Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to add as well, this detainee compromise, as Senator McCain and I have talked about before, is actually for--the group of individuals we are talking about here--having military custody for members of al-Qaida or affiliated groups who are planning an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. You think about that category of individuals. The most dangerous category of individuals we have to address is why we came to the compromise in committee, that the default would be military custody for those individuals, and it is inconsistent with the administration's position. If you think about it, they are, rightly so--and I agree with them-- undertaking taking out members of al-Qaida around the world who fall under that category, who are out there killing Americans and plotting against Americans and our allies. Yet they are objecting to a provision, a detainee provision, that would give guidance to our military and intelligence leaders that those individuals should be treated, in the first instance, with military custody. It seems to me to be very inconsistent with what they have been doing in other contexts, and, obviously, this is a category of individuals who, on a bipartisan basis, we agreed in committee was the most dangerous category of individuals, who should be held in the first instance in military custody. I want to add that Mr. Brennan, whom the majority leader has cited on behalf of the administration as objecting to this provision, does not seem to--in his speech at Harvard that he gave recently--appreciate who this provision applies to and that there is actually a national security waiver in the provision. So I would ask the administration and Mr. Brennan, again, to read the provisions that were passed on a bipartisan basis by the committee because this is such a key issue to move forward to give guidance to our military. But I am concerned that the administration's objections to this are misguided and they have not read the actual legislation on which we are working. It is my hope, as our leader, the minority leader, has said, that we will move forward with passing the critical pieces for our troops because our troops deserve nothing less than for us to bring this forward to the floor because of the pay raises, the weapons systems they deserve to have, everything that is in that bill. But, also, I would ask the administration to revisit its position because it seems inconsistent with its own policies, and they do not seem to have actually read the compromise that was overwhelmingly passed out of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank Senator Chambliss. I would say this. The Senator highlighted the importance, No. 1, as did Senator McCain, of passing Defense authorization. I have been to the floor twice on this issue because I think it is so important for our country, the notion that it has been half a century since the last time we failed to pass this authorization. What is at stake for our troops and the message it sends to them? We are in two wars. There are threats that face our country and our military men and women every day. We owe it to them that they know we are going to pass this authorization to address issues such as pay increases and weapons that they need and all of the fundamental day-to-day issues to make sure they know we are behind them. I would summarize the issue of the detainee policy of this country over the past few months in the Armed Services Committee as military leader after military leader has come before our committee and we have asked them about this issue, about how we treat detainees. I questioned GEN Carter Ham, commander of the Africa command, about what we would do if we captured a member of al-Qaida in Africa. Do you know what he said? He said he would need lawyerly help to answer that one. Is that what we have come to, our commanders need lawyerly help in order to know how to deal with captured terrorists and how to treat them within our system to make sure we have a secure place to gather intelligence from them and to ensure that the American people and our allies are protected? The majority leader is holding up the entire authorization bill with this detainee compromise, which was an overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise. This provision in the committee was voted 25 to 1 in support of this because there is such a need to address how we treat detainees. As Senator Chambliss already highlighted, we have a 27- percent recidivism rate from those who have been released from Guantanamo. Here are a couple of examples of what those individuals are doing right now against us, our troops, and our allies. For example, the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula was someone we released from Guantanamo. Another top commander of the Taliban in the Quetta Shura who is out planning attacks against us is someone we released from Guantanamo. That is why this issue cries out for a detention policy for our country. This is a very important issue to be brought to the floor along with the entire authorization. I see my colleague from South Carolina here, Senator Graham, who I know has worked very closely on these detention issues as a JAG attorney and is someone who visited Afghanistan in August. First, I would ask, during his time in the Senate, has he seen the Senate act like this with the Defense authorization? Second, how important does the Senator think it is we address this detainee issue?

