Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to honor the town of Unity, NH. This great American community is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding, and I am proud to recognize this historic event.

Located in Sullivan County in the western part of the State, the town of Unity includes the villages of Unity, East and West Unity, and Quaker City. The origins of Unity date back to 1753 when the territory then known as Buckingham was chartered through a series of grants from New Hampshire Governor Benning Wentworth and the Massachusetts government. Unfortunately, this grew territorial tension among the local residents, so in 1764 the town of Unity was formally incorporated. Today Unity is home to approximately 1,700 New Hampshire residents who take great pride in living their lives as their town name intended them to, in unity.

The Unity Town Hall, which today serves as the official location for Unity Town Hall meetings, was constructed in 1831. It was originally a Baptist meeting house, but the town of Unity purchased the building for $25.00 in 1877. It has since undergone renovation but still stands proudly today where in the bell tower hangs a famed Revere Bell which will ring forth in celebration of Unity on July 11, 2014.

Unity is an example of a quintessential New Hampshire town whose citizens embody everything that it means to be great Americans. So today we honor the 250th anniversary of Unity, NH. We commend its citizens and recognize their accomplishments, their love of country, and their spirit of independence. But more importantly, we look forward to the next 250 years and the great things this town will have to offer.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of LCpl Brandon Garabrant, a proud marine from Greenfield, NH, who was tragically killed in action in Afghanistan last week.

Lance Corporal Garabrant was an extraordinary young man who cared deeply about his country. Before he even graduated from ConVal Regional High School last year, he had already graduated from marine boot camp at Parris Island. Brandon was eager to serve and he followed in the footsteps of his great-grandfather and his grandfather in joining the military to serve our country.

Long before he joined the Marines, Brandon had already earned a reputation as someone who was passionate about serving others. Volunteering with the Temple Volunteer Fire Department starting at age 17, he became a full-time member of that fire department when he turned 18. The fire chief at Temple, George Clark, was quoted as saying Brandon ``was all about helping people,'' adding that ``no matter what needed doing, he was always the first guy there.'' Chief Clark said even when Brandon was home on leave he would get in touch and he would ask how could he help, a true reflection on Brandon's commitment to serving others as reflected in his service to our country.

Lance Corporal Garabrant was proud to be a marine and enjoyed the important work he was doing. He was a big-hearted young man with a bright future ahead of him, and he represented the very best of New Hampshire and the very best of our great Nation.

Brandon was taken from us far too soon. As we mourn his tragic loss, we commit ourselves to forever honor and cherish his memory and to carry on the proud legacy of service he leaves behind. Brandon was a true American hero for the sacrifice he made for our country, for our freedom. At this very sad time we also support and comfort his family who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.

In the difficult days and weeks ahead, my thoughts and prayers will remain with his mother Jessie, his father John, as well as his brother Jacob and his sister Mykala. May God forever bless LCpl Brandon Garabrant. May we honor his selfless sacrifice for our country. If it weren't for people such as Brandon, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have in this great country. If it were not for marines such as Lance Corporal Garabrant, who stepped up to serve his country and volunteered on behalf of our great Nation, we would not have the free speech rights we enjoy or any of the other rights we enjoy.

My thoughts and prayers will remain with his family. My thoughts and prayers will remain with all of his fellow soldiers who have lost a friend, and my thoughts and prayers will remain with all of those in the Greenfield community, with the fire station, with Chief Clark, and all of those who have lost a great American hero.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know we have pending now the appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, and Science, which contains an important issue I have offered an amendment on, along with Senator Chambliss, who is the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, as well as Senators Wicker, Inhofe, Cruz, Graham, and Blunt, all of whom serve on the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Vitter and Senator Kirk. Our amendment would prohibit the administration from transferring to or releasing to the custody or control of any foreign country Guantanamo detainees whom our own Guantanamo Review Task Force has recommended for continued law-of-war detention.

This is a task force that looks at all the circumstances surrounding those who are being held at Guantanamo, including whether they continue to represent a danger to our country and to our allies if they were to be released.

Our amendment does three things. It prohibits the transfer to foreign countries of these detainees, that this group the administration put together to review each of the detainees and their status at Guantanamo has recommended them for continued law-of-war detention.

These are the worst of the worst. These individuals have been determined to be the most dangerous to continue to present a risk to the United States of America and to our allies if they were to be released.

