Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank Senator Rubio for his leadership on this issue and for the important issues he has raised today because he is absolutely right that class warfare is unproductive. The proposals the President has made are not serious in terms of how much revenue they would even address--not even 10 days' of our debt. Unfortunately, right now, the leader of the Senate has brought forward a resolution, a nonbinding sense of the Senate, that does nothing to address the spending in Washington, and we are spending over 24 percent of our GDP, or our economy, right now. Historically, we have spent about 20 percent of our GDP. Our spending is way out of line from where we have been over the 40-year historical level. Common sense tells us, why not a balanced budget amendment? Why aren't we addressing that instead of a nonbinding resolution that, again, will have no effect-- will not reduce our deficit, will not help create any jobs, and will not help our economy thrive? We should be addressing real legislation-- a balanced budget amendment. I could not agree more with my colleague from Florida about living within our means. Families sit around their kitchen tables and make the tough decisions. They see the revenue coming in and the expenditures going out. Washington should do the same. Spending caps will ensure that we put handcuffs on Congress to make sure we are not spending this drastic 24 percent of our GDP and putting ourselves on a more responsible spending path going forward, and a budget resolution. It has been nearly 2 years since the Senate has passed a budget. No business would run without a budget. Families make budgets. Here in the Senate, what we should be bringing to the floor is a real budget resolution that the parties can debate to put ourselves on a responsible fiscal path going forward rather than voting on a sense of the Senate that will, again, not have any impact and the full force of law. With this August 2 deadline, it is time for real legislative proposals and solutions. We have put some ideas out there--a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap amendment, a real budget resolution. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come forward so we can work on this fiscal crisis here and now so that my children and Senator Rubio's children and all of our children and grandchildren will have greater opportunities in the greatest country on Earth.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I could not agree more with what my colleague from Florida has said, that we need to create a positive climate to create jobs. But one thing we do know is that does not happen by more spending in Washington. The recent report that came out about the President's stimulus package has shown that it cost $278,000 per job created by that stimulus package. Yet we had to borrow so much money, nearly $1 trillion to create a limited number of jobs that cost us $278,000 a job. I do come from a small business family. My husband started a landscaping and snow-plowing business. I worked with him to start that business. New Hampshire is a small business State. As I campaigned up and down our State, I talked to so many small business owners. I never had a small business owner tell me they were being taxed too little, please tax me more. What I did hear was too many burdensome regulations from Washington were coming down and making it difficult for our small businesses to thrive and grow. Frankly, some of the taxes coming down from Washington were making it difficult. In the health care bill, there was a tax on medical device companies. New Hampshire has nearly 50 of those companies. And what I heard from those companies--and I have heard that even more recently--is the tax in that health care bill on medical device companies is going to take away significant amounts of their research and development budget to create new products that will improve the quality of our health care and save lives. So with the actions we are taking in Washington, we need to create a positive climate for our small businesses, not thinking that we create the jobs here in Washington. We know that it is those small businesses and the hard-working entrepreneurs and those who have a great idea in this country in the private sector who create those jobs. They do not need more taxes and burdens from Washington. What we need to do is frankly get out of their way and allow them to thrive and grow and to create jobs for all of our children going forward. I do not know if the Senator heard from businesses in Florida about the regulatory concerns and burdens from Washington hurting economic growth in the private sector.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleagues. I think those who are watching this will see we are new Senators back here in the back corner of the Senate. As a new Member of this Chamber, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of work that we have been doing in the Senate. The majority leader has put us in a position where we haven't been focusing on the fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation right now, when we look at the fact it has been 792 days since we have had a budget. I was so excited as a new member of the Budget Committee to roll up my sleeves and get together and put out a responsible blueprint for this country. Unfortunately, we were told by the majority leader that would be foolish--to put together a responsible blueprint for this country and to do the work of the Budget Committee. One of the reasons I came to the Senate is I am tired of business as usual. I know my freshman colleagues back here share that. I am the mother of two children--I know the President mentioned his children yesterday--but if we care about our children and the future of this country, we owe it to our children to not continue to kick the can down the road. We should be in the Senate today and next week talking about how we are going to put together a blueprint that makes sure that we do not continue to borrow from countries such as China; that we do not continue to enslave our children with the debt this country is accumulating. We know if we do not address this, the greatest country in the world will go bankrupt. I, for one, want to follow through on the American promise that we have always made to the next generation, which is that we will leave them with a better country. That is so threatened right now with what is happening in Washington. I share with my colleague, Senator Johnson, the belief we should be addressing nothing next week but spending and debt. We have the debt ceiling vote coming up, so why aren't we rolling up our sleeves right now, working on a solution with real spending reforms and putting those handcuffs on Congress that we know we need, such as a balanced budget amendment, spending caps, and a budget for our country that reduces spending so we don't have to have this continuing resolution situation. We do not have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem. We need to create a positive climate for our private sector and do the hard work in Washington--the same way our families do--and live within our means. So I think next week we should be doing the work that needs to be done. Mr. President, you called on us yesterday to work. We are here working. The only financial and fiscal blueprint that you have offered--your budget for 2012--did not even get one vote from a member of your party in this Chamber. This budget blueprint would have added another $14 trillion to our debt. So I say to our President: We are willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work with you to avert this looming fiscal crisis, but where is your plan that will reduce spending and get us on a responsible fiscal path to preserving the greatest country in the world?