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague Senator REED, the Strategic Airlift Force Structure Reform Act of 2011. Current Federal law U.S. Code Title 10, 8062(g)(1) sets the Air Force's minimum number of strategic airlift aircraft at 316. However, based on the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016, Department of Defense and Air Force officials have testified approximately 300 aircraft can meet our nation's strategic airlift capacity requirements. During a July 13, 2011, Senate Armed Services Subcommittee hearing, Christine Fox, Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, CAPE, in the Office of Secretary of Defense; General Duncan McNabb, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, TRANSCOM; and General Raymond Johns, Commander of Air Mobility Command, AMC, testified that reducing the number to around 300 aircraft would allow the Air Force to meet airlift requirements while saving over $1.2 billion and not increasing operational risk. In fact, General Johns testified that strategic airlift aircraft in excess of 301 were ``over capacity'' that forces ``extra workload on our airmen to keep that capability when we don't need to utilize it.'' Based on this testimony, the Strategic Airlift Force Structure Act of 2011 would reduce the strategic airlift aircraft floor from 316 to 301. In this time of fiscal austerity, Congress needs to stop forcing the Pentagon to spend defense dollars maintaining aircraft that our warfighters say they don't need. Every defense dollar wasted deprives our warfighters of the resources they have actually requested. Reducing the aircraft floor is a commonsense step that would save taxpayers millions of dollars while ensuring that our military continues to meet strategic airlift requirements. I encourage my colleagues to carefully review our legislation and I welcome their comments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the imminent arrival of free trade agreements that are long-overdue in this Chamber. Our Nation grew to be the leader of the free world through trade and commerce, and we must not lose sight of the fact that safeguarding our access to world markets is essential to maintaining our economic preeminence. These free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama which I look forward to supporting this evening, represent real measures that will produce jobs and provide better opportunities for our manufacturers to sell their goods abroad. Given our faltering economy and the continuing high rate of unemployment, it is significant that today we can vote to implement policy that will put Americans to work and let our businesses compete on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Gaining access to hundreds of millions of consumers across the globe will have a monumental effect on our local economies. For years, most goods from Colombia and Panama have entered the U.S. duty-free, and it is about time that the President submitted these agreements to Congress so that American businesses can enjoy equal treatment. Despite having successfully negotiated treaties on his desk, the President stood by as other countries signed free trade pacts with these nations, forcing American exporters to watch as international competitors benefited. As the global economy continues to evolve, the submission of these agreements for congressional consideration is an important step to spur further trade and contribute to the growth of our economy at a time when it is so badly needed. During these challenging economic times, American businesses should not have to face trade barriers, such as high tariffs, which put them at a competitive disadvantage. Since 1997, New Hampshire's exports to Colombia have increased by nearly 1,300 percent, nearly 200 percent to Panama, and by 324 percent to South Korea. However, U.S. exporters pay billions of dollars a year through tariffs on industrial goods. After these free trade agreements go into effect, 95 percent of those tariffs will be eliminated, meaning that American businesses will benefit by expanding payroll and consumers will benefit by lowered costs for goods and services. With the highest growth rate in the Northeast and the fourth highest growth rate in the country, New Hampshire in particular stands to benefit from these agreements. New Hampshire exported $4.4 billion worth of merchandise in 2010, a major component of our State's approximately $60 billion total GDP. We have 15,000 New Hampshire jobs supported by exports, which represents a quarter of our manufacturing sector. The improved access to foreign markets brought about by these agreements will allow our industries to continue to grow and contribute to the economic environment that has made New Hampshire an attractive place for entrepreneurs to come to build their businesses. We need these free trade agreements because we need to commit to economic policies that will create jobs and grow our economy.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator John McCain.

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank very much the Senator from Arizona. No one has been more dedicated to our military through his own service and the service of his family but also as a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee who has worked across the aisle to bring forward this Defense authorization bill. I would share in his comments, and I hope the majority leader will bring this forward. It is so important for our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE. Senator McCain is absolutely right. It is outrageous that one provision that was a bipartisan provision is holding up the authorization from coming forward when it addresses things such as pay raises for our military. It addresses services for our wounded warriors. It addresses military construction that is needed for our soldiers. Those are very important issues. To hold this up at a time when we are at war, at a time when our soldiers need to know we are fully behind them, does a huge disservice to our country. This is an issue that, if there are problems with the detainee issues, should be debated on the floor. The American people deserve to know. Guantanamo Director Clapper testified before the Intelligence Committee that the recidivism rate now is 27 percent for those reengaging in the battle, detainees whom we have released who are encountering our soldiers and our coalition partners, trying to harm Americans. So to not bring forward the Defense authorization bill, A, to help our soldiers and, most importantly, to do what is right for them, but also, B, to have a rigorous debate over this very important issue of protecting our soldiers from those detainees who have gone back and making sure we are protecting them and that we have a place to put those who are captured now, seems to me to be a disservice to this body and to our country.