So our amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply says they cannot be transferred to third-party countries--or transferred to the United States of America, for that matter--and that they shall remain at the secure detention facility, Guantanamo Bay, based on the recommendation of the Guantanamo Review Task Force.

Our amendment would also prevent the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries that have had prior instances of Guantanamo detainees being transferred to that country and then those detainees getting back in the fight against us.

It is pretty common sense. If we have a history with a country where we previously, under either the Bush administration or the Obama administration, transferred the detainees there and then they have been released and have gotten back in the fight against us or our allies, why would we want to transfer them to this type of country again? Because, obviously, these countries cannot guarantee the security of these detainees, and it puts us and our allies at risk.

Finally, our amendment would prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries that have failed to honor their previous commitments to the United States of America to monitor, detain, or control the travel of former Guantanamo detainees. Again, if we have had a prior agreement with a country and we have transferred a detainee or detainees there, and they have failed to honor those agreements, why would we want to transfer detainees there now?

The most recent instance of this was the five Taliban dream team who were transferred to Qatar, because the country of Qatar actually had a prior instance where they failed to honor their commitments to us with regard to how they would treat the detention and travel restrictions on a Guantanamo detainee.

I am deeply concerned about the national security implications of the five detainees who were transferred in the prisoner swap. In fact, having asked our intelligence officials about what will happen to these five detainees, what I have heard from them is on a scale of 1 to 10, 4 out of 5 of those detainees are a 10 for 10 on the likelihood to get back in the battle against us or our allies. The fifth is about an 80- 10 scale. We have a 29-percent reengagement rate or recidivism rate from those we have held at Guantanamo, meaning 29 percent of them get back in the fight against our country, against us, against our interests after they have been captured and put in Guantanamo.

So we have a history here, and it is important if the administration is going to transfer anyone out of Guantanamo they not transfer individuals who have been found too dangerous to be let loose because they have been designated for continued law-of-war detention and they present too much of a risk to our country and the world. Second, to not transfer these individuals to countries where we have already

transferred people in the past--and guess what, they couldn't keep them secure and they got back in the fight against us and our allies. Third, to prohibit transfer to countries that have not honored prior commitments when we have transferred a Gitmo detainee there, and that would apply to the country the President most recently released the five Taliban dream team to who, unfortunately, are going to get back in the fight, and that 29 percent are those who have reengaged in the fight or are suspected of reengaging in the fight against us.

Our amendment is straightforward. It is focused on making sure the terrorists held at Guantanamo--the most dangerous of those individuals who present a threat to our country--are not put in a position where they can get back in the fight against us or against our allies.

We have to think about the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line to capture these individuals, in some instances, and honor our commitment to them to make sure we can hold the country safe and secure, to not allow those who have been deemed the most dangerous at Guantanamo for continued law of war detention to be transferred to a third-party country or not allow us to transfer them to countries where we already have a history of either detainees getting back in the fight from that country or the country not honoring its commitment to the United States of America.

My prior job was as a prosecutor. I will tell you, it is just a matter of common sense. This is a matter of protecting the American people from dangerous captured terrorists who we already have in our custody, to make sure we are not putting them back in a position where they can harm us again.

I think that is something that America would expect of us. That is what I believe our amendment would do. I hope, as we take up this appropriations bill, this amendment will be considered so we can pass it to ensure that dangerous Guantanamo detainees are not put in a position again where they can harm us, our people or our allies because too many of them, unfortunately, have already committed acts against our country, our people, and our allies, and shame on us if we do not do everything we can to prevent that from happening again.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I wish to honor the life of Laura LaPlante--a law student from Hancock, NH, who was preparing to graduate from the University of Chicago Law School when her life was tragically cut short last month.

Laura was a student at St. Patrick's School in Jaffrey and at ConVal Regional High School in Peterborough, from which she graduated in 2006. After attending Columbia University, she returned to New Hampshire and graduated in 2010 from UNH--where she was a scholar-athlete who was at the top of her class.

Laura continued to distinguish herself as a student in law school, where she became a campus leader. In addition to serving as the president of the school's chapter of the Federalist Society, she also served as treasurer of the Law School Republicans. Additionally, Laura devoted her time and energy to the Saint Thomas More Society, the Law Women's Caucus, and the Edmund Burke Society.

Laura was a vibrant young woman whose kind and generous spirit and commitment to excellence--touched the lives of everyone around her.