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate Grace S. Mattern for her 30 years of service on behalf of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Since its inception, the coalition has become a leader in the struggle for victims', women's, and children's rights. Over the past quarter century, Grace has shaped the way domestic violence and sexual assault is understood and responded to in New Hampshire. Under Grace's leadership, the coalition has developed a nationally recognized model for protocols, state law, and health care initiatives. On the local level, there has been no victim-centered legislation in which Grace has not played a major part. One of Grace's strongest attributes is her ability to work with people and facilitate meetings in a productive way. She has worked tirelessly to encourage everyone to work together to strengthen efforts to end domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Her work includes participation in many boards and commissions both nationally and locally. Grace has been involved in various projects that involve groundbreaking work not only for New Hampshire but also for the country. Because of her leadership in 1997, the coalition, in conjunction with the State, was selected by the Family Violence Prevention Fund to establish a partnership to improve the health care system's response to domestic violence, called the National Health Initiative. New Hampshire was one of only 10 States in the Nation to participate in this program and the only State in New England. To this day, Grace continues to work with the medical community to educate physicians on the impact of trauma from domestic and sexual violence. In 1999, the coalition successfully applied to be one of six sites in the country selected for what is known as the Greenbook Project. Grafton County was selected and funded as a national demonstration site for improving collaboration between domestic violence organizations, courts, and child protective services in families where there is a co- occurrence of domestic violence, child abuse, and neglect. New Hampshire was the only site selected in the eastern United States. This project has led to more collaborative efforts not only in Grafton County but across New Hampshire. Grace was highly involved in the creation of one of the first AmeriCorps programs in the State. Named the AmeriCorps Victim Assistance Program, it was a ``first in the Nation'' model that she started with representatives from the New Hampshire Department of Justice and the State's court system, and is now in its 11th year. The program recruits and trains members to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking at crisis centers, police departments, prosecutors' offices, the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and on college and university campuses throughout the State. As Grace retires, I commend her efforts and congratulate her for all of the accomplishments of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing her 30 years of service on behalf of the people of New Hampshire.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Governor Walter Peterson--a great New Hampshire citizen who represented the very best of the Granite State's independent spirit. Governor Peterson came from what is well-known as the ``greatest generation,'' and he more than lived up to that label. A veteran of World War II, he committed his life to public service and civic engagement, leaving behind a legacy of civility, decency, and integrity in politics. Following his graduation from Dartmouth College, Governor Peterson settled in Peterborough, NH, becoming a lifelong figure in the Monadnock region. A small businessman, he went on to serve in New Hampshire's citizen legislature and rose to the position of speaker of the house. In 1968, New Hampshire voters elected him as the State's Governor, a position he held for two terms. Governor Peterson represented a special breed of politician--someone who could disagree without being disagreeable. A strong leader, he had the courage of his convictions. He believed it was more important to stand firm for what he believed was right for New Hampshire rather than worry about being reelected. That principled approach and inherent goodness secured his place in New Hampshire history as a deeply respected statesman. Outside of public life, Governor Peterson was the beloved patriarch of his family. Together with his wife Dorothy, to whom he was married for over 60 years, they had two children, Meg and Andy. The Peterson family is well known in the Monadnock region because of their strong commitment and dedication to the community. Andy Peterson followed in his father's footsteps and served in our State legislature with distinction. During my visits to Peterborough--the idyllic New Hampshire town Governor Peterson lived in and loved--I always knew he would extend a warm welcome to me. A steadfast source of Yankee wisdom, I came to cherish Governor Peterson's friendship as much as his keen insight into the people of New Hampshire. After leaving statewide office, Governor Peterson took his special brand of leadership to academia, serving as a college president and as a trustee of the university system of New Hampshire. In those roles, he worked to build institutions of higher learning that empowered students to take full advantage of the opportunities our great country provides, believing in the transformative power of education. With Governor Peterson's passing, New Hampshire citizens have lost a wonderful, true, and loyal friend. At this sad time, we celebrate his life, grateful to have known a leader who embodied the very best of public service. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate Chief of Police David C. Bailey of the Bedford, NH, police department for his 40 years of dedicated service to the law enforcement profession, the town of Bedford, and the State of New Hampshire. Chief Bailey began his law enforcement career in 1971 as a patrol officer with the town of Bedford; was promoted to lieutenant in 1976; deputy chief in 1981; and as the chief of police in 1989. A native of Bedford, NH, Chief Bailey earned his bachelor's degree from the University of New Hampshire in 1969. During his long tenure as a police chief, David Bailey has been a leader in promoting community oriented-policing; in improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire; and in promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. From 2002 to 2003, he served with distinction as the president of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Bailey has worked tirelessly with New Hampshire legislators, and other public safety officials, to better the administration of justice. As Chief David Bailey celebrates his retirement, I commend him on a job well done, and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Susan, son Nathan, and daughter Jessica, well in all future endeavors.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of a real American Hero, SSG Jose Pequeno of my home State of New Hampshire, and his steadfast family. After leaving the U.S. Marines, Jose became one of the youngest police chiefs in the State of New Hampshire. After 9/11, he joined the U.S. Army, and heroically volunteered to go to Iraq. Following an IED explosion, Jose was almost mortally wounded, but fought to live. Now, with the help of his mother and family he continues that battle. This coming Memorial Day weekend, I ask all of us to remember the many servicemen and women and their families who have sacrificed so much for us. As each of our servicemen and women and their families teach us daily about faith and courage, I ask Americans to pray and remember their sacrifice, which continues to ensure our freedom is secure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this poem penned by Albert Caswell be printed in the Record in honor of all those brave men and women we have lost.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator from Alabama for that question. As the newest member of the Budget Committee, it is an extreme disappointment. I was looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and undertaking the responsibilities of putting forth a responsible budget to preserve our country. That is why I wanted to serve on the Budget Committee. I come from a small business family. I know one can't operate a business without a budget. So many of my constituents and those I met on the campaign trail asked me all the time: I have no idea, how can we operate a government without a budget? Yet here we are. That is what has been so disappointing to me. I hope and I urge our Democratic colleagues to change course and let the Budget Committee do what it is supposed to do.