Ms. AYOTTE. I am really concerned that Mr. Brennan, again, has not read this legislation because that statement is not correct. As the Senator knows--he worked very hard on a compromise with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Levin, and Senator Graham, and in that compromise provision that we passed in a very strong, overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to have military custody, you have to be a member of al-Qaida and planning an attack against us or our coalition partners. It is limited to a very narrow category of very dangerous individuals. It isn't every single terrorist who is encountered. The important issue is that when you read Mr. Brennan's speech, did you see anywhere in his speech to Harvard where he talked about this topic where he ever mentioned what is happening with those who have been released from Guantanamo?

Ms. AYOTTE. Senator McCain, first of all, is absolutely right. This was an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in support of the detainee provisions, according to Senator Reid, and that is why they are not being brought forward to the floor. In my view, the President's counterterrorism adviser, Mr. Brennan, has it wrong. I am not sure he has read this legislation based on the objections he has raised because we are giving the President authority to detain, which is very important authority which he can exercise based on the national security of this country. In order to have military custody, you have to be a member of al- Qaida or an affiliated force and planning an attack against us or our coalition partners. That is where the military custody comes in place, and I think that is very important because, of course, if you are a member of al-Qaida and you are planning an attack against the United States of America or our coalition partners, it seems to me that is a very appropriate instance for military custody given that we remain at war with al-Qaida and that the threats from al-Qaida are still very grave to our country, as demonstrated by----

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the state of affairs and where we are in the Senate, particularly with regard to the Defense authorization bill. Right now in the Senate--I am a freshman Member of this body--it has been over 2 years since we passed a budget. We have only passed one appropriations bill. Last week, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate because they did not want to vote on amendments. For the first time in my lifetime, the Defense authorization bill is not being brought to the floor by the majority leader. This is at a time when we are engaged in two wars and the threats to us and our allies from the Islamist terrorists remain. In fact, today authorities broke up an alleged plot to bomb the Israeli and Saudi Arabian Embassies in Washington and to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. At a time such as this, when there is nothing more important we can do in the Senate than to ensure the national security of the American people, the majority leader is refusing to bring forward the Defense authorization bill to this floor because he objects to one provision in it addressing detainees. I am concerned that this is no longer the most deliberative body in the world. I am new here, and I am often asked what has surprised me most as a new Senator, and I have to say, honestly, how few votes I have taken since I have been in the Senate. In fact, the number of votes I have taken in the Senate since I have been here is far below what we took last year and what we took the year before. What could be more important than voting on the Defense authorization bill when our country faces issues such as these in terms of our national security? I would ask my distinguished colleague from Arizona, who is a senior Member of this body, whether he has seen the Senate like this. Is this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the majority leader's refusal to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. On Monday, the Majority leader came to the floor and acknowledged the importance of bringing the Defense authorization bill forward. He said, ``It is vital that we get to this bill and pass it.'' I could not agree more. That is why it is nothing short of outrageous that the majority leader is blocking this important bill from being debated and passed by the Senate based on misguided objections that the administration has raised to a bipartisan provision in the Defense authorization bill which addresses how we detain and treat terrorists who are captured under the law of war. The American people and our military men and women deserve better. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act addresses many essential issues for our warfighters. I want to mention just a few of the important measures that the majority leader is blocking from consideration by failing to bring this bill to the floor. The bill ensures that our warfighters have the weapons they need to win the fight, ranging from small arms and ammunition to tactical vehicles to satellites. Some examples include advanced helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as combat loss replacement. It helps ensure that our soldiers and their families have quality housing. The authorization gives our wounded warriors better access to educational opportunities. The bill enhances the deployment cycle support system and reintegration for our National Guard and Reserve given how much they have done in sacrificing with the multiple deployments they have endured. It strengthens oversight of our taxpayer dollars that are being used for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, and it ensures that our money does not continue to be funneled to our enemies. What is so disappointing is that the majority leader is willing to prevent passage of the Defense authorization bill, which addresses these essential needs I have talked about for our warfighters and our soldiers, because the Obama administration does not like one provision of the bill, the detainee provision of the bill that was passed overwhelmingly by Senators from both parties who serve on the Armed