Kelly Ayotte

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE. In summary, I do not expect us to go alone. I would ask our European partners to step up too. It is a shame that the French will continue their recent sale to the Russians to give them further capability of the Mistral class amphibious assault ships. So shame on the French for that because Europe is threatened by the Russian aggression here, and I not only expect our country to follow through, but our allies should be held accountable to follow through as well. Ukraine matters. We cannot continue to look the other way as Russia thinks they can invade another country without consequences. We can make a difference in this Congress. I urge the President to follow through on his words; otherwise, do not say it if you were not willing to back it up, Mr. President. The Ukrainian people deserve our support. They love America. All they want is to determine their own future instead of Vladimir Putin determining their future for them. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. AYOTTE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Officer Stephen Arkell, a member of the Brentwood Police Department who was tragically killed last night in the line of duty. Citizens across New Hampshire are mourning the loss of Officer Arkell, whose bravery and courage represented the very best of our State's law enforcement community. Our hearts go out to his grieving family, friends, and fellow officers, as well as the people of the town of Brentwood, where he served so well. We are holding them close to our hearts and keeping them all in our thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time for not only the Brentwood community but for the entire State of New Hampshire. Officer Arkell was an unsung hero. He went about his extraordinary work in a quiet, humble way, going above and beyond the call of duty to serve and protect the people of Brentwood and New Hampshire. During his 15-year career as a police officer, he touched countless lives through his selfless service to the people of Brentwood--proudly carrying on a noble profession. First and foremost, Officer Arkell was devoted to his family. Our hearts are broken for his wife Heather and their two teenaged daughters. They are forced to cope with an unimaginable loss that no family should ever have to endure. We share in their sadness. We will be there to comfort them as they mourn--the entire State of New Hampshire--and we will always stand by their side. We are grateful to them for the sacrifice they have made for us to be safe and for everything they have done and for what they have endured. There is no way we can repay them for the sacrifice they have made for the State of New Hampshire to be safe. They lost a great dad. I especially want to recognize Officer Arkell for the selfless time he took to be a great coach. He coached lacrosse, teaching a new generation about teamwork and competition. He was exactly the kind of role model that any parent would want for their son or daughter. Officer Arkell was also someone whose friendship could be counted on. He has been described as a friend who would ``give you the shirt off his back''--a man who was ``kind'' and ``ethical'' and ``very caring.'' He was well liked and well respected in the community that he served. Sadly, this is not the first tragedy we have seen in Rockingham County. Just last year we added Greenland Police Chief Mike Maloney's name to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC. Our State continues to grieve for Chief Maloney. Unfortunately, Chief Maloney's death and the death last night of Officer Arkell remind us of the dangerous work our police officers do every single day on our behalf. When they go out at night, on weekends and holidays--and we are all safe at home with our families--they don't know whether that next stop or next response they have to make will be their last. We are grateful for the service of all of the police officers in New Hampshire and across this country who go out every day and serve our Nation and keep us safe. Officer Arkell certainly represented the very best of our law enforcement community, and we are so sad today as we mourn his loss. As we mourn the loss of Officer Arkell, I am reminded of a quote that can be found at the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington. The quote really sums it up: ``It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived.'' That is certainly true of Officer Stephen Arkell. He was a special man who gave generously to his family, his friends, and his community. It is a tragedy that he was taken from us far too soon. This is a tragedy no family should have to endure. As we mourn his loss, we will pledge to forever honor his memory, his sacrifice, and the work he did every single day on behalf of the people of Brentwood and New Hampshire to keep us safe. We are grateful for his sacrifice. We can never repay the loss his family has endured nor can we ever repay the sacrifices that are our police officers make every single day on our behalf to keep this country safe. I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to praise my colleague from Nebraska for her leadership on the important amendment she has just described, the Workplace Advancement Act, which will address legitimate issues to ensure that laws we have had in place for half a century, including the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are enforced and that women are informed of their rights in the workplace to ensure what we all believe in, which is that women should be paid the same for the same job. Frankly, as a woman, I would like the opportunity to outperform and to be paid more. One of the concerns I have is about what I view the majority leader meant when he came to the floor and said that this was an important issue to them. If this is such an important issue, why didn't they have a markup in the HELP Committee where everyone could offer their amendments to deal with this legitimate issue that I believe my male and female colleagues feel is important? Why is it that when we have brought legitimate amendments to the floor, including my colleague's amendment, the Workplace Advancement Act, as well as a provision that would allow greater flexibility for employees with comp time--the same that is enjoyed by those in the public sector--and my colleague from South Dakota who has a strong amendment to help create a better climate for job creation and more opportunity in this country--if this is such a serious issue, which I agree this is an important and serious issue, then why is it these amendments are being blocked? Why is it we are not having a legitimate debate? Unfortunately, what I fear is that an important and legitimate issue is being turned into a political ploy of election-year politics. I share the sentiments of my colleague from Nebraska. I am very disappointed by this. In fact, one of the concerns I have about the bill pending on the