A high school friend of hers said: ``Laura is the kind of person everybody wants to be.''

And a former teacher and coach at ConVal said, ``She was the type of person that was always there for you''--adding that Laura was ``very selfless.''

She brought that same trademark kindness to Chicago, where one of her law school classmates was quoted as saying: ``Laura was one of those people who would take the time to ask how I'm doing and actually listen.''

These are just a few remembrances of this remarkable young woman. She was smart, outgoing, kind, and curious about the world around her. I know that Laura would have been an outstanding lawyer who brought intellect and integrity to the legal profession. And I also know that she would have continued to be a leader in her community.

Tragically, we will never know the heights that Laura would have achieved. She was taken from us far too soon.

As Laura's family and friends mourn her loss, I hope and pray that they will be comforted by their warm memories of her. She was a very special person whose uncommon kindness, caring spirit, and commitment to service brightened our world. Laura leaves behind an extraordinary legacy for all of us to carry on.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Norma Love--a venerable Associated Press reporter who is retiring at the end of the month after a long career covering government and politics in the Granite State.

Norma's name is well-known to anyone in New Hampshire who has picked up a newspaper in the past three decades. She started in the AP's Concord bureau 31 years ago, and she has covered the statehouse for 29 of those years--spanning the administrations of seven Governors.

It was at the statehouse where I first had the privilege of meeting Norma. We crossed paths on more times than I can count during my years in the attorney general's office. Whenever Norma called, I always knew that I would be talking to a consummate professional who holds herself to the highest standards of journalism.

Norma understands that journalists have a responsibility to ask tough questions. She has always taken a firm--but fair--approach to her reporting, and that is why she is so deeply respected by public officials on both sides of the aisle.

Norma could have been a reporter anywhere in the country, but she chose New Hampshire. During her decades of diligent reporting, she has been a witness to history--chronicling the people and places of her adopted State. While much has changed in the Granite State, and in newsrooms, since Norma arrived at the AP, her commitment to excellence in journalism has never wavered.

The people of New Hampshire are so fortunate that Norma Love has been asking hard questions on their behalf for the past 31 years. Norma brings tremendous credit to the profession that she loves, and she will leave behind big shoes to fill in the statehouse press room.

I am pleased to join with Norma's colleagues and many friends in wishing her the very best as she makes this transition and looks to new horizons. As we thank her for her many years of dedicated reporting, we send her every good wish for a long, full, and happy retirement.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to talk about what is happening in Ukraine, but before I do that, I cannot help but--having heard some of the discussion before this from my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Ohio--add to that discussion.

First of all, the President didn't even notify the chair of the intelligence committee and the ranking member of that committee. And I think it is clear why he didn't notify the chair of the intelligence committee. Because there was widespread opposition from the intelligence committee to transferring these five particular detainees, and that was made clear to the administration well before this prisoner swap was made.

Moreover, what I find not only shocking--that the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee weren't consulted about this, but what made my jaw drop was when I learned that our commander in Afghanistan had not been consulted in advance about the impact on the ground of this particular prisoner transfer in terms of the five Taliban detainees--which, make no mistake, what our intelligence community has said is that these five detainees, the five Taliban dream team--on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely will it be that they get back in the fight against us and our allies and against our interests? Four of them, we were told, are a 10 out of 10 that they will get back into the fight. That is why these five detainees were designated as high- risk by the board that is supposed to review these issues and decide whether prisoners can be safely transferred out of Guantanamo or whether they should be indefinitely detained.

I just wanted to add that to this discussion because it is important to understand. I do believe we should bring our men and women home who have served our country, but these five detainees represent a real danger to us and our allies going forward, and that is why even the intel committee on a bipartisan basis didn't think this was a good idea.

The notion that the President couldn't trust, for example, the ranking member of the intel committee, whom I have great respect for, and the chairman of that committee, whom we entrust every day to hold classified information, to ask at least what the intel committee thought, I just think that is absurd, that they would have somehow put at risk our soldier in Afghanistan.

So I wanted to add that to the discussion. And it seems to me that if we really wanted to consult on the ground with our commander in Afghanistan, we would want to know from him in advance what he thought about putting the five detainees back in the battle space, regardless of what he thinks now about it because making a good decision means consulting the people who are knowledgeable about this in advance.