Services Committee. If the majority leader insists on preventing the Defense authorization bill from coming to the floor this year, 2011 would be the first year since 1960 in which the Congress has not passed the Defense Authorization Act. In over 50 years, this would be the first time this bill has not been passed by this esteemed body. Let me say that again. Here is where we are: in the midst of two wars, with our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I am the wife of a combat veteran who served in Iraq--with our country facing a very serious threat from radical Islamist terrorists, this would be the first time in a half century in which we have not passed the National Defense Authorization Act. It would be shameful to not bring forward the Defense authorization bill to the floor and to pass it, after robust debate, where Senators from both parties can amend it, we can talk about it, and we can let the American people know what is in this bill. I met recently with the sergeant major of the Marine Corps. Sergeant Major Barrett shared with me the stories of several marines serving our country. I cannot discuss all of them, but I want to give a few examples. One is Sergeant Ramirez, a squad leader assigned to the 1st Battalion 5th Marines in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Sergeant Ramirez has a hook as a left hand. In February of 2006 Sergeant Ramirez lost his hand when he was wounded in action while serving in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion 5th Marines. Now he is leading patrols in Afghanistan. He wanted to go back and serve our country. Talk about bravery. Talk about courage. There is also Sergeant Gill at Quantico and Corporal Pacheco at Camp Pendleton and thousands of other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who after being injured on the battlefield have continued to serve their country. They are doing their jobs with skill and courage in this 10th year that our country is at war. I just wish we would show half, even a quarter of the courage of our military men and women in taking up the important issues that need to be addressed to protect our country, and many of them are addressed in this Defense Authorization Act. That is why I am on the floor today. I think it is so important this bill be brought forward and we have a debate over it; that we are allowed to amend it and allowed to pass it to make sure our military men and women know we are fully behind them. I know the majority leader has said if we just drop the detainee provision in the bill that he would bring forward the Defense authorization bill. But this is not how this body is designed to operate. If Senator Reid and the administration do not like the detainee provision in the bill, Senator Reid should move to amend it or vote against the bill rather than prevent the entire Defense authorization from being considered. That is how the Senate is supposed to operate. Of course, the irony is that in a place where we rarely agree on anything, the detainee provision that is holding up this bill the administration has objected to actually received overwhelming support in the Armed Services Committee--25 out of 26 members of the Armed Services Committee voted for this detainee compromise. That rarely happens around here. I think it shows this was a thoughtful compromise and that members of both sides of the aisle worked hard to address this important issue. This compromise was actually a compromise put together by Chairman Levin of the committee, ranking member John McCain of the committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham, who also has substantial experience in the Guard as a Judge Advocate General attorney. The overall Defense Authorization Act passed out of the Armed Services Committee 26 to 0. How often does that happen around here, that every single member of the Armed Services Committee from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and Senator Lieberman an Independent, that we all voted to pass this bill? Yet this bill that is so important to our national security and to our warfighters is being held up right now from being considered and brought to the floor. In this era of partisanship, the American people want us to work together, and that is what we did. As a result, not a single member, as I mentioned, voted against the final bill. That is not to suggest that every member of the Armed Services Committee got what they wanted in that compromise. I was someone who fought hard in the committee for the compromise to be tougher on terrorists. But I respect that we came together as colleagues to come to this compromise and to move forward on the Defense Authorization Act so it could be brought for full consideration for every Member of the Senate. If the majority leader were to bring this compromise to the Senate according to normal and well-understood procedures, every Member of this Senate, including the majority leader and myself, would have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, and to vote on the Defense authorization bill, including the detainee compromise I just referenced. I may be new around here, but I must ask: Why isn't the majority leader bringing this forward? I know he is clearly doing the administration's bidding on these detainee issues. But why would he prevent the American people from hearing this important debate? Why would giving terrorists greater rights to our civilian detention and court system, which seems to be the administration's position, be more important than ensuring that our warfighters have the right weapons and equipment, or ensuring that our wounded warriors get better access to educational opportunities, and all of the other important issues that are addressed in the Defense authorization bill related to both our national security and to our warfighters? I believe those issues deserve to be addressed by debating and passing this bill. I also believe the American people deserve to know all of the facts about where we are with respect to our detention policy with terrorists. I have to tell you, as a new member of the Armed Services Committee during the last 8 months and having our military leaders come before that committee, when I have asked them about our detention policy and how we are treating terrorists we have captured, how we are gathering intelligence from them, what we are doing to protect the American people, I have been shocked to learn that 27 percent of the terrorists we have released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have actually returned to the battle or we suspect have returned to the battle to harm us and our allies. Too many former Guantanamo Bay detainees are now actively engaged in terrorist activities and are trying to kill Americans. Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al- Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former Guantanamo detainees who have returned to the fight and have assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri has worked as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura. Can you imagine having to tell a mom or a dad that their son or daughter was killed in Afghanistan by a terrorist whom we released from Guantanamo Bay? Given the facts, I understand why the majority leader and the Obama administration don't want to talk about our detention policy, but as John Adams said, facts are stubborn things. The American people deserve to hear this debate and to have us address this issue through the Defense Authorization Act. Under our Constitution, we have a fundamental duty to protect the American people and to provide for our warfighters. We owe it to our military men and women to take up the Defense Authorization Act right now. Majority Leader Reid, as the leader of this esteemed body, should allow that to happen so we can fulfill our responsibility to the American people. Let me conclude by urging the majority leader to bring the defense authorization bill forward for debate, for amendment, and for passage. In the midst of two wars, it is time Congress does its job and provides for our warfighters and their needs. Sergeant Ramirez, Sergeant Gill and Corporal Pacheco and the thousands of other soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen of our All-Volunteer Force deserve no less. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I honor the memory of the late Douglas Gray, a former New Hampshire Superior Court justice and an extraordinary public servant who dedicated his life to serving the Granite State. Originally from Portsmouth, Justice Gray moved at the age of seven to Rye, where he resided for the remainder of his life. He graduated from Portsmouth High School and served his country in the U.S. Army from 1951 to 1954. After graduating from the University of New Hampshire in 1959, he earned his juris doctor from Boston College Law School, and went on to pursue a successful career practicing law in Portsmouth. During 1973-1983, he served as part-time special justice in the New Hampshire District Court system. In 1983, he was appointed by Governor John H. Sununu to serve as associate justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court, where he presided until 1998. He was then elected to serve as a senior justice and presided on a part-time basis until his retirement in 2003. As a judge, Justice Gray possessed exceptional intelligence and a deep respect for upholding the rule of law. And as a prosecutor, I had the privilege of trying cases before him. In fact, I tried my first murder case before Justice Gray. He was tough, but always fair, and I know that I and many of my peers in the New Hampshire bar learned a great deal from him. I deeply admired his integrity and his principled dedication to the law. With Justice Gray's passing, New Hampshire has lost a devoted public servant and Rye has lost a beloved member of the community. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Cornelia and his entire family. At this sad time, we celebrate his life--grateful to have known a person who exemplified the very best of New Hampshire's tradition of public service.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, for weeks, Americans have watched the debate about raising our Nation's debt ceiling. I know it is has been difficult and often frustrating to watch what is happening, but the discussion could not have been more important for the future of America. We have been talking, again, about whether we would increase America's borrowing limit. In doing so, we have rightly focused on how to prevent a default on America's credit, but also, just as important, rather than just reflexively continuing to borrow money we do not have from Chinese bankers, how we are going to confront the fundamental behavior in Congress that has led us to this culture of borrowing and overspending. I have said from the beginning of this debate that we owe it to the American people, and I owe it to my constituents in New Hampshire, to confront both issues--to avoid default and, finally, to confront our debt once and for all, and to change the direction in which we are headed as a country. To address only default and to continue to kick the can down the road on making the tough decisions to fundamentally change the path we are on will surely lead to a downgrade of our credit rating. It will sap our economic strength and will lead to the insolvency of the greatest country on Earth. While I appreciate the difficult work done by the Speaker of the House and our Senate leadership in coming up with an agreement that avoids default, I am unable to support a bill that delivers the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of our Nation but does very little to confront the underlying problems that have brought us here--problems that have led us to over a $14 trillion debt and which will increase in the next 2 years to over $16 trillion in debt. I have not come to this decision lightly. I have had countless meetings over the last months and weeks with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about this issue and how we can confront this crisis now. I have said from the beginning we need fundamental changes in the way we do business in Washington, including budget reforms, enacting a responsible budget. I am a member of the Senate Budget Committee--the newest member of that committee--and