floor--the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act--is that it will actually have the impact of reducing flexibility for working families. It could have the impact of reducing the ability of employers to award merit pay. I had the privilege of serving as the first woman attorney general in my State. Before I went to the attorney general's office, I worked at a private law firm. I have had the opportunity, in the position in which I serve, to meet incredible women leaders in the health sector and in the business sector. There are many instances, frankly, where women, based on merit, have outperformed their male colleagues. So what we don't want to do is create and pass a law that actually reduces the opportunity for employers in the workplace to reward merit because women want the opportunity to earn more than men when they do a better job, just as my male counterparts want. That is one of my concerns about the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act. That is why I very much appreciate what I think is a better approach by my colleague, which reinforces the enforcement of laws that have been in place, that rightly prohibits discrimination based on sex in the workplace, including discrimination based on people being paid differently even though they are performing the same job, where there are no merit differences. That is wrong. It is unacceptable. The ideas of my colleague from Nebraska are very good and I would hope the majority leader would allow a vote. I would also like to discuss the amendment that was offered by Senator McConnell, of which I am a cosponsor, that would provide working families with more flexibility in the workforce. In fact, what it would do is allow the same options currently available to those in the public sector to working families in the private sector. It would allow workers--if they want to; and it is their choice--to receive comp time instead of overtime pay so they can have more time off if they want and they choose. This is all voluntary. So if they want more time off to go to that soccer game, if they want more time off to have time to care for their children or more time to care for an elderly parent, then private sector employers will have the same ability to enter into those agreements voluntarily with their employees, to give their employees more flexibility in the workplace. What we know is that today nearly 60 percent of working households have two working parents. I happen to live in one of those households, and we struggle in our household to get to all the events we want to get to for our children. I have a 9-year-old and a 6-year-old, and this is a huge challenge that so many parents face. So the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act, which is an amendment Senator McConnell offered earlier, that I am a proud cosponsor of, would provide this needed flexibility for employees, workers, and let them decide with their employer whether they would like to receive more comp time. Right now public sector employees have the right to do this. They have this flexibility. It seems we should provide the same legal framework allowing private sector employees this type of flexibility, with more and more families trying to balance both parents working and challenging circumstances in the workplace. In fact, some companies, such as Dell, Bank of America, and GE already provide flexible workplace arrangements to their salaried employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. What this would do is allow these types of agreements to other employees, to have access to the same kinds of benefits, if they choose. It is their choice. This is giving families more flexibility, more opportunity to deal with the challenges so many of us are dealing with in terms of balancing work and family and wanting to be good parents, wanting to be good at our jobs. It seems to me this is a commonsense amendment, and I am disappointed the majority leader would also block this amendment, as well as the excellent amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska, and, obviously, the amendment that was offered--a very good amendment--by my colleague from South Dakota to deal with this underlying issue of creating a better climate of opportunity for women and men throughout this country. I believe this is a serious issue. But if it is a real serious issue--which I think we all share a feeling of on both sides of the aisle--then why is this being treated more like a political ploy instead of having a legitimate debate on the floor? Why didn't this go through the regular committee process, where people can offer their amendments and have a markup that can improve and make sure we are addressing the underlying issue? To me, it is disappointing that the Senate continues to operate in this way because this is not the first time I have come to the floor or my colleagues have come to the floor with a legitimate amendment that is relevant to the bill that is pending on the floor, yet have been blocked by the majority leader on an important issue. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the exceptional public service of Nicholas J. ``Nick'' Halias who passed away on March 3, 2014. Nick most recently served as the chief of police of the University of New Hampshire Police Department and previously served as a major in the New Hampshire State Police. His law enforcement career extended for more than 42 years of dedicated service to our State and nation. Nick began his law enforcement career with the New Hampshire State Police in 1969. Through hard work, dedication, and an innate leadership ability, Nick advanced through the ranks of the New Hampshire State Police culminating in his promotion to major. Major Halias was a graduate of the FBI National Academy, earned a master's degree from Fitchburg State University, and graduated from the New England Institute of Law Enforcement Management at Babson College. Following his retirement from the New Hampshire State Police, Nick continued his law enforcement career serving as the chief of police for the University of New Hampshire Police Department from 2000 to 2012. Nick led that agency to accreditation by the Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation and became an accreditation mentor and assessor for police organizations across the United States. It was my privilege during my service as New Hampshire's attorney general to work directly with Nick on many law enforcement initiatives. Nick earned the respect and admiration of his peers in law enforcement. He was also highly regarded by members of other disciplines including advocates for reducing domestic and sexual violence, victim witness advocates, and many others across New Hampshire. Nick was a thoughtful and effective participant in efforts to improve the criminal justice system and public safety in New Hampshire. He also was a down-to-earth, kind man who regularly volunteered at annual multidisciplinary conferences conducted by the attorney general's office. He participated as an instructor, but also consistently helped set up and tear down. Nick was fun to work with. I will miss his wise counsel and his friendship. As the New Hampshire law enforcement community gathers on April 10, 2014 to honor Nicholas J. Halias' extraordinary life of public service, I join all in commending Nick's exceptional contribution to law enforcement and public safety in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is safer and our quality of life is better because of the work done by Nicholas J. Halias. I extend heartfelt condolences to Nick's wife Linda and to his family.