department in 2001, where he was promoted to sergeant in 2002, and appointed chief of police in 2003. During his long career as a public safety professional, Chief Baiocchetti continued to serve with the Laconia NH, Fire Department as a call firefighter and fire investigator. Chief Baiocchetti has been a leader in promoting community-oriented policing, improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire, and promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Baiocchetti has worked tirelessly with his peers and with other public safety officials to better the administration of justice and to train members of New Hampshire's police and fire communities. He has focused on mentoring young people interested in the law enforcement profession through Law Enforcement Exploring. Chief Baiocchetti served as an adviser, assistant commander, and commander of the New Hampshire Police Cadet Training Academy during his more than 25 years of work with this unique and nationally emulated summer program for teenagers. As Chief Baiocchetti celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Tammy, and daughter Ashley, well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to say a few words about my friend Joe Lieberman, the gentleman from Connecticut. Shortly after I arrived in the Senate, Senator Lieberman was assigned to serve as my mentor--someone from the other side of the aisle who would be a source of wisdom and guidance as I made my way in my first term in the Senate. I considered myself extremely fortunate that he agreed to mentor me. We are both from New England. We both had the privilege of serving our State as attorney general and have a deep respect for the rule of law. And we are both deeply concerned about issues impacting the security of our country. Over the last 2 years, I have been able to work with Senator Lieberman more closely, and I have personally seen his character, his courage, and his conviction. Both in tone and in substance, Senator Lieberman has been one of the most respected and effective statesmen in the history of this institution--someone who transcended politics to stand up for what he believed in and what he believed was right on behalf of our country. Senator Lieberman understands that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas and that the American people expect Members of both parties to work together to get things done on behalf of our country. Senator Lieberman understands that our children will not ask us whether we were Democrats or Republicans and how good we were at that, at being a member of a party; they will ask us whether we were willing to make the tough decisions necessary to ensure that they continue to enjoy prosperity and freedom in the greatest country on Earth. What I admire about my friend Joe Lieberman is that he is someone who always puts country first above all else. For Senator Lieberman, this has been especially true in the area of national security and homeland security. As our Nation has encountered difficult economic headwinds at home-- over $16 trillion in debt--there have been Members of both parties who have argued for excessive cuts to our military and that we disengage from the rest of the world. Yet, in the great traditions of Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, Senator Lieberman has made the compelling case that the United States best promotes its values and protects its citizens when we remain engaged around the world, maintaining our military strength, having the best military in the world. Having had the chance to work with Senator Lieberman on the Senate Armed Services Committee, his commitment to our men and women in uniform has been inspiring. He has shown a deep commitment to make sure they have the best equipment they need and that we remain the strongest military in the world; and that when our soldiers come home, they receive the support they need. He has been such an amazing advocate for the military and their families. I also appreciate that like Winston Churchill, Senator Lieberman understands the value of alliances between democracies and has spoken with moral clarity regarding the enemies of freedom. He has not hesitated to call terrorism an evil by its name and to speak out for dissidents and freedom fighters around the world. I will never forget a trip I had the privilege of taking with him to Asia, where we had the opportunity to meet individuals who were imprisoned. And they spoke with tears in their eyes of the work Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain and others had done to speak up on their behalf. Senator Lieberman has spoken for those who have been oppressed around the world time and time again, and he has left his legacy on this institution in making sure that America stands for our values and for people around the world who are struggling for basic human rights and freedom. In this Chamber, he will also, of course, be remembered for the incredibly important work he did as a strong and resolute member of the Senate Armed Services Committee but also as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He helped to lead the Federal Government's response to September 11, to those horrible attacks on our country, and every American is safer because of the work Joe Lieberman did as chairman of that committee, and the work he did on the Senate Armed Services Committee in this body--and the work I know he will continue to do when he leaves the Senate. My friend Joe Lieberman represents the very best of public service. He has stood firm for freedom, international engagement, and American military strength. He will be remembered among Members of this body not only for his accomplishments but for the way he has conducted himself. Always a gentleman, he has conducted himself with great decency, civility, and humility. At a time when our country faces great challenges, his quiet and effective leadership and commitment to working across party lines will be sorely missed in this body. He will certainly continue to serve as a model for all of us who remain serving in the Senate, and I know in future endeavors I will certainly seek him out to seek his advice and counsel, as we face great challenges not only here at home but also in terms of our military and the role America plays in the world. We all admire his leadership here, and it has been a true privilege for me to have had him mentor me the last 2 years. I have learned so much from him. And, again, I think he serves as a model public servant of what it means to be committed to doing the right thing for your country. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and I appreciate your leadership in that role as well on that committee--I would like to speak for a few minutes on the National Defense Authorization Act. In the midst of an ongoing war, with our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives fighting in Afghanistan, our country continues to face a very serious threat from radical Islamist terrorists and other challenges and threats throughout the world. With increased threats posed by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, it is so important that we pass the Defense Authorization Act. I would like to take a minute to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and for the hard work and dedication they have shown in bringing us together around this Defense authorization. In a place where we typically have seen many times that things have come down on party lines, I can tell you that the Senate Armed Services Committee is a welcome exception to the gridlock and partisanship in Washington, and both of them have brought us together. In fact, the Defense authorization bill passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously. It reflects the committee's bipartisan commitment to making sure our troops and their families have what they need to ensure our Nation is protected. As the ranking member of the readiness subcommittee, I have had the pleasure of working with Chairman McCaskill to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to protect themselves and our country. At the same time, the readiness subcommittee has also worked very hard to achieve significant reforms that save taxpayer dollars without endangering our military readiness. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to seek additional efficiencies within the Department of Defense budget, while guarding against irresponsible cuts that would leave our troops and our Nation less prepared for future contingencies and increase the likelihood of conflict. I also wish to recognize the work I have had the opportunity to do with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that further supports our troops, our veterans, and their families. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues across the aisle to include several very important provisions in this year's Defense Authorization Act. During the markup, Senator Begich, Senator McCain, Senator Shaheen, Senator Vitter, and Senator Udall joined me--three Republicans and three Democrats working together--to introduce and successfully incorporate an amendment to the Defense authorization that would save $400 million by cutting off funding to the over-cost and behind- schedule Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS. This is a weapons program that the Pentagon has said it will never procure, it will never happen. Yet we continue to put taxpayer dollars into this weapons system. I know that in the President's comments about the bill, he has expressed concern about this--his administration has--but at a time when we are facing grave fiscal challenges in this country, we cannot afford to spend $400 million on a weapons system that will never come to be when there are so many other needs that need to be addressed. In another bipartisan effort, more than a dozen of my colleagues joined Senator Begich and me in ensuring that veterans buried at the Clark Veterans Cemetery in the Philippines will have the dignified and final resting place they deserve. There is still more work we have to do on this issue. What this comes down to is when the Air Force abandoned Clark Air Force Base in 1991 in the wake of a volcanic eruption, Clark Veterans Cemetery was abandoned and the tombstones and the remains of 8,300 U.S. servicemembers and their dependents were left buried in ash and overgrown weeds. That is completely unacceptable for those who have served our Nation, that we would not ensure that this cemetery would be kept in a way that is dignified and consistent with the respect they deserve, having served our Nation. To prevent this from ever happening again, I am pleased that the Defense authorization includes my provision, which would require the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a plan to ensure that an appropriate Federal or private agency assumes responsibility for the continued maintenance and oversight of cemeteries located on overseas military bases after they close. What happened here is that we left, and there was nothing in place to ensure that we would take responsibility to make sure this cemetery was maintained with dignity and respect. This provision will make sure that if we are in that position again, this will not happen. Additionally, Senator Jack Reed and I worked together to include a provision aimed at enhancing the Department's research, treatment, education, and outreach initiatives focused on addressing the mental health needs of members of the National Guard and Reserve. In addition to the provisions I have just mentioned which we have been able to put in this bill on a bipartisan basis, I would also like to talk about some additional amendments that have already been included in the Defense authorization. Here are some