it has been terribly disappointing to me that the Senate hasn't allowed the Budget Committee to do its work and come up with a budget for the United States of America. So we do need fundamental budget reforms. I have said we need major spending reductions, and we need to reform our entitlement programs. I cannot in good conscience agree to a deal that continues to perpetuate the culture of overspending and borrowing in Washington. In coming to this decision, I have asked myself several questions: The first question I have asked is, Does this agreement significantly reduce spending? Unfortunately, the answer is no. While it claims to reduce the deficit by $917 billion over the next 10 years, only in Washington would this be called a spending reduction. Because of baseline budgeting, a reduction of $917 billion in the deficit, as it is claimed, is no reduction at all. Over the next 10 years, under this agreement, we will spend over $830 billion more in discretionary spending. So there is no reduction in spending. If you just look at the reduction from what we will spend in fiscal year 2012, it is really only a $7 billion reduction in spending between what we will spend in 2011 and 2012. We borrow $4 billion a day to sustain our government. So the spending reductions between what we spend in 2011 to 2012 is not even 2 days of borrowing for the United States of America. Many of the cuts are in the outyears. And you know what happens in Washington when the cuts are in the outyears. Unfortunately, our history has been that they do not get done. That is why I am concerned about even the $917 billion claim in reductions, which is not a reduction in spending. I have also asked myself, Does this agreement in any way reduce the size of government? We know this government has continued to grow even as State governments and families have made the tough decisions to downsize, to reduce, to live within their means. This deal does not cut or end one government program. In March, the GAO came out with a report that identified hundreds of duplicative programs that happen here in Washington where we could save billions of dollars. My colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Tom Coburn, has done the hard work of identifying hundreds and hundreds of duplicative programs where we could save billions of dollars. Yet this agreement does not reduce the size of government at all or end one of those programs. Does it avoid a downgrading of our credit? Unfortunately, I think this agreement will also lead us to a downgrade. And why does that matter? Because it will hurt the economic strength of America and our economic growth, our borrowing costs. It will hurt our job creators when now more than ever we need to create jobs in this country and put people to work. Yet our failure to get our fiscal house in order here in Washington is hurting the hard-working people in New Hampshire and America. The credit rating agencies and even the President's own fiscal commission have said that the minimum amount of debt reduction that we need over the next decade is $4 trillion just to stabilize our debt and to ensure our AAA credit rating is not downgraded. But with this agreement, even if everything happens and this congressional committee does all of its work, we will only see a maximum reduction of $2.4 trillion. And that is assuming everything in those outyears gets done, which we do not always have a good history of here in Washington. Finally, does it change the trajectory of where we are going with our debt to preserve our country? No. Under this agreement, we will continue to about $1 trillion a year to our debt--a debt that is already $14 trillion. It does nothing to strengthen our entitlement programs. We know from the trustees of Medicare that program is going bankrupt in 2024. We know from Social Security that program is going to be bankrupt in 2036. Yet we have not taken on that fundamental problem in this agreement. How do we reform those programs to preserve them for Americans that are relying on them and to sustain them for future beneficiaries? While I appreciate that we are beginning to change the discussion here in Washington, I cannot support this agreement. I appreciate that it is very important that we avoid default, but I know we are better than this. I know we can do more to make sure we preserve the greatest country on Earth. We need to take on the fundamental problems, the chronic overspending in Washington. We cannot continue to say that a reduction is a reduction when it is not, when we are continuing to spend more money, because at home people look at that and say: Give me a break. That is not how I do my family budget. We have to tell the truth to the American people and make the hard decisions. I know we can come together and get something done that will fundamentally change the direction in which we are headed. That is why I am disappointed about this agreement, because it does not do that. We must do more than avoid default. We must save our country for the sake of our children. I have often come to this floor and talked about the fact that I am the mother of two children.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Ms. AYOTTE. I am the mother of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old. This discussion goes beyond those of us who are serving right here; it is about what kind of country are we going to leave for the next generation. And I know I will not look my children in the eye and have them say: Mom, what did you do about it? We have to solve this crisis now. I know we can. I look forward to working with my colleagues on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, to really rolling up our sleeves, finally cutting spending, and saving the greatest country on Earth.