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and thank Cathy Myers--a valued member of my staff who left Senate service today after 35 years on Capitol Hill. Cathy has worked in Congress since 1979 when she was hired to serve as a secretary in the office of Congressman Samuel Devine of Ohio. She subsequently held the same position in the office of Congressman Gene Snyder of Kentucky, and first came to the Senate in 1983, when she took a job as secretary to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin. In 1993, Cathy went to work for New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, serving as his executive assistant for 18 years. Senator Gregg is well- known in the Granite State for his service to constituents, and Cathy played an indispensable role in helping him stay in close contact with the people of New Hampshire. When Senator Gregg retired, I was so pleased that she agreed to continue serving the people of New Hampshire as a member of my Washington staff. Cathy has been so helpful to me as I have gotten my Senate office up and running. She does a tremendous job keeping the trains running on time, and I have been so deeply grateful for her dedicated service. During the 3 years Cathy worked as a member of my staff, I have also appreciated her personal warmth and generous spirit. Cathy is perhaps best known in my office for the candy dish she keeps on her desk, which is always stocked with chocolates. It is no secret that Cathy has a sweet tooth, and she has been so kind to share her candy with the rest of the office. Cathy Myers has served the people of New Hampshire and the Senate with honor and distinction. On behalf of all those whose lives Cathy has touched in the Granite State and on Capitol Hill, I wish her the very best as she starts this new chapter in her life.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from South Carolina. I was in Ukraine on Sunday, and I was in Maidan, along with two of my colleagues: Senator Donnelly, who represents Indiana in the Senate, as well as Representative Stephen Lynch, who is a Congressman who represents Massachusetts. We had an opportunity, actually, to see and meet Ukrainians. In fact, when we went down to Maidan, there were 30,000 people there protesting. Do you know what they were protesting? They were protesting the Russian invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea. They were standing for their country, and they were standing against Russian aggression. In fact, one of the experiences we had is that as we walked along, so many people came up to us and said: Thank you, America. Thank you for standing with us. In fact, I met a mother and daughter who had come from Crimea. They were waiving a flag--a Ukrainian flag--and they gave me this, what I hold in my hand, and they put it around me. What they wanted me to know is that they were from Crimea and they did not accept the Russian aggression and invasion of their country. What they asked us to stand for is to stand for the freedom of the Ukrainian people to decide their future and to not let Russia interfere with their ability to decide what they want for their country. They are wonderful people. They are very patriotic. In Maidan there were over 100 Ukrainians who were killed. Many of them were murdered by snipers who were up on the rooftops, who were just killed in cold blood by the Yanukovych government, the pro-Russian-backed government, because they were simply doing what we in the United States of America call coming out and stating their viewpoint, saying: We want a government that is not corrupt. We want a government that will allow us to have a say in our future. For that they were murdered in cold blood. We are at an important moment for our country right now. What happened in Crimea and what is happening in Ukraine matters very much to the United States of America, because if we do not stop Russian aggression toward Ukraine, then I think this very much threatens the NATO alliance. It puts us in a position where our words do not have meaning because we were a signatory to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, along with the United Kingdom. Russia violated that memorandum by invading Crimea. They have made further efforts to amass their troops on the boarder of Eastern Ukraine. In fact, what they are also doing is sending armed Russian agents into Eastern Ukraine to try--they are armed, they have money-- and they are trying to actually create artificial demonstrations in Eastern Ukraine so they can use the very same excuse they used in Crimea to go over and take more territory of Ukraine in violation of international law and in violation of all standards among civilized countries. I believe it is time for us to set forth--I appreciate what the President has done with the sanctions, but we need to do more. If we do not do more now, then Russia--I fear that Vladimir Putin in particular will move into the remainder of Ukraine and that we will undermine our agreement on the Budapest Memorandum. But, most important, we have a lot at stake. First, as my colleagues have said, if we do not stand with NATO to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin, by not just sanctioning individuals, we should sanction segments of the Russian economy so he understands there are serious consequences for invading another country. We should provide military assistance to the Ukraine military so they can defend themselves. We should revisit our decision and reinstate the memorandums of understanding that we have with Poland and the Czech Republic for missile defense systems. We as a country should be looking to help Europe reduce their dependency on Russian natural gas and oil, and there are steps we can take that will be good for our economy but will also be good for the safety and security of the world. We should be doing all that now so Vladimir Putin, who is a schoolyard bully, understands we are very serious. Why does it matter? Not just NATO, but we had Ukraine give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for the agreement of the United Kingdom and the United States that we would respect their sovereignty, and they felt they had assurances of security from us. How are we going to deal with nuclear proliferation around the world and get other countries to give up their nuclear weapons if we are not serious and we do not say now: Vladimir Putin, we are serious--tough