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair. If I may finish. I thank my colleague, Senator Sessions. We cannot afford to kick this can down the road any further. We must act now. We must address our entitlement programs now. I would call on the majority leader and on Senate Democrats--rather than demagoguing the plan that has come forward from the House, if you have a constructive plan of your own--to please come to the floor right now and bring forth a plan that will preserve Medicare, will preserve our entitlement programs, and put us on a path to fiscal responsibility and sustainability, to a balanced budget to save our country. I thank the Chair.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today marks the 756th day since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget. The Democratic majority has abdicated a basic responsibility we have in our government; that is, to produce a budget. States produce a budget, cities and towns produce a budget, small businesses don't operate without a budget, and families produce a budget. Yet here we are, running over a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, and the Democratic-controlled majority is not bringing forth a budget or a blueprint to put our country on a path to fiscal responsibility. It seems to me, if we do nothing else, that is a basic responsibility we have as Members of the Senate. On Monday, all Republican Senators joined Senator Sessions and me in sending a letter to the majority leader, urging him to take the steps necessary to bring forward a fiscal year 2012 budget in committee, to have a full, honest debate there and then on to the floor to make sure we have a transparent budget debate so the American people can weigh in on that and we can move forward to putting our country on a fiscally responsible path. As a reminder, the committee should have acted on the budget resolution before the statutorily-set deadline of April 1, and Congress should have completed that action by April 15. Yet, unfortunately, the majority in the budget committee and the majority leader has ignored that law. The reality is, the majority party controls the work flow in the Budget Committee and determines what is debated on the floor. Given the enormity of the obvious fiscal challenges we face, there is no excuse for why my Democratic colleagues have not been able to have a transparent, serious debate about our country's fiscal future both in the Budget Committee and on this floor. The American people demand that and are owed nothing less. Unfortunately, instead of coming up with a budget blueprint that puts us on a path to sustainability, many of my Democratic colleagues have primarily focused their efforts on distorting provisions of the House- passed budget plan, trying to score political points while our country's economic future becomes even more precarious. We have seen the warning signs for our country in other countries around the world, as well as the S&P's recent announcement of a negative outlook for the United States. Astoundingly, last week, the majority leader said it would be foolish for his party to produce a budget plan. In talking directly with my constituents in New Hampshire, I can say with certainty that is the last word they would use to describe the Senate's refusal to have their own budget plan and to have a full and robust debate within the Budget Committee and within this body about the fiscal plan for our country's future. That is the last word they would use because they sit around their kitchen tables at home and they put together a budget. They look at the revenue coming in and the expenses they have and they balance their budgets. They have no idea why we are not doing that here. That fundamental responsibility is, unfortunately, what the majority leader has described as foolish, even though it is an exercise that families undertake every single day. Last year, Congress failed to pass a budget, failed to pass any of the 12 annual appropriations bills and failed the Nation by recklessly funding the government on a series of short-term spending bills. The Senate cannot make the same mistake we made last year--a mistake that was made by the Democratically controlled Congress this year, given the fiscal path our country is on. With less than 6 months remaining until the start of the new fiscal year, it is past time for the Senate to produce a basic budget plan that substantively addresses our grave fiscal crisis. We need leadership and I call on the majority leader to show that leadership and the chairman of the Budget Committee to bring forth a budget in our Senate committee. I am a brand new member of the Budget Committee. I look forward to having that debate in that very important committee in our body, to work together with Members on both sides of the aisle to craft a responsible budget plan that reduces spending and brings us to a balanced budget. That is what our country needs. In the letter that was sent to the majority leader, Republicans made clear we are ready to make the difficult choices to preserve our country and to get our fiscal house in order once and for all. We stand ready to preserve the greatest country in the world. There is no question that the budget process is broken when we don't even have a budget brought forth before the Budget Committee and a full and robust debate in this body. Congress must get serious about putting in place spending reforms. I would like to see a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, to make sure Congress can't get around any spending reforms we pass. States balance their budgets. Yet here in Washington we continue to spend money we do not have, unfortunately. Congressman Ryan, in the House, has proposed, and the House has passed, a budget blueprint for our country. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle have spent considerable time demagoguing the House budget blueprint and their plan, even though they have shown the courage to put forth a budget that puts us on a path to reduce spending and eventually bring us to a balanced budget. My Democratic colleagues have brought out the usual scare tactics. But for all their grandstanding, they haven't been straight with the American people. We do need to address entitlement reform. We do need to make changes to Medicare--to preserve Medicare for those who are relying on Medicare right now and for future generations. I am the mother of two children, and I certainly don't want to look my children in the eyes--with the fiscal crisis our country is facing--and have them say to me: Mom, what did you do about this? Now is the time to act. We have three choices when it comes to addressing rising health care costs in Medicare. We can do nothing and watch the program go bankrupt in 2024, as outlined by the recent trustees' report on Medicare--an objective report that basically says that program will go bankrupt by 2024. We can go forward with the President's proposal to ration care through the administration's plan to have an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats who will decide who is going to get coverage, when they are going to get coverage, and how physicians are going to get paid or we can show real leadership and strengthen the program to make it solvent for current beneficiaries and also for future beneficiaries and allow them to make the choices, instead of an unelected group of 15 individuals who are accountable not to Congress and certainly not to the people whose lives will be affected. I commend Congressman Ryan for his courage. I challenge anyone, including the Members on the other side of the aisle who have been so critical of the plan: Where is your plan? What is your constructive plan to save Medicare? How do you go home to your constituents, your elderly constituents--people such as my grandparents who are relying on Medicare--knowing that the trustees' report says it is going bankrupt in 2024--and say to them: I don't have a plan. A constructive plan to preserve this program is important. It is what Republicans are committed to. We are here to save Medicare, to save our entitlement programs, and most of all, to save our country from financial ruin. Now is the time for leadership. It is time to look at the challenges we face with eyes wide open and to have the courage to fight for the American people and for the future of the greatest country in the world. We cannot afford to kick this can down the road.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

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