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 2055. It seeks to help to make sure our wounded warriors get the benefits of next-generation advanced prosthetics in a timely fashion. This amendment would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report within 90 days, identifying the bureaucratic hurdles and redtape we need to cut through to make sure the research that is being done and the next-generation advanced prosthetics that are being developed to help our wounded warriors will get to them as quickly as possible. We have invested substantial taxpayer dollars, including through the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, in developing this great technology in advanced next-generation prosthetics. Last week, I had the chance to go to Walter Reed Hospital and meet with some of our wounded warriors. They are absolutely amazing Americans, and what they have done for our country is incredible. We can never repay the sacrifices they have made. But the last thing they should have to put up with is waiting for years of delay through the FDA or other government agencies to make sure they can get the very best technology available for next-generation advanced prosthetics. That is why I offer this amendment. I hope this amendment will be passed to make sure we can cut through the redtape, that the Veterans' Administration will identify any hurdles that are present, that we can get through those hurdles and get that technology to our wounded warriors as soon as possible, given what they have done for our country and continue to do in fighting on our behalf. They are heroes, and they deserve to not have to wait and wade through government bureaucracy.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 575, which is at the desk.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague from South Dakota. And I, too, hope we will have bipartisan support for this cut, cap, and balance plan. It is so critical, and as the President's own fiscal commission said: Our challenge is clear and inescapable. America cannot be great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs and our workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs. Well, the cut, cap, and balance plan will help get this crushing debt burden off our backs to allow our job creators to actually create jobs. Also, when we think about starting from where we began this discussion, our children, we have to act now. I don't want my two children looking at me one day in the future and saying: Mom, what did you do about the fiscal crisis that everybody saw coming? Right now in the Senate, we can come together around this cut, cap, and balance plan. Once and for all, let's commit to passing a balanced budget amendment. Let's send that question to the States. Let's let the people of this country weigh in, because we know they will weigh in with common sense because they do it at the State level, they do it at a family level, they do it in their small businesses. So I, too, hope we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle; that we will get this cut, cap, and balance plan passed. I look forward to working with all the Senators in this Chamber, and particularly the Senator from South Dakota who, I know, has been such an advocate and such a strong fiscal conservative, wanting to preserve our country and the greatness of America to make sure we get this plan passed now.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague. What I have heard from my constituents in New Hampshire--and we do have a requirement to balance our budget, and it is not easy to make those tough choices--is that they do not understand why in Washington there is controversy over the notion of balancing the budget because at home people are balancing their budgets. Families balance their budgets, and businesses balance their budgets. I meet with businesspeople, and they look at me in disbelief and say: I don't understand why in Washington they don't look at what they have to spend and then stick within a strict budget. It really comes down to common sense. One of the biggest issues I have heard about from my constituents is that they are concerned that it has been over 2 years--over 800 days-- since the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. The notion that we have been operating without a budget and running well over trillion-dollar deficits and haven't sat down and done the hard work of rolling up our sleeves, allowing the Budget Committee to do its work, astounds New Hampshire citizens because they understand that if we don't have a basic spending blueprint for our country, the end result is that we are going to continue to run up deficits and spend money we don't have, borrowing from countries such as China, which doesn't share our values. One of the things that is very important about this cut, cap, and balance plan is that it cuts $111 billion in fiscal year 2012 and it places firm caps on future spending, contingent upon the House and Senate passing a balanced budget amendment, which is so important. As we have talked about, let's let the States decide. Really, this is about sending it to the people of this country and allowing them to say whether we should balance our budget. I know what the answer will be in New Hampshire. They will say: Yes, please, balance the budget. If you look at where we are, as Senator Thune has mentioned, with respect to spending in terms of the size of our economy, we are over 24 percent of our GDP that we are spending right now--well above our historical level, well above the amount of money we are bringing in. Yet the only fiscal plan the President brought forward would massively increase our debt over the next decade, so much so that not even one Member of his own party in the Senate voted for that budget. So when we talk about a real plan to get America back on track, this cut, cap, and balance plan has a very commonsense approach. We will cut spending right away, put together a responsible fiscal plan for America, and then make sure we have those caps in place so we don't continue to spend close to 24, 25 percent of our GDP. I mean, the President has increased our debt 35 percent since he has been in office. Finally, let's put to the States the question of whether they think it makes sense to balance our budget. I think we know what the answer will be. They will say: Yes, please balance your budget, as we have to do at home, as we do in State government. The other issue we are facing right now is, of course, what the rating agencies have said about our failure to handle this