sanctions, much tougher than have been in place. We are going to support the Ukrainian military and we are not going to stand for any more aggression against the Ukrainian people--because otherwise why give up your nuclear weapons, again, if you are a country, if the United States of America does not mean anything they say on an agreement they have signed on to? In addition, what will the Chinese do? In the Senkaku Islands they have been very aggressive toward the territory of not only the Japanese but also the Philippines, the Vietnamese, and they are watching. They are watching whether we care whether Russia invades another country, whether we care that Vladimir Putin is pushing the Ukrainian people around. That is why this matters, not just because we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine--we do and we should--so they can decide their future, not Vladimir Putin--they, the people of their country, should decide their future--but also because it matters for us around the world, not just China, not just nuclear proliferation, but what do the ayatollahs in Iran think about how serious we are about ending their nuclear weapons program. This is an important moment for America, and it is time for our President to really step forward. The initial steps he took were in the right direction, but it is time not to continue saying there will be further costs. The costs must be rendered now. The Senate will be taking an important step in providing loan guarantees to Ukraine and a scheme for sanctions, but ultimately I call on the President of the United States to say to Vladimir Putin now--to recognize whom we are dealing with, the former KGB colonel--to say to him: We are going to impose sanctions on entire segments of your economy. We are going to hurt your ability to do business in the world because you have invaded another country. We are going to bolster NATO, and we are going to reinstate missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, that we will not accept this aggression. It is time for the President to say this very clearly and to impose the consequences on Russia now because after they invade Eastern Ukraine, it will be too late. Vladimir Putin needs to understand now that we are very serious about this, that we will stand by our word under the Budapest Memorandum, that we will stand with the Ukrainian people, and that we will make sure that we will not accept aggressions from Vladimir Putin, and that this school yard bully understands, through strength, that the United States of America will not be bullied around, nor will our friends and allies.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I want to thank the senior Senator from Arizona for his leadership and to really frame what Ronald Reagan said. It is so important at this moment. He said: Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. So when we talk about peace through strength, we are talking about ensuring that we do not have to get involved in another conflict. Before I went to Ukraine I was in Afghanistan. One of the commanders that I was speaking with in Afghanistan said to me: You know, Senator Ayotte, I worry about America's span of attention. I am worried. I have fought here. I have done multiple tours here. We sacrificed here. I am really worried. I understand how people at home view where things are in Afghanistan. But for us just to throw our hands up right now and what that will do--I am just worried that we are forgetting the lessons of what happened on September 11, when we thought that we did not have to be engaged, when we thought that the fight could stay over here and that this country Afghanistan, which was a haven for Al Qaeda, that they would just leave us alone. Unfortunately, in this fight with Al Qaeda, they won't leave us alone. Now we are facing a situation in Syria where our Secretary of Homeland Security or our Director of National Intelligence has said the threat of Al Qaeda in Syria is a threat to our homeland. As we look at events unfolding around the world, what is happening in Ukraine does matter to the United States of America.

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Ms. AYOTTE. I would say in order that we don't have to deal with wars here and that we hopefully don't have to send our men and women in uniform to war, we have to maintain a strong position in the United States and Ukraine using the strongest sanctions we can, having a prepared military, and supporting our allies to ensure that we don't fall back into forgetting the lessons we have seen. When America disengages, it becomes dangerous for America. That is what this is about. I am pleased we are going to pass bipartisan legislation to support Ukraine. I ask the President to issue even stronger sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin, and to ensure we stand with the people of Ukraine, because when we stand with them we stand for ourselves as well and what we believe in.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor today to talk about a very important case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on this morning that goes to the very core of our Nation's foundation--the future of religious freedom in the United States. As Americans we cherish our religious liberty. It lies at the heart of who we are as a people, and we know we must always guard against threats to our religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. That is why I am joining my colleagues Senator Blunt and Senator Coburn on the floor today and speaking in support of the constitutional rights that all Americans have under the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Here is what is at stake. Americans should not be forced to give up their religious freedom or their rights of conscience simply because they want to open a family business. American families should not be forced into choosing between their family business and complying with unlawful government mandates that infringe on the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that is why this case, which is being heard today by our Supreme Court, is so important to the American people. A provision of President Obama's health care law includes a mandate that threatens penalties on private organizations unless they involuntary agree to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. This is anathema to the First Amendment to our Constitution. If religious institutions and faith-based organizations are forced to comply with government mandates that violate the core principles of their faith, that is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it is contrary to what we stand for as Americans. I have heard from people in my State who are deeply concerned about this mandate and the issue that is being considered by the Supreme Court today. They are simply asking to have the same conscience rights they had before the President's health care law was passed--the same conscience rights that are enshrined in our Constitution that protect all