What worries me the most about this transfer is the fact that five out of the five are likely to get back in the fight, and we don't have a good record on this. The estimates are that 29 percent of those who have been detained in Guantanamo have either gotten directly back in the fight or we believe have gotten back in the fight against our interests or the interests of our allies. That is the national security concern about this transfer.

Ukraine

I am here today to talk about the situation in Ukraine. As we look around

the world there is so much happening and so much which is of concern to our country, but today I would like to focus on Ukraine and what Russia is doing in Eastern Ukraine to interfere with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, to interfere with their choice of how they want to conduct their country, the choices they have a right to make for their own country.

Of course, this began with the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, but it has not stopped there. It has continued in Eastern Ukraine, where essentially we have seen violence and turmoil in parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Make no mistake, the cause of that violence and turmoil in Eastern Ukraine is by the so-called separatists, and the cause is very clear: Vladimir Putin and Russia hold the key to that violence. They hold the key and are as responsible for that violence as they are responsible for the illegal invasion of Crimea.

In fact, I would say Vladimir Putin has operational control of what is happening. He could ask those separatists to stop what they are doing. He could stop giving them arms. He could stop giving them the things he has been giving them, including the capability of shooting down Ukrainian planes, giving them the capability of tanks and arms.

With everything the Ukrainian people are trying to deal with, what do they want? The Ukrainian people want to determine their own future. They want Vladimir Putin and Russia to butt out. They want Russia to respect their sovereign territory, and unfortunately none of this is happening.

I recently had the honor of leading a delegation to Ukraine to oversee the Presidential election last month. I had the chance to sit down and meet with the now-elected President Boris Plushenko in Ukraine.

I also had the chance to meet many people in Ukraine and see their elections firsthand. One of the events that was very inspiring to me was the first polling place I went to in Kiev. There was an older gentleman, probably in his seventies, who cast the first ballot of the day. As he cast his ballot, he said: ``For democracy.'' That was a very moving moment because that is what we saw throughout the polling places we observed in Ukraine. They had a very high turnout.

The Ukrainian people came out to vote in their elections so they could choose their President, not a President chosen by Vladimir Putin. They came out to vote for a President chosen by the Ukrainian people, and they did it despite what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They did it despite the threats Russia made against their sovereignty and their country.

I think they did it in spite of Russia and to send a message, as a people, to say: We are going to determine our future. Vladimir Putin, you are not going to determine our future. I found it all inspiring.

Why does Ukraine and what happens there matter to the United States of America? First of all, if Russia believes they can go in and invade the sovereign territory of another country without consequences, what does that mean for the rest of Europe and the security of Europe? Unfortunately, we have seen history such as this before, where countries are invaded and other countries act in an apathetic fashion; there are no consequences as a result of that invasion.

The President gave a moving speech in Warsaw, Poland, on June 4 of this year, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Freedom Day there. In that speech the President said:

Ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself

and by itself. We will not accept Russia's occupation of

Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty.

It means increased support to help our friends such as Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia, all of which are watching what is happening in Ukraine and wondering: Will we be next if there are no consequences for the invasion of Ukraine? To help them provide for their own defense, our free nations will stand united so further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.

In fact, as I went to Ukraine to oversee the elections, the President had said--with those impending Presidential elections in Ukraine--along with Chancellor Merkel of Germany, that if the Ukrainian elections were interfered with, there would be more costs to Russia. Well, guess what. When I was there overseeing the elections in places such as Kiev, where we had a record turnout, the Russians continued to foment violence in the eastern province.

In Donetsk and Luhansk, the people there did not have the free right to vote and exercise their decisionmaking for the future of their country. Where were the costs for that? There were none imposed. In fact, the economic sanctions imposed by this administration have not had an impact on Russia.

In fact, their stock market is back to where it was before the sanctions, and at this point they feel they have gotten away with it because the economic sanctions we imposed prior to those elections were imposed on individuals and some minimal sanctions on sectoral, but very limited, and we have done nothing to actually support the Ukrainians in helping them to defend themselves.

What has happened since the President talked about the costs they would endure if they interfered with the election? Nothing happened even though the Russians continue to foment violence in the east.

Flash forward to the Warsaw speech in Poland, where the President said if there is further aggression by the Russians, there will be costs if they interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Guess what happened since then. Since that time, the developments have been absolutely shocking, and I think the Russians are trying to take advantage of what is happening in Iraq and other things happening around the world. They are thinking we will lose sight of their illegal invasion of Ukraine and what they are doing in Eastern Ukraine.