of the provisions or reporting requirements that are included within this bill: First, requiring the Pentagon to complete a full statement of budget resources by 2014 to improve financial stewardship at the Pentagon. This has been an issue we have been working on for too long. It is time that the Pentagon is able to undergo an audit, and this requirement that is contained within the Defense Authorization Act is consistent with what Secretary Panetta has said he is seeking to do, to make sure the Pentagon can complete a full statement of budget resources by 2014. When we are at a time when we are $16 trillion in debt, the fact that we are not able to audit the Pentagon, aren't able to really take that information and make critical decisions on what we need versus what we would want to do and what we can afford to do, this is very important, that the Pentagon get to a position where it can be audited. This provision ensures that this critical step is in this bill, and I am hopeful it will get passed. Additional provisions that will save millions of dollars in acquisitions by prohibiting the Department of Defense from using cost- type contracts for the production of major defense acquisition programs are in this bill. We can't afford the years where we are paying much more for weapons systems than we can afford and it takes much longer to produce them. We can improve our acquisition systems, and by prohibiting the Department of Defense from using cost-type contracts for the production of major defense acquisition programs, this is a very important step. There are also provisions in this bill to ensure that our nuclear deterrent remains strong as we modernize our nuclear arsenal. Without a nuclear deterrent, if you look at what is happening around the world, with Iran trying to acquire the capability of having a nuclear weapon, with North Korea having that capability, it is very important that we have that deterrent in our country and that it remains modern and able if, God forbid--we hope we will never have to use that, but it is a very strong deterrent to rogue actors around the world that are seeking this capability. In addition, there are provisions that increase oversight of the Department of Defense's proposed reduction in the number of soldiers and marines and looks at the issue of minimizing involuntary separations. This is one of the things we are facing right now. With the defense cuts, some of our men and women in uniform who have served multiple tours on our behalf are now in a position where they may receive a pink slip. We owe it to them to make sure we minimize the situation where they come home, they are given a pink slip, and then they are put in a situation where they are looking for a job. We need to make sure we do this in a way that they can assimilate into the civilian society without being left unemployed, given the sacrifices they have made for our country. There are other provisions I would like to highlight briefly. There is a provision to ensure that military amputees have access to top- quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets. Whether servicemembers who require prosthesis choose to leave the military or continue to serve, they deserve the best, top-quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets, and included in this mark is a provision that will ensure there are standards to make certain they receive the best. They deserve it. In addition, there is a provision that will require that the Navy let us know what our current military capabilities require in terms of the number of ships and submarines that are in our fleet. The Chief of Naval Operations testified last year the Navy needs 313 ships and submarines to meet its strategic requirements. Right now we only have 285. If sequestration goes forward, we are going to have dramatically less. Right now, we can only meet 61 percent of attack submarine requirements set by our combatant commanders. The administration has said we are going to shift to the Asia Pacific region given the rise in investments China is making in its navy, so I am simply asking that the Navy tell us what they need to make sure our country is protected. We have conflicting information, and it is important that we have a strong and robust Navy to make sure America is protected from the threats we face around the world. In conclusion, I want to just thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for all their hard work and leadership on the Armed Services Committee. This is a bill of which we can be proud. I am pleased that last week the Senate adopted my amendment to ban terrorists who are being held at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to U.S. soil. I know that is something the American people feel strongly about. I know the bill, overall, will continue to have debate on a number of amendments, but it is a bill that is very important to our servicemembers--the men and women in uniform who serve us--and their families. They deserve the very best. They deserve to know we will pass this bill to make sure they have the equipment and the support they need given the sacrifices they have made for our country. Again, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for all their hard work. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, in paying tribute to and honoring the life and legacy of Warren Rudman. Warren Rudman was a Senator from New Hampshire whose intellect, courage, and conviction brought great honor to this institution. Warren Rudman embodied the very best of New Hampshire: frugal, fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good. He didn't aspire to be a politician, but when he saw his country was headed in the wrong direction, he stepped up to serve, and his focus was always doing the right thing for our country and the people of New Hampshire. It wasn't the first time Warren Rudman had been called to duty. He had already distinguished himself in the U.S. Army, serving as a combat platoon leader and company commander during the Korean War. It was there that he saw the horrors of war and became convinced of the need for American military supremacy and strength. For his brave service he was presented the Bronze Star. Following his return home, Warren Rudman settled in Nashua, his hometown--also my hometown--where he raised his family. After completing law school, Warren entered private practice, where he remained until he was called to serve once again--only this time he was recruited to bring his energy and ideas to New Hampshire State government. Warren quickly proved himself as Governor Peterson's chief of staff. Then, at age 39, he was appointed to serve as New Hampshire's attorney general. I am very proud to have also served as New Hampshire's attorney general. In my view, Warren Rudman is probably the greatest attorney general to serve in New Hampshire's history. He modernized the office of the attorney general to meet the needs of a changing State. He was a tough-on-crime attorney general who personally tried criminal cases. Warren Rudman earned a reputation for standing firm on principle even when it wasn't popular. It was perfect practice for the battles he would later fight in Washington on behalf of the people of this country. Warren ran for the Senate in 1980 because the issues he cared about were being neglected. He believed in a strong national defense and he saw the Nation's fiscal situation careening dangerously off course. He was worried about the threat that presented to our country's future. As a first-term Senator, Warren Rudman truly made his mark, and that is certainly not easy to do. But it showed his character, his leadership, and his persistence because Warren Rudman's name will forever be linked with his landmark effort to rein in Federal spending. The Gramm-Rudman legislation was born of the bold idea the Federal Government shouldn't spend beyond its means. When it was signed into law, annual deficits were $200 billion. Imagine how much better off we would be if we had heeded Warren Rudman's warnings and truly followed through on the work he did in this body. Warren's zeal for responsible government went beyond reducing spending. As a former prosecutor, he was seen by his colleagues as someone who was committed to fairness, truth, and independence. When the Iran Contra scandal erupted in 1986, the Senate moved to investigate and Warren Rudman was selected to serve as the committee's top Republican. At the outset, he made one thing clear, and that always guided Warren Rudman in everything he did. This is what he said: ``I consider myself an American first and a Republican second.'' That was a commitment he kept, helping to lead a nonpartisan inquiry that pursued the facts. He saw himself as asking tough questions on behalf of the American people and he expected answers. With the Nation in turmoil, Warren Rudman stood firm for the rule of law. His rigorous commitment to uncovering the truth brought credit to this body and great pride to the people of New Hampshire. Of course, representing their interests was always Warren Rudman's true passion. Warren Rudman had New Hampshire in his blood and he brought New Hampshire common sense to Capitol Hill. While Warren was at the center of some of the most consequential debates in Washington, he always put his constituents first. In fact, legislation he authored to help small businesses continues to benefit entrepreneurs to this day in the Granite State. Shortly after arriving in the Senate, the first bill he introduced on behalf of the State of New Hampshire and our country was a bill called the Small Business Innovation Research Act, which was aimed at bolstering small high-tech companies in New Hampshire and across the Nation. To this day, the SBIR Program continues to help small defense and technology companies through competitive grants, and it has been a very important program. That was the idea of Warren Rudman the day he came to the Senate, which is so impressive, and Senator Shaheen and I have proudly worked together across party lines to make sure this important program continues to be effective. Warren Rudman will be remembered as a statesman, someone who loved his country and wanted to make it better. In bidding farewell to the Senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve with such talented colleagues in this esteemed body. He also expressed his hopes for the future of this body, and this is what he said: ``It is a very special place, with very special people, and I hope in the coming years the institution can coalesce to bring those talents together in a bipartisan way to do what is good for America.'' As our country continues to face great challenges, may all of us remain mindful of Warren Rudman's wise words and the powerful example he set for this body. Granite Staters throughout all New Hampshire mourn his loss, but we will never forget his legacy as an esteemed representative of the people of New Hampshire and someone who always put America first.