Americans regardless of what our faith is and regardless of our background. This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and the proper role of our government. It is about who we are as Americans. If the government, through mandates, can take away our conscience rights, what does that say about other rights we have under our Constitution? This debate comes down to the legacy left behind by our Founding Fathers and over 200 years of American history. We have a choice between being responsible stewards of this legacy or allowing the Federal Government to interfere with religious life in an unprecedented way. Protecting religious freedom and conscience rights in the past has been a bipartisan issue. Congress has a long history of protecting religious liberty. I heard my colleague talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was signed into law by President Clinton to ensure that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. That is what is at stake in the Supreme Court decision and the mandates that are being rendered by the health care law against private companies such as Hobby Lobby and others. This is what is at stake: Under the President's health care law, companies such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga--and we are proud to have a Hobby Lobby in the State of New Hampshire--that want to help and provide health care coverage for their employees could be forced to pay over $36,000 per employee unless they provide drugs and devices that violate their religious beliefs and conscience rights. Why should they be forced into this position? If the Federal Government is able to violate the First Amendment in this way, what is to stop other fundamental rights from being violated? Protecting religious freedom was once an issue that bound Americans together. I believe this effort, which is so fundamental to our national character, must bring us together once more. I look forward to seeing the Supreme Court's decision on this issue, but this is a case that never should have been filed. The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, should have never violated the rights of conscience of these companies or of religious organizations, and it is time to turn this around. I look forward to the Supreme Court vindicating their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which should have been respected by this administration, but that is why we have a Supreme Court. I look forward to the Supreme Court decision, which I hope will uphold the First Amendment rights of the parties to this litigation and to all Americans. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator McCaskill, as well as Senator Fischer. The Senate voted 97-0--unanimously--to support the Victims Protection Act. This act builds on important work that was done in the Defense authorization bill to ensure that victims of sexual assault in the military will be treated with dignity and respect; that there will be full accountability for commanders to ensure the climate within their unit is one of zero tolerance toward sexual assaults; and that when a victim comes forward, that victim--male or female--is supported within this system. The Victims Protection Act, passed today by a vote of 97-0--and few things in the Senate pass with a 97-0 vote--will ensure there is another level of review when a commander disagrees with the recommendation of a prosecutor to prosecute a sexual assault case. It will then go up to the civilian secretary for another level of review. The bill also ensures commanders are judged in their evaluations on the climate within their unit for addressing sexual assault and how they handle these types of cases. It also eliminates the so-called good soldier defense. Because even if you have been a good soldier, if you have committed sexual assault, you need to be held accountable for your actions. So this bill will ensure people who are perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The bill also allows important input from the victims so they can have a say as to whether they believe a case should be brought in a military or a civilian system for prosecution. This act adds on the important work we have done together in the Defense authorization bill but it is not the end. We will continue in the Armed Services Committee to make sure the reforms that have been passed are implemented, that commanders are held accountable for a climate of zero tolerance within their units, and that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect and know they will be supported if they come forward to report. So I thank the Chair, and I again thank Senator McCaskill for her leadership on this bill. So few things pass in this body unanimously, but this shows the bipartisan commitment we have to stopping this scourge of sexual assault in the military. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator from Missouri for her leadership. She is correct. She has prosecuted more of these cases than I think anyone in this body, so I appreciate her leadership. Under the system that is put forward under the Gillibrand proposal-- let me thank her for her passion about this issue as well--we know it prohibits funding and personnel. How does that work when we are going to set up a whole new system? I worry about the deployability of this system. When someone is in Iraq or Afghanistan and they are a victim, where are these JAG lawyers going to be? Will they be in Washington making these decisions? But we won't be able to put any additional resources toward it. So is this system still deployable? There are other problems with implementation. There are big concerns about the right to a speedy trial. If that happens, as we know, then the defendant can't be prosecuted. Eliminating the ability to plea bargain--we heard Senator Reid speak about that, because this proposal eliminates two-thirds of the crimes from the UCMJ out of the authority of the commander, well beyond this issue of sexual assault, which we are committed to addressing. It also creates serious due process concerns. So there are serious implementation questions about this. I wish to raise a question that keeps coming up: We need to hold the commanders more accountable. I agree with the Senator from Missouri. We cannot allow them off the hook. If we take them out of this equation, then there will be less accountability. Our proposal actually has it as part of how a commander is going to be judged, how the commanders handle these cases. That is not the status quo, because we want the chain of command to be more accountable. But we keep hearing we want victims to come forward, and the Senator from Missouri knows that from her experience as a prosecutor. I would say this: Does the evidence support that more victims will come forward if we actually pass the Gillibrand proposal? Because why are we here. We want more victims to come forward. Will more victims see justice if this proposal is passed? Because this is ultimately what we are trying to get at.