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Ayotte pertaining to the introduction of S. 944 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, our country remains at war with violent extremists who want to kill Americans. Yet the administration has not designated a secure location for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Rather than seeking to address this problem, the administration continues to insist on closing Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this week, Attorney General Holder in Paris reiterated the administration's determination to ultimately close the Guantanamo Bay facility. This determination to close Gitmo represents a misguided view that treats terrorism like everyday crime, hesitates to call this war on terrorism what it is, and places the perceptions of others over the safety of Americans. I believe this desire to close Guantanamo represents an unacceptable abrogation of the Federal Government's most important responsibility: providing for the common defense. Therefore, today I rise to introduce and to urge my colleagues to support Senate bill 944, the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011. Our diligent intelligence professionals and our brave special operations forces who brought bin Laden to justice don't need to be reminded that the United States and our international partners remain engaged in a war with violent Islamist extremist groups, including al- Qaida and associated terrorist groups that are committed to killing Americans and our allies. Indeed, in the treasure trove of information our forces gathered at bin Laden's compound, we have learned the terrorist groups are actively plotting new attacks against our country. This is the latest in a long string of attacks, or planned attacks, against our country in the last 2 years alone. Just some of the examples of what we have seen: In September 2009, the plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack on the New York subway system; to the November 2009 attack on Fort Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 32; to the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing on an international flight to Detroit; to the May 2010 attempt to bomb Times Square; to the October 2010 attempt to send explosives to Jewish centers in Chicago; to a February 2011 plot to manufacture explosives and to conduct attacks in Texas and in New York. Al-Qaida and their fellow terrorists continue to threaten our country. Bin Laden's death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations and a great accomplishment for our country, but the threat continues and our detention policies must reflect that reality. Since 2001, we have captured and detained thousands of terrorists who have planned and conducted attacks and who have served as terrorist trainers, financiers, bomb makers, bodyguards, recruiters, and facilitators. Interrogations of these terrorists, including those at Guantanamo, have provided valuable intelligence that has prevented attacks, saved lives, and helped locate other terrorists. Detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo not only protects American lives which is the core function of our federal government, but detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo also protects our allies. Of course, the most recent and noteworthy example that demonstrates the value of intelligence gleaned from detainee interrogations is the case of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community would never have found bin Laden if it weren't for the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation of terrorist detainees. Not only have interrogations of detainees helped us track down other terrorists, but detaining terrorists helps prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, as Secretary Gates confirmed in response to my question during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February, approximately 1 out of 4, or 25 percent of the Guantanamo detainees who have been released, have reengaged or we suspect have reengaged in hostilities against the United States and our allies. I can tell my colleagues, as a former prosecutor that is an unacceptable reengagement rate. 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 assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri is now working as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. After a recent promotion, Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura. In the world of terrorists, it has become a badge of honor to have served at Guantanamo, and then to have been released, and then to get back into the fight against us. It is unacceptable for even one released detainee to reengage in the fight against our country. As a military spouse and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I find it sickening that our country has released dangerous prisoners who are now actively plotting to kill Americans and our allies. Some have expressed concerns regarding the legality of long-term detention for these terrorists, or expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. I wish to address both of those concerns. First, as the former Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, I am as eager as anyone to ensure that our detention policies conform to the rule of law and reflect our core values. Some have questioned the legality of detaining terrorists. Yet we should be very clear that, according to the law of war, detention is a matter of national security and military necessity and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law. Second, some have expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. In March, I visited the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Gitmo now represents the most professionally run detention facility in the world. International human rights activists, reporters, Members of the Congress and the Senate, constantly stream through Guantanamo checking on the conditions and holding the Department of Defense accountable. Guantanamo is no Abu Ghraib. Detainees are treated in a manner that conforms to international law and honors our values. Guantanamo detainees receive three meals a day tailored to the preferences of each detainee. They also have access to topnotch health care facilities. Their religion is respected. They have television, newspapers, books, English classes, and art classes. In fact, the officials at Guantanamo bend over backwards to respect the cultural and religious preferences of the detainees who are held there. Don't get me wrong; Guantanamo is no Club Med, but the terrorists who are detained there, most of whom would undoubtedly kill Americans if they were given the chance, are getting much better treatment than they deserve. As a former prosecutor, I have been in a few prisons in my time, and I can tell my colleagues the detention facility at Gitmo is much nicer than some that our common criminals are in, in the United States of America. I was also impressed with the state-of-the-art courtroom at Guantanamo which would rival any Federal courtroom in the United States. However, unlike your average courtroom, it is set up to address the special security concerns associated with trying terrorists and it is also especially designed to enable the judge to ensure that classified information will not be compromised or leaked. This courtroom is the appropriate courtroom and venue for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators to be held accountable for their roles in the horrific attacks on our country on September 11. And after almost 10 years, the victims of September 11 have waited much too long for justice. I believe our country stands on a solid legal framework in detaining terrorists according to the law of war, and I also believe Guantanamo represents the ideal facility for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Some may ask, Why introduce this legislation now? Why is it needed? In February, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Gates where we would detain high value terrorists that we capture in the future if the President goes forward with his plan to close Guantanamo. Secretary Gates candidly said to me: ``I think the honest answer to that question is we don't know.'' I was encouraged by President Obama's decision to resume military commissions at Guantanamo. Yet the administration was careful to reiterate its determination to ultimately close Guantanamo. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, on Monday Attorney General Holder, in Paris, reiterated the administration's desire to close Guantanamo. But we know intelligence gathered at Guantanamo played a valuable role in helping to ultimately find Osama bin Laden. We know there are other terrorists out there who want to do us harm, and we need to keep this facility open. For this reason, I believe Congress must pass this legislation without delay. Before concluding, let me briefly summarize what S. 944 will do. This legislation reaffirms the authority to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents. It directs the Secretary of Defense to take actions to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents. It extends permanently the limitation of transfer of detainees to foreign entities and the prohibition of construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists. We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they do not want terrorists detained on American soil. Finally, it supersedes sections of President Obama's Executive order that he issued shortly after he got into office on January 22, 2009. He issued an Executive order saying that Guantanamo would be closed. This legislation will supersede the portions of that Executive order related to the closure of Gitmo, the determination of transfer, the prosecution of terrorists in article III courts and the military tribunals. In short, this legislation would establish Gitmo as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying unprivileged enemy belligerents or terrorists. To accomplish this, we will permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign entities because what has happened is that terrorist detainees have been transferred to foreign countries and then the foreign countries release the former detainee. That is how so many former detainees have made there way back to the battlefield. So we have to stop that. And this legislation will prohibit the construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists, to make sure we keep detained terrorists at Gitmo and off U.S. soil. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation called Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011, S. 944. I am especially proud that many friends and colleagues have decided to support this bipartisan legislation, including Senators Graham, Lieberman, Chambliss, Brown, Rubio and Webb, all of whom have been leaders when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting Americans. Everything we do in this Chamber must be guided by our Constitution, and the Federal Government must fulfill its most important constitutional duty of protecting the American people. Pretending we are not at war with terrorists will not change the fact that terrorists continue to plot against us and to attack Americans. Consistent with our values and the rule of law, we must establish the Guantanamo detention facility as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying terrorists. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, our country remains at war with violent extremists who want to kill Americans. Yet the administration has not designated a secure location for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Rather than seeking to address this problem, the administration continues to insist on closing Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this week, Attorney General Holder in Paris reiterated the administration's determination to ultimately close the Guantanamo Bay facility. This determination to close Gitmo represents a misguided view that treats terrorism like everyday crime, hesitates to call this war on terrorism what it is, and places the perceptions of others over the safety of Americans. I believe this desire to close Guantanamo represents an unacceptable abrogation of the Federal Government's most important responsibility: providing for the common defense. Therefore, today I rise to introduce and to urge my colleagues to support Senate bill 944, the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011. Our diligent intelligence professionals and our brave special operations forces who brought bin Laden to justice don't need to be reminded that the United States and our international partners remain engaged in a war with violent Islamist extremist groups, including al- Qaida and associated terrorist groups that are committed to killing Americans and our allies. Indeed, in the treasure trove of information our forces gathered at bin Laden's compound, we have learned the terrorist groups are actively plotting new attacks against our country. This is the latest in a long string of attacks, or planned attacks, against our country in the last 2 years alone. Just some of the examples of what we have seen: In September 2009, the plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack on the New York subway system; to the November 2009 attack on Fort Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 32; to the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing on an international flight to Detroit; to the May 2010 attempt to bomb Times Square; to the October 2010 attempt to send explosives to Jewish centers in Chicago; to a February 2011 plot to manufacture explosives and to conduct attacks in Texas and in New York. Al-Qaida and their fellow terrorists continue to threaten our country. Bin Laden's death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations and a great accomplishment for our country, but the threat continues and our detention policies must reflect that reality. Since 2001, we have captured and detained thousands of terrorists who have planned and conducted attacks and who have served as terrorist trainers, financiers, bomb makers, bodyguards, recruiters, and facilitators. Interrogations of these terrorists, including those at Guantanamo, have provided valuable intelligence that has prevented attacks, saved lives, and helped locate other terrorists. Detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo not only protects American lives which is the core function of our federal government, but detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo also protects our allies. Of course, the most recent and noteworthy example that demonstrates the value of intelligence gleaned from detainee interrogations is the case of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community would never have found bin Laden if it weren't for the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation of terrorist detainees. Not only have interrogations of detainees helped us track down other terrorists, but detaining terrorists helps prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, as Secretary Gates confirmed in response to my question during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February, approximately 1 out of 4, or 25 percent of the Guantanamo detainees who have been released, have reengaged or we suspect have reengaged in hostilities against the United States and our allies. I can tell my colleagues, as a former prosecutor that is an unacceptable reengagement rate. 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 assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri is now working as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. After a recent promotion, Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura. In the world of terrorists, it has become a badge of honor to have served at Guantanamo, and then to have been released, and then to get back into the fight against us. It is unacceptable for even one released detainee to reengage in the fight against our country. As a military spouse and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I find it sickening that our country has released dangerous prisoners who are now actively plotting to kill Americans and our allies. Some have expressed concerns regarding the legality of long-term detention for these terrorists, or expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. I wish to address both of those concerns. First, as the former Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, I am as eager as anyone to ensure that our detention policies conform to the rule of law and reflect our core values. Some have questioned the legality of detaining terrorists. Yet we should be very clear that, according to the law of war, detention is a matter of national security and military necessity and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law. Second, some have expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. In March, I visited the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Gitmo now represents the most professionally run detention facility in the world. International human rights activists, reporters, Members of the Congress and the Senate, constantly stream through Guantanamo checking on the conditions and holding the Department of Defense accountable. Guantanamo is no Abu Ghraib. Detainees are treated in a manner that conforms to international