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about an amendment I had intended to offer but I am not going to be offering today because there is an important portion in the House Armed Services Committee that covers my concerns. That was the amendment I had drafted that is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I appreciate their support. My amendment would establish an east coast ballistic missile defense site to make sure the east coast of our country is protected from missile threats. Let me describe why I thought it was very important. My amendment would have established both a study on three potential locations for an east coast missile defense site, an environmental impact study, and a plan for deployment of that site. Where we are right now, unfortunately, is we have Iran, and no one disagrees that Iran has an active ballistic development program. They can already reach Eastern Europe. Many analysts believe Iran will be able to develop the capacity to strike the mainland United States with an ICBM by 2015. Our existing missile defense sites right now that protect this country have the capacity--if, for example, North Korea were to launch an ICBM toward the west coast, we would have an opportunity for two shots at that missile to protect our country. In other words, if the President of the United States got an awful call that a missile was coming from North Korea toward the western coast of our country, he would have an opportunity to have one shot, a look, and then a shot to take that missile down to protect our country; two shots to take the missile down. But as it stands right now, when it comes to the east coast of our country, including the Capital, Washington, DC, the center of our government where we stand right now, my home State of New Hampshire, New York, all those population centers, if Iran were to develop the capacity to have an ICBM, where we are today is we would only get one shot at that missile if it were to be shot at the eastern coast of the United States instead of a shoot, look, shoot that we have if North Korea were to shoot a missile toward the western part of our country. I think this is deeply troubling. We should be developing that capacity to make sure our country is fully protected. I would like to address others who have looked at this. This year the National Research Council recommended an additional ballistic missile site in the United States in the Northeast to more effectively protect the Eastern United States and Canada, particularly against Iranian ICBM threats should they emerge. That is, of course, because some analysts believe they could develop that capacity as soon as 2015. The markup coming out of the House Armed Services Committee already contains language and authorization for the actual establishment of an east coast missile site. That is one of the reasons I will not be offering my amendment today to conduct this study on environmental impact and also planned deployment because the House version already contains a requirement that an east coast missile defense site be developed. Some would say--in fact, one thing I would like to address is that we may hear from the administration that they are working on a hedging-- and a different hedging strategy--to make sure the east coast is protected. And that hedging strategy would be plans to deploy the SM-3 Block IIB missile in Poland. But where we are today with the SM-3 Block IIB shows why it is important for us to use technology that already exists to protect the east coast; that is, because the SM-3 Block IIB is only a plan on a piece of paper. It doesn't exist yet, and there have been concerns relayed about its development and, in fact, the development of the SM-3 Block IIB has already been delayed to 2021, which does not meet where we are with the potential that Iran could develop ICBM capacity by 2015. It just would not work. But what we do know is that we already have technology that exists, and if we were to deploy a missile defense site now on the east coast, that we would get the opportunity to have a look, shoot, look on the east coast were Iran to launch a missile toward the east coast of our country. We only need to look at what happened recently in the conflict with Hamas, the missiles that were being shot into Israel and the Iron Dome system to understand the importance of missile defense. Now, that is a system that focuses on short-range missiles, but we all saw the number of civilians that could be protected by the capacity of having a robust missile defense system, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to be in the position to make sure the east coast of our country would be as protected as the west coast when it comes to an emerging threat from Iran. There is no question that the more we hear about the behavior of Iran, the more troubled we should be as a country. Not only do they have a robust missile development program, but we all know they are also making efforts to acquire the capability of having a nuclear weapon. Now is the time for us to act, not to find ourselves in 2015 with no plans as to how to deploy an east coast missile defense site to make sure the east coast of our country has the same protection as the west coast. Now is the time to act because, in addition, in 2012 in the defense authorization, we asked the administration to submit a plan to us as to how they would hedge, a hedging strategy to make sure the east coast was as protected as the west coast. They have yet to submit that plan, and so now is the time for us to make sure we go forward with technology that already exists to ensure that the east coast of our country is protected. I cannot imagine the President of the United States being in a position as we go forward in our country where, if a missile were coming from Iran toward our Capital, he would be told we only have one shot to take that missile down versus if a missile were coming to the west coast of our country in L.A. from North Korea, that we would have two shots to take that missile down. We want to make sure our country is protected. The threat from Iran is a very real threat. That is why I was going to offer this amendment, to make sure we had a study, an environmental impact analysis and a plan that the Department of Defense could use to deploy an east coast missile defense site. But my colleagues in the House, including Representative Turner, have already addressed this issue directly with the requirement contained in the House mark of the Armed Services Committee. I think it is very important what they have done. I thank the Chair very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes. Thank you.