Ms. AYOTTE. Let me just say, this panel took on the key question. That is why we are doing this. I am doing this because I believe victims will get justice and there will be more accountability. I want to hold commanders more accountable for not only how they handle these crimes but also for that zero tolerance policy within their unit. That is why we want them judged on this basis. That panel has looked at this issue of reporting and found that there is no evidentiary basis at this time to support a conclusion that removing senior commanders as the convening authority will reduce the incidence of sexual assault--which we want them to establish that climate within their unit to do so--or increase reporting of sexual assaults. I would also say, if we want justice for victims, what about those 93 victims where the commander said: Bring the case forward, even though the JAG lawyer said no? They would not have gotten justice. So the evidence is the opposite. What would we say to those victims? The evidence shows that actually commanders are bringing cases more frequently than their JAG's lawyers and over their objections. The panel also found that none of the military justice systems of our allies was changed or set up to deal with the problem of sexual assault. So for those allies who have taken it out of the chain of command, this panel said that none of them can attribute any changes in the reporting of sexual assault to changing the role of the commander. We were told from the beginning of this argument that our allies changed this so that more people would come forward. Well, they have not. In fact, what we learned is many of our allies changed it to protect defendants.

Ms. AYOTTE. Our reporting has actually--since 2013, in the Marine Corps it is up 80 percent and in the Army it is up 50 percent. That is even before the legislation that we have all worked on to have special victims counsels for every single victim that we have already passed in this body.

Ms. AYOTTE. Yes, I will.

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I yield Senator McCaskill's time to the Senator from Nebraska.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator from Missouri, and I thank the Senator from New York for her passionate and important debate. Let's not forget the work we have already done in the Defense authorization, ensuring that every victim will have his or her own attorney to represent their interests, taking commanders out of overturning verdicts, and making retaliation a crime. So we have done very important work. But why are we here today? The issue is will more cases be prosecuted if we take it out of the chain of command? Actually, no. There would be 93 cases under the current situation that wouldn't have been brought where commanders actually made a different decision than their military lawyer. What about those victims and those victims having their day in court? I want more victims to have their day in court. As we think about it, why are we doing this? Some of our allies did it. We looked at that issue. Our allies haven't seen any greater reporting, so there is no evidence that we are going to have reporting. Many of them did it to protect defendants. We are here to protect victims today. We certainly want a system with due process, but this is about having more victims coming forward. I also want to make sure people understand that under the system now they do not have to report to their commander. We had people come to the floor and say they shouldn't have to go to their boss. They can go to a sexual assault response coordinator, clergy, minister, civilian medical personnel. Already they can come forward if they don't feel comfortable coming forward to the commander. No evidence has been presented that we are going to help victims more or that more cases will be prosecuted or more will come forward if we take it out of the chain of command. That is why I want to hold commanders more accountable, not less. That is what Senator McCaskill, Senator Fischer, and I do in our proposal. We want to make sure they are not let off the hook. We want to make sure the victims can get not only justice but make sure they get swift justice. This proposal risks delaying that justice in the system. I ask my colleagues to vote against Senator Gillibrand's proposal. I ask my colleagues to say what will hold commanders more accountable. That is our proposal. I ask them to say where is the evidence that more evidence will be pursued or more cases will come forward. There is no evidence. Our proposal is based on the evidence. I yield the floor.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona for everything they have done on this important issue and to get to the truth. Frankly, I will quote the Senator from Arizona from last weekend, when he was asked what Ambassador Susan Rice said on ``Meet the Press,'' because I agree with his sentiment: I am speechless. I am speechless because when Ambassador Rice was asked on ``Meet the Press,'' do you have any regrets about what you said on every single Sunday show on September 16 of 2012, she said she didn't have any regrets. She said: What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, is to share the best information we had at the time. The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. Actually, that is not the full picture and the information they had at the moment. That is why I think the word ``speechless'' applies. The fact she would have no regrets about misleading the American people is deeply troubling. Because we know that immediately after he heard about the attacks, GEN Carter Ham, who was the commander of U.S. Africa Command at the time, told Secretary of Defense Panetta this was a terrorist attack. In fact, Secretary Panetta testified before the Armed Services Committee, as did the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman Dempsey, they knew at the time it was a terrorist attack. But apparently, when Ambassador Rice went on to tell the story about this being the result of a hateful and heinous video and protest that started in Cairo, she missed that testimony and this incredibly important information held by key security leaders in our government. We also know on September 12, 4 days before she appeared on the Sunday shows, the day after the attacks, according to testimony given before the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee given last May, Beth Jones, who was then the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, sent an email on behalf of our government to the Libyan Ambassador in Washington, DC, which said the following: The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists. This was 4 days before Ambassador Rice went on all the Sunday shows and said this was in response to a hateful and offensive video. That was not the case. Let's go further. This wasn't the best information they had at the time. This raises questions as well about the role of Mike Morell, who at the time was the Deputy CIA Director. I was part of the meeting with Mike Morell and Ambassador Rice at the time, and one of the things I learned in that briefing also troubled me a great deal about the representation Ambassador Rice made on those Sunday shows, including her statement that she has no regrets, apparently, and the claim they had the best information at the time. One of the things that goes out is called the Presidential daily brief. In fact, Ambassador Rice had a very important position in our government at the time. I still wonder why she was the person who was sent out on every Sunday show with regard to the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, but the daily intelligence briefing at the time actually contained references to the potential involvement of Al-Qaeda in these attacks. Yet somehow, when she went on the Sunday shows, she felt she could make the statement that Al-Qaeda has been decimated and then blamed the attacks on our consulate on this hateful video, further contradicting the information we had at the time.

Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up.

Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair. I will defer to my colleagues, but the bottom line is this: We are speechless by what Ambassador Rice said last Sunday. We need to have her testimony before the Congress to get to the bottom of why these misrepresentations were made. Mr. Morell needs to be brought back before the Congress, and ultimately we need a select committee. I defer to my colleague from South Carolina to wrap up.

Ms. AYOTTE

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

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about a grave threat to the United States of America, a grave threat to the world, and a grave threat to our friend and ally, the State of Israel; that is, the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program. As we stand here today, pending has been legislation filed by Senator Richard Burr which contains important sanctions which are essentially an insurance policy to make sure that Tehran does not play the United States of America and that they are, in fact, serious about stopping their nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, there is a long history with Iran where we talk and they enrich. This is why it is so important right now that we have this insurance policy. These sanctions pending would only go in place if Iran violates the interim agreement that has been entered into between the administration and other countries in the world and Iran and if they fail to reach a final agreement that is acceptable to the security interests of the United States of America and to our allies in the region to make the world a safer place. We cannot accept a nuclear-capable Iran. Why is that? Iran is a country that has threatened to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth. Iran has called our country ``the Great Satan.'' Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. They have supported terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. They have, unfortunately, obviously worked against our strong ally Israel. They have supported the murderous Assad regime, providing Assad arms so he can murder his own people. Unfortunately, there are so many examples of the danger of Iran having nuclear weapons capability. If Iran gets this capability, unfortunately we will also find ourselves in a position where we are in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a Sunni-Shia arms race, which would then also threaten the world and make that region even more of a tinderbox. So we now find ourselves at a critical moment. I am deeply worried that the sanctions regime this Congress has worked so hard to put in place on a strong bipartisan basis is unraveling and we need an insurance policy to make sure Iran knows they are not going to play us and unravel these sanctions. The way we can do that is by having sanctions legislation passed which is prospective. If Iran is serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that takes away their capability of having a nuclear weapon, then they should not have a problem with prospective sanctions by this Congress. Again, those sanctions would only go in place if they violate the interim agreement. If their words mean anything, then they shouldn't have a problem with the fact that we are just saying: If you violate it, we will impose additional sanctions. We will not allow this sanctions regime to unravel. What is the significance of this sanctions regime? The work done by this Congress on a bipartisan basis and with our partners around the world is what has brought Iran to the table. All of us want a diplomatic resolution that stops Iran from having a nuclear weapon, but we need to go into this with clear eyes, which is why having this insurance policy is so important. A final agreement with Iran will only be meaningful if it ensures they will not have the ability to enrich because their ability to enrich makes it easier for them to immediately ramp up to nuclear weapons capability. I recently attended a security conference in Munich and met with some representatives of the Arab nations. They were asked in an open forum: If an agreement is reached and Iran is allowed to enrich, what will the rest of you want to do? Their answer was that they will want the right to enrich too. This final agreement must stop Iran's ability to enrich. If we do not stop them, we will not only face the risk of Iran being able to quickly ramp up to a nuclear weapon and its capability to harm the world but also the risk that the Arab nations themselves will also enrich. Even if they don't have a nuclear weapon capability, they are all right at the point where they could break out to that capability, and that is just as dangerous for the world. The amendment we have makes it clear that we are going to protect the United States of America and protect our allies and the world. It has to be clear. It should prevent Iran from that enrichment capability. This agreement should stop their capability at the Arak facility to produce plutonium. Our agreement should absolutely make sure we are given access to their military facilities so we can stop them from their programs where they are working on weaponization of nuclear materials. I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Director of National Intelligence and others have told us that by 2015 Iran could have ICBM capability. Can you imagine if they were to continue with this nuclear program and have ICBM capability? This is a true risk to the world. An agreement is only meaningful if it is an agreement we can rely on, that is open, transparent, verifiable, and absolutely stops them from having a nuclear program that could be a threat to the world. We need to make sure they stop enrichment and put a stop on the Arak plutonium reactor and weaponization program. We need full and open access. We should be addressing Iran's acts of terrorism throughout the world. One of the grave dangers I worry about is that if Iran has a nuclear weapon, they may not use it, but they may pass it on to the terrorist groups that Iran is associated with, and that is a grave danger not only to our ally Israel but also to the United States of America. One of the reasons I believe the sanctions legislation that is pending is so important is because some of the statements that have been made recently by the regime in Tehran are very troubling and harken back to their prior behavior of we talk, they enrich. We have to question how serious they are about a verifiable, transparent, and real agreement to stop their nuclear weapons program. For example, on February 18--in talks between Iran and the P5+1 that were held in Vienna--Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the talks ``will not lead anywhere.'' In advance of the talks, President Ruhani, whom Prime Minister Netanyahu has described as a wolf in sheep's clothing--and I would agree with him on that--has stated that peaceful atomic research would be pursued forever. Iran's Foreign