fiscal crisis. We have heard about the concerns that if we do not come up with a credible plan that really cuts spending right now, our credit ratings will be threatened. That will further impact our economy, and that is why we can't continue to put off the tough decisions. This cut, cap, and balance plan will put forward $6 trillion of cuts over the next decade. That will help make sure we preserve our credit ratings for this country. It will make sure we focus on real economic growth that get people back to work. If we raise taxes the way CBO has suggested based on the questions from Senator Gregg and Congressman Ryan, we know that is going to hurt the American taxpayer. It is going to hurt job creators in this country. I also happen to come from a small business family. I know the impact of raising taxes in the way that was described. If we have to raise taxes to address the spending problem we have in Washington, it is going to hurt our small businesses--those who create the jobs in this country--and that is the last thing we should be doing when we have over a 9-percent unemployment rate. So I hope my colleagues will pass the cut, cap, and balance plan right away. The House has passed it, and we can raise the debt ceiling with a responsible plan to cut spending right away, impose spending caps, and send a balanced budget amendment to the States. I would ask my colleague from South Dakota, when the Senator was first elected, before he served in the Senate, I know he had a career in the House of Representatives and served the people of South Dakota there. There was a vote on the balanced budget amendment at the time in the Senate, and it only failed by one vote. What does the Senator believe our current fiscal situation would be had the balanced budget amendment passed the Senate at that time?

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague from South Dakota. This is such an important issue, as he has pointed out, and as his constituent has written him. As a mother of two children, I am deeply concerned with what is going to happen to the next generation if we continue to kick this can down the road and if we don't use common sense to balance our budget. I have heard from constituents in New Hampshire--and I am sure the Senator from South Dakota hears the same--that basically only in Washington would the notion of balancing your budget be called ``extreme.'' It is common sense that you can't spend more money than you have. We need to pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, because it is a commonsense proposal to ensure that we don't continue along this cycle of continuing to increase our debt and not have a plan to pay our bills. And borrowing money from China--that has to stop. When you think about all the money we have borrowed from a country such as China, which doesn't share our values--right now, there is no other plan that has been presented but the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, which was just passed by the House. We can do this now and put our nation on a path to a balanced budget and make sure that the Senator's constituents--and I know he is a father as well--and our children don't bear the burden of our failure to make the tough decisions today. We owe it not only to everybody in our generation but to our children and our grandchildren. I wanted to ask the Senator from South Dakota this: The cut, cap, and balance plan puts emphasis on cutting spending instead of raising taxes to bring down our deficit and our $14 trillion debt. Does he believe that is the right approach for America?

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here with my esteemed colleague from Florida, Senator Marco Rubio. My husband Joe and I are blessed to be the parents of two wonderful children, our daughter Kate, who is 6 years old, and our son Jacob, who is 3 years old. This Fourth of July we walked together as a family in the parade in Wolfeboro, NH. As I watched my children in the parade hand out candy to other New Hampshire children while they were standing with their parents, it reminded me again of why I am here and how concerned I am about the future of our country for Kate and Jacob and for all of our children. As parents, we all want to provide our children with a brighter and at least the same if not greater opportunities we have all had in the greatest country on Earth. That is the American dream, that a young woman like me from a middle-class family can have the opportunity to serve in this Chamber; that someone like Senator Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, could serve as a Senator from Florida, a leader of our great country who has come here to address our challenges. I am fearful that we are the first generation that will not pass on the American dream to the next generation. With the accumulation of $14 trillion in debt, we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to fund our government. Half of our debt we have borrowed from other countries, including the country of China, a country that does not share our values. I am concerned with the amount of debt we have accumulated, that if we do not address this debt crisis right here and now, we are ensuring our children will have less opportunities than we have all had. We have seen what is happening in Greece. If we do not address our debt, with real, substantive legislative proposals, ideas we have already proposed in this Chamber, Members of both side of the aisle-- the balanced budget amendment, spending cap legislation, how about a real budget resolution that reduces spending and puts forth a responsible fiscal plan for this country--we will be setting up our children to pay for our failure to act today with either massive tax increases or the value of our dollar will be diminished and everything they own will be worth less and everything that we own, and it will diminish their economic opportunities in this great country. I know Senator Rubio is the father of four young children. What is it the Senator is most concerned about with respect to the future of our great country?

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague Senator Rubio for up to 20 minutes.