On June 12, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine reportedly acquired T-64 tanks and BM-21 rocket launchers from Russia. These are the types of vehicles--rocket launchers--Russia is supplying to their agents, essentially, in Eastern Ukraine. There have been tanks sighted. This is no grassroots movement. Tanks and rockets have all been provided by Russia to kill Ukrainian people who are trying to defend their sovereignty. This has all happened since the elections, adding on to the violence that was committed in Eastern Ukraine during the elections.

The President said there will be costs. There have been no costs for tanks and missile launchers in Eastern Ukraine. In fact, on June 14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport killing all 49 people on board in the deadliest unrest in months in Eastern Ukraine. This is the type of transport the Russians--the agents they backed--shot down.

In order to shoot down a plane such as this, they have to have the technology to do it, and guess who is giving them that technology. Russia. Yet there have been no costs to that because at this point the President has just talked. He has not imposed tougher sanctions on the economy of Russia nor has he provided the Ukrainian military with support.

This is what it looked like when they shot down those 49 people who were killed. The Russian agents and the separatists they are giving the arms to did this--shot down that plane, and this is the actual picture of that plane.

At this point what is the State Department's response? What has our administration said? We are highly concerned about the new Russian efforts to support the separatists. We are very concerned. If they don't deescalate, there will be additional costs.

How many times will our President and the State Department say there will be additional costs if the Russians do anything further? How many times will the Russians again shoot down Ukrainian planes by giving these arms to their agents and their separatists? How many more Russian tanks have to cross the Ukrainian border before we will impose such costs?

Words don't mean anything to someone such as Vladimir Putin, and he knows we keep talking and not acting, so he can keep shooting down their planes. He can make sure the tanks roll over the border--the Russian tanks. This is not a grassroots movement. They have tanks and rocket launchers to shoot down aircraft. This is a subversion where the Russians are also trying to repeat the playbook of what happened in Crimea to further

take over the rest of Ukraine, and it is time for us to back up our words with actions.

What kind of actions are we talking about? We are talking about legislation we have offered in the Congress. I have worked with Senator Corker and others on legislation that will impose tougher economic sanctions on Russia and will make a difference to them and their economy. We have financial sector sanctions, energy sector sanctions, military sector sanctions--sanctions that will send the message that, yes, this will hurt your economy if you don't respect the sovereignty of another country or if you continue to escalate the violence by providing not only tanks but also rocket launchers and shooting down planes of the Ukrainian people.

When I had the chance to meet with the new President of Ukraine, he had a request of us. First of all, he wants to make sure we are tougher than we have been on Russia in terms of economic sanctions so Russia doesn't continue to invade their territory and, not only that, so they don't go into other countries in the region. We need to use the economic tools at our disposal so we are forced to use military tools down the line. We have economic tools this administration is not using to impose costs on Russia and to back up the words of our President rather than continuing to look the other way when tanks roll in and airplanes are shot down.

What else can we do? The President asked me about supporting their military. No one wants to send a U.S. troop to Ukraine. No one wants to send our people to fight their battle, but this is what he asked of us: The former Russian-backed President gutted our military. Can you help get us some basic things for our military--body armor, communication equipment, night vision goggles, in addition, antitank and anti- aircraft capability.

What would that do for them? They could defend themselves from the tanks. They could help push back against their planes from being shot down. So what they want is the ability and the help to defend themselves.

Why should we give it to them? We should give it to them because not only is it the right thing to do so they can help defend themselves and we can push back against the Russian invasion in their country, but it is the right thing to do because we were a signatory to the Budapest memorandum.

In 1994, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest memorandum that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia signed. Russia has violated this agreement because the agreement required all parties to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and the agreement required us to respect not only their sovereignty, but they expected some security assurance because they were giving up their nuclear weapons by signing this agreement.

We haven't even given them antitank, anti-aircraft equipment so they can defend themselves after they gave up nuclear weapons. What other country in the world is ever going to give up their nuclear weapons when we are not even going to impose tough economic sanctions on a country that has been invaded. We have not even given them basic military equipment when they were invaded.

I would argue, in looking at this playbook, no rational country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again in such an agreement if we don't actually follow through in what our President said, which is: There will be costs if the Russians continue to invade the territory of Ukraine.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

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.

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.

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.