Minister recently clashed with a lead U.S. negotiator, Wendy Sherman, over the Arak and Fordow facilities. Sherman stated that Iran had no need for either facility. Make no mistake, if Iran is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons capability--or the pursuit of that capability--then she is absolutely right; there is no need for the Arak facility that allows them to produce plutonium. There is no need for these underground facilities such as Fordow, where they are trying to hide their program from the rest of the world. The Foreign Minister of Iran, in reaction to her comments, described her statement as ``worthless'' and reinforced Iran's position that their ability to produce atomic energy at the plutonium reactor at Arak is not negotiable. This is deeply troubling, and it is one of the reasons we need to send a clear message here and now. They came to the table because of sanctions. The sanctions were having a deteriorating effect on their economy. Yet recently we have seen--and this has been my fear--the sanctions regime unraveling. They are actually using this negotiation with the administration to further unravel those sanctions in order to get what they want without an insurance policy to ensure that we will get what we want, and that is what this sanction legislation does. One of the issues that came up in February, a French trade delegation--representing 116 French companies-- traveled to Tehran. I recently met with one of the Arab nation's Foreign Ministers, and he told me that the hotel rooms in Tehran are filled with business men and women looking to line up to do business with Tehran. This is a real issue that the sanctions regime is starting to unravel, and the legislation we have pending with 59 cosponsors is an insurance policy to say: If you are not serious about this agreement, we will impose further sanctions to make sure we do everything we can to stop you from having nuclear weapons capability. This is a critical moment in the history of this country. This is a critical moment for the safety of the world. We want to stop Iran from using diplomatic means as a way to have nuclear weapons capability because of the risk it presents to the world. We cannot be naive. We have to understand the prior behavior of Iran because the prior behavior of Iran will allow us to go in with our eyes wide open rather than just taking their assurances that they are serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that will stop them from having this capability. As we stand on the floor, I ask the majority leader to allow a vote on this legislation so we can send a clear message to Iran and the rest of the world that they should not think they should do further business with Iran unless Iran is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons program through a transparent, verifiable agreement that will ensure they cannot threaten the State of Israel and the rest of the world with a nuclear weapon. I ask the majority leader to allow a vote on this important legislation. There are so few pieces of legislation that come through the Senate which actually have 59 cosponsors. This is one of them. It certainly has strong bipartisan support. I don't buy the argument that if we were to pass this legislation, somehow Iran would walk away from the negotiations. If Iran walks away from the negotiations because we pass prospective legislation as an insurance policy to make sure they are serious about a real, verifiable agreement that stops their nuclear weapons program, then, frankly, we know they have been playing us. Because the reality is, if they are serious, they should not care if we put an insurance policy out there. If they are serious, they will follow through and will do what the interim agreement requires and will agree to a final agreement that stops their nuclear weapons program in a transparent, verifiable way once and for all. On the other hand, if they are just going to walk away with a threat of prospective sanctions, how serious can they be? We will still have the sanctions in place that will continue to put pressure on them to say the United States of America and our allies will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran because of the threat it presents to us. We cannot allow the largest state sponsor--and most serious state sponsor--of terrorism around the world to have this capability. We cannot allow a race in the Middle East--a Sunni-Shia race--to see who can have a nuclear weapon first because of the danger it presents to the world. Finally, we cannot allow Iran to continue to threaten our friend and ally, the State of Israel. I understand and appreciate that when Iran and its leaders have made statements they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth, our friends in Israel take that very seriously. They have vowed never again. We stand with them not only for their friendship but also for the safety of the world. We have legislation pending on the floor that gives us an opportunity to make it clear what the United States of America stands for and that we will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. They must be serious or there will be consequences in terms of economic sanctions. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. AYOTTE

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to celebrate the life and legacy of a great New Hampshire public servant--State representative Amy S. Perkins of Seabrook. I was deeply saddened to learn of Amy's passing earlier this week. At age 43, she was taken from us far too soon. My heart is broken for her family and friends, as well as her constituents in Seabrook. Amy represented the very best of New Hampshire's ``citizen legislature.'' She and her husband Koko, also a State representative, represented Seabrook together at the State House while also giving back to their beloved community in so many other ways. Amy was active in her church in Seabrook and was a member of the Raymond E. Walton American Legion Post 70 Women's Auxiliary. Koko, who continues to serve in the legislature, is the deputy chief at the Seabrook Fire Department. As a husband and wife team, they committed themselves to giving back to others--embodying New Hampshire's distinctive spirit of community. In addition to her public duties, Amy was also a devoted mother who leaves behind two children--her son Daumanic Fucile and her daughter Katelyn Perkins. She was also a daughter and a sister--and I extend my deepest sympathy to the family members who are mourning her loss. Amy was a leader who refused to sit on the sidelines. She is someone who cared deeply about her town and her State, and she selflessly stepped up to serve. Amy leaves behind a legacy of service that I know her husband Koko will carry on--and her children will always be able to look to the example she set as a model of how to give back to others. Amy Perkins will be deeply missed by those whose lives she touched. Her family and many friends will remain in my thoughts and prayers.