law and honors our values. Guantanamo detainees receive three meals a day tailored to the preferences of each detainee. They also have access to topnotch health care facilities. Their religion is respected. They have television, newspapers, books, English classes, and art classes. In fact, the officials at Guantanamo bend over backwards to respect the cultural and religious preferences of the detainees who are held there. Don't get me wrong; Guantanamo is no Club Med, but the terrorists who are detained there, most of whom would undoubtedly kill Americans if they were given the chance, are getting much better treatment than they deserve. As a former prosecutor, I have been in a few prisons in my time, and I can tell my colleagues the detention facility at Gitmo is much nicer than some that our common criminals are in, in the United States of America. I was also impressed with the state-of-the-art courtroom at Guantanamo which would rival any Federal courtroom in the United States. However, unlike your average courtroom, it is set up to address the special security concerns associated with trying terrorists and it is also especially designed to enable the judge to ensure that classified information will not be compromised or leaked. This courtroom is the appropriate courtroom and venue for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators to be held accountable for their roles in the horrific attacks on our country on September 11. And after almost 10 years, the victims of September 11 have waited much too long for justice. I believe our country stands on a solid legal framework in detaining terrorists according to the law of war, and I also believe Guantanamo represents the ideal facility for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Some may ask, Why introduce this legislation now? Why is it needed? In February, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Gates where we would detain high value terrorists that we capture in the future if the President goes forward with his plan to close Guantanamo. Secretary Gates candidly said to me: ``I think the honest answer to that question is we don't know.'' I was encouraged by President Obama's decision to resume military commissions at Guantanamo. Yet the administration was careful to reiterate its determination to ultimately close Guantanamo. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, on Monday Attorney General Holder, in Paris, reiterated the administration's desire to close Guantanamo. But we know intelligence gathered at Guantanamo played a valuable role in helping to ultimately find Osama bin Laden. We know there are other terrorists out there who want to do us harm, and we need to keep this facility open. For this reason, I believe Congress must pass this legislation without delay. Before concluding, let me briefly summarize what S. 944 will do. This legislation reaffirms the authority to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents. It directs the Secretary of Defense to take actions to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents. It extends permanently the limitation of transfer of detainees to foreign entities and the prohibition of construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists. We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they do not want terrorists detained on American soil. Finally, it supersedes sections of President Obama's Executive order that he issued shortly after he got into office on January 22, 2009. He issued an Executive order saying that Guantanamo would be closed. This legislation will supersede the portions of that Executive order related to the closure of Gitmo, the determination of transfer, the prosecution of terrorists in article III courts and the military tribunals. In short, this legislation would establish Gitmo as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying unprivileged enemy belligerents or terrorists. To accomplish this, we will permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign entities because what has happened is that terrorist detainees have been transferred to foreign countries and then the foreign countries release the former detainee. That is how so many former detainees have made there way back to the battlefield. So we have to stop that. And this legislation will prohibit the construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists, to make sure we keep detained terrorists at Gitmo and off U.S. soil. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation called Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011, S. 944. I am especially proud that many friends and colleagues have decided to support this bipartisan legislation, including Senators Graham, Lieberman, Chambliss, Brown, Rubio and Webb, all of whom have been leaders when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting Americans. Everything we do in this Chamber must be guided by our Constitution, and the Federal Government must fulfill its most important constitutional duty of protecting the American people. Pretending we are not at war with terrorists will not change the fact that terrorists continue to plot against us and to attack Americans. Consistent with our values and the rule of law, we must establish the Guantanamo detention facility as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying terrorists. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association on achieving a commendable feat--100 years of successful forest management, conservation, and awareness efforts. The New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association will hold its centennial annual meeting this year in Whitefield, NH, at the Mountain View Grand Resort from Friday, May 20 through Sunday, May 22, where the association will gather at Weeks State Park--the former summer home of Senator John Wingate Weeks, the author of the 1911 Weeks Act, a landmark piece of conservation legislation which paved the way for the formation of the White Mountain National Forest. The New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association was established as a nonprofit organization in 1911, with William R. Brown serving as president. By 1912, the association had 32 members. Today, the association celebrates 100 years of hard work and its more than 1,400 members representing land ownership of over 1 million acres. The association's initial objectives were the protection and improvement of timberland and property rights. The members' efforts focused on planning and acting on matters relating to forest management, legislation, and taxes. Today, the association is a statewide coalition of landowners, forest industry professionals, government officials, and supporters who work together to promote forest management and conservation of New Hampshire's working forests and to ensure a vibrant forest products industry. Since its inception, the association has continuously grown and expanded its efforts. Working with the State of New Hampshire, the Federal Government, and local governments, the association has ensured that New Hampshire's timberlands are managed for the benefit of timberland owners and, ultimately, the best interests of the timber economy of our great State. Together, landowners and forest industry professionals share the understanding that a well-managed forest is essential to New Hampshire's economy and our identity. The New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association represents some of the most treasured characteristics of the Granite State--teamwork, foresight in innovation, vision, and initiative. As the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association celebrates its first 100 years, I commend their efforts and congratulate them on a job well done. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association's centennial celebration.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the Veteran's Health Equity Act, a bill I am introducing with my colleague from the Granite State, Senator Jeanne Shaheen. I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation that addresses an issue of importance to our Nation's heroic military veterans, especially in my home State of New Hampshire. As a military spouse, I personally understand the commitment and sacrifice required of our service members and their families, and I am fully committed to ensuring that our heroes have access to the support and care they have earned. The bill we are introducing would level the playing field for veterans by requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to guarantee that veterans in every State have access to hospital care within their borders. As it stands now, New Hampshire is the only state in the nation without a full-service VA hospital or military hospital providing equivalent care to veterans. Specifically, the Veteran's Health Equity Act would require the VA to either provide a full-service VA hospital in every State or contract with civilian hospitals to provide veterans with a comparable level of care. While some States, like Alaska and Hawaii, rely on large military medical facilities to compensate for gaps in VA medical care, New Hampshire lacks the military medical facilities to compensate for a lack of a full-service VA hospital. Yet, New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of veterans per capita in the country. New Hampshire veterans must travel out of State to Maine, Massachusetts, or Vermont to access certain kinds of specialty care. Elderly veterans are often bused by volunteers during the treacherous winter months to an out of state service provider only to have their appointment canceled. Simply put, the lack of a full-service VA hospital in New Hampshire is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will continue to press for a full-service VA hospital in New Hampshire and explore all legislative remedies to ensure that our New Hampshire veterans receive the care they deserve. My 95 year old grandfather, John Sullivan, a World War II veteran, and veterans like him who have selflessly served our country, have earned high-quality medical care that is commensurate with their courageous service. We must honor our commitments to America's brave veterans. The Veteran's Health Equity Act will help ensure every veteran in the United States can access quality medical care without having to travel to another State.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the Veteran's Health Equity Act, a bill I am introducing with my colleague from the Granite State, Senator Jeanne Shaheen. I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation that addresses an issue of importance to our Nation's heroic military veterans, especially in my home State of New Hampshire. As a military spouse, I personally understand the commitment and sacrifice required of our service members and their families, and I am fully committed to ensuring that our heroes have access to the support and care they have earned. The bill we are introducing would level the playing field for veterans by requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to guarantee that veterans in every State have access to hospital care within their borders. As it stands now, New Hampshire is the only state in the nation without a full-service VA hospital or military hospital providing equivalent care to veterans. Specifically, the Veteran's Health Equity Act would require the VA to either provide a full-service VA hospital in every State or contract with civilian hospitals to provide veterans with a comparable level of care. While some States, like Alaska and Hawaii, rely on large military medical facilities to compensate for gaps in VA medical care, New Hampshire lacks the military medical facilities to compensate for a lack of a full-service VA hospital. Yet, New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of veterans per capita in the country. New Hampshire veterans must travel out of State to Maine, Massachusetts, or Vermont to access certain kinds of specialty care. Elderly veterans are often bused by volunteers during the treacherous winter months to an out of state service provider only to have their appointment canceled. Simply put, the lack of a full-service VA hospital in New Hampshire is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will continue to press for a full-service VA hospital in New Hampshire and explore all legislative remedies to ensure that our New Hampshire veterans receive the care they deserve. My 95 year old grandfather, John Sullivan, a World War II veteran, and veterans like him who have selflessly served our country, have earned high-quality medical care that is commensurate with their courageous service. We must honor our commitments to America's brave veterans. The Veteran's Health Equity Act will help ensure every veteran in the United States can access quality medical care without having to travel to another State.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I have been carefully listening to the speeches of my colleagues, including the statements of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I feel compelled to come to the floor to speak about what I believe is a red herring and a political ploy. This debate is not about women. As the mother of two children, one of them being my 6-year-old daughter, I believe it is unfair and inaccurate to say this is about women and their health. Let's be clear on how we got to this point. Last year, even though they had majorities in both Houses, the Democrats failed to pass a budget for 2011 or even a single appropriations bill. Now the House has passed full funding for our military for the rest of this fiscal year and funding for the rest of our government for 1 week to allow us to resolve the remaining issues. That proposal does not even cut title X funding. Yet we have heard from speaker after speaker from the other side come to this floor and mischaracterize the potential shutdown of our government as being about women's health. Let's talk about what we know to be true. We can end this potential government shutdown right now if the majority allows us to vote on the proposal that the House has already passed that fully funds our military for the rest of this fiscal year and gives us a week to resolve the remaining issues and to resolve this once and for all. Then we can move on to the bigger issues we face in addressing the $14 trillion debt that threatens our economic strength, threatens our national security, as our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has told us. As a military spouse, I think we owe it to our men and women in uniform and their families who are right now making sacrifices for us overseas and around the world to immediately pass funding for our military for the remainder of this fiscal year, to pass the proposal the House has made. Our military deserves better than political ploys and red herrings. 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

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, with humility and a deep sense of reverence for this body, I rise today to address my colleagues in the Senate. Serving in this historic Chamber is truly an honor. On this floor, men and women of strong character gather together to continue the unfinished work of building a more perfect union. It is an even greater privilege to stand here representing the people of New Hampshire. A place of distinct beauty that places a premium on self-governance and informed public discourse, New Hampshire reflects the very best of our Nation. As America faces enormous challenges, I am reminded of the words of wisdom from one of New Hampshire's revered statesmen, GEN John Stark. After fighting bravely and heroically in the Revolutionary War, General Stark gave New Hampshire its treasured State motto: ``Live Free or Die.'' This famous quote perfectly captures the spirit and character of the people of the Granite State. Fiercely independent and strongly protective of our personal freedoms, we place a high premium on self- reliance, personal initiative, and individual liberty. We believe strongly that government cannot and should not be allowed to get in the way of each of us reaching our full potential. That is what ``live free or die'' means. Yet, as I stand here today and as I have heard from so many of my fellow Granite Staters, we are at a time when our government has grown so large and we have become so indebted that the size of our debt threatens the full potential and future of the greatest people and country on Earth. ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that America's debt is the greatest national security threat we face. That debt now stands at a historic level of over $14 trillion, about half of which is held by other countries. The single biggest foreign holder of our debt is China, a country which does not share our values. We are borrowing $4 billion a day, or 40 cents of every single dollar, to fund our ever-expanding government. In the month of February alone, we ran a record monthly deficit of $223 billion. That $223 billion shortfall--accumulated in just 1 month--puts into perspective the current spending debate we are having in Congress. House Republicans came up with a plan to cut $61 billion for the rest of this fiscal year, which is an important start. But those cuts only cover a little more than a quarter of the deficit we accumulated in just 1 month. Yet all I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that $61 billion in cuts is extreme. In my view, the only thing that is extreme is failing to confront the endless flood of red ink that threatens our economic strength and threatens our national security. The debt we owe is so much more than just numbers. This is about us-- who we are as Americans--and what kind of country we want to leave behind for our children. My husband Joe and I are the proud parents of two children--Kate, who is 6 years old, and Jacob, who is 3 years old. I am determined to keep alive the American dream for my children and for all of our children and for future generations in this country. But our addiction to spending in Washington threatens that dream. I, for one, will not sit by while our children become beholden to China. Hollow words paying lip service to fiscal responsibility have been used by too many in Congress for far too long. New Hampshire families sit around their kitchen tables and find ways to make their family budget work. With limited resources, they make hard choices to distinguish between wants and needs. It is time for our Federal Government to do the same. That is why the first step we should take is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Almost every State in the Nation is required to balance its budget, and our Federal Government should be no different. Last week, I was proud to join with all 46 of my Republican colleagues in supporting such an amendment that caps spending, requires the budget to balance, and makes it more difficult to raise taxes. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in passing this important measure and to put this vote to the States for ratification. I appreciate that amending the Constitution is no light matter, but our Founding Fathers could not have anticipated how unwilling Members of Congress would be to actually pass a balanced budget and to make fiscally responsible decisions. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the threat posed by debt. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote: To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. In 1997, the Senate came close to getting its arms around the debt when a balanced budget amendment failed to pass this Chamber by just one vote. At that time, our national debt was a little over $5 trillion. It has nearly tripled since then. Imagine how much stronger our Nation would be today had the Senate approved a balanced budget amendment back then and the States adopted it. A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is a key first step, but getting spending under control will take a multipronged approach. That is why we must also move quickly to pass serious statutory limits on spending. One of my honorable predecessors from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, helped author the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to require sequestration of funds if Congress failed to act to cut spending within deficit targets. Unfortunately, Congress circumvented the law's provisions by finding loopholes. While that effort may not have ultimately succeeded, we should take the lessons learned from that experience. We need statutory spending caps with teeth that Congress cannot easily undermine. While I realize that this week we are working to pass funding for the rest of fiscal year 2011, Congress must do something this year that it failed to do last year: Pass a budget. Back home in New Hampshire, people--especially small business owners--are astounded to learn that our Federal Government is operating right now outside the confines of a strict budget. Frankly, it is shameful the last Congress did not approve a budget for fiscal year 2011. Their failure to act is why we are in the difficult place we find ourselves today. Here we are, trying to fund government through a series of patchwork, short-term funding bills. We need a fiscally responsible budget that cuts Federal spending and puts us on a path to eliminating our debt altogether. State governments operate within a budget, families operate within a budget, small businesses operate within a budget, and the Senate should not be working on any other legislation until we resolve funding for the rest of this fiscal year and pass a responsible budget for 2012. We have to begin by reviewing every program in our government and eliminating the waste, fraud, and duplication we all know is there. We know there is so much more we can do to streamline our Federal Government. A GAO report released in March identified hundreds of redundant programs costing us billions of dollars. Finally, it is clear we cannot address our country's fiscal crisis while continuing to focus on only 12 percent of spending. That is certainly an important start--and there is plenty to cut--but in order to truly get our fiscal house in order, we must look at the entire budget. We must repair our entitlement programs-- Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Entitlement reform should be an issue that brings us all together-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--to ensure we keep our promises to those who are relying on those programs, while making sure future generations don't pay for our failure to address the fiscal reality of these programs right now. This is certainly an issue that requires Presidential leadership, and I join others in my party in inviting the President to work across party lines to address this urgent priority. The American people deserve a substantive, responsible debate on how we can preserve these programs in a fiscally sustainable way. We simply cannot continue to put off making the difficult decisions today and passing them on to the next generation. With our trillion dollar-plus deficits and rapidly accelerating debt, we are again closing in on our debt ceiling. Having to repeatedly increase the debt limit represents a broad failure of leadership by politicians from both parties. As a new Member of the Senate, I refuse to perpetuate that cycle. We cannot let this moment pass us by, and I cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without Congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. That plan should include a balanced budget amendment, statutory spending caps, spending cuts, and entitlement reform. We can no longer afford the status quo or business as usual in Washington. The days of spending as though there is no tomorrow to bring home the bacon must end. The fiscal crisis that threatens our Union threatens all of us. We will have to make sacrifices. There will be times when we have to put aside our parochial interests and appreciate that the only way we will be able to cut spending is for all of us to take shared responsibility and to make shared sacrifices for the great country we love. Make no mistake, out-of-control spending jeopardizes our Nation's economic strength and costs us jobs. One thing is for sure: We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We need look no further than the stimulus package to prove that stubborn fact. The reality is that government doesn't create jobs. Small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. What we can do in the Senate is to help create the right tax and regulatory conditions to allow our businesses to thrive and grow. Despite the circumstances we face, we are blessed to live in the greatest country in the world. There has never been a challenge we have not faced and met and overcome and been better for. When I think of what it will take to address the challenges before us, I am reminded of my 95-year-old grandfather, John Sullivan, who is a World War II veteran and what his generation went through and what he did. My grandfather landed on the beaches of Normandy, and he is part of what is known as the ``greatest generation'' of our country. Every generation is called upon anew to preserve our country. In my view, this generation's greatest challenge is having the courage and the will to take on and fix our fiscal crisis and get our fiscal house in order once and for all. This is our time to show we have the fortitude and the courage to do what is right to preserve the greatest Nation on Earth. I know we can do this, and it is truly humbling to have the opportunity to serve in this body at a time when I know leadership and courage will make all the difference. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I stand ready to fight for our great country and to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address our fiscal crisis. I remain confident that America's best days still lie ahead of us. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.