S6510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

year waivers from the annual limit requirements contained in the President’s 2010 health care law. These waivers fostered the impression that certain companies, unions, and institutions would be exempted and given 

preferential treatment. 

The health-care law thus highlighted 

an inconvenient truth about big government: Any dramatic increase in federal regulations and bureaucratic authority will lead to a dramatic increase 

in rent-seeking and crony capitalism. 

Finally, a word about the 2010 DoddFrank law. Democrats argue that 

Dodd-Frank ended ‘‘too big to fail.’’ In 

fact, it codified too big to fail, because 

certain companies will now formally be 

identified as ‘‘systemically important.’’ 

Are we really supposed to believe 

that ‘‘systemically important’’ companies will be allowed to collapse? The 

more likely scenario is that these firms 

will be viewed as too big to fail—both 

by investors and by federal officials— 

the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

were. 

As University of Pennsylvania law 

professor David Skeel has written: 

The companies that are cordoned off as 

systemically important distort the credit 

markets, as a result of the Fannie Mae effect. Because these institutions can raise 

capital more cheaply than financial institutions that do not enjoy implicit government 

protection, they have a competitive advantage over smaller institutions. This may 

dampen innovation in the financial system 

and lead to inefficient allocation of credit to 

nonfinancial businesses. 

In short, regardless of what Democrats may think, Dodd-Frank has actually strengthened the nexus between 

Washington and Wall Street. 

The rise of crony capitalism under 

President Obama has led many people 

to question America’s commitment to 

free markets and the rule of law. Likewise, the President’s failure to revive 

our economy has led to widespread pessimism about America’s future. I firmly believe we can turn things around 

and restore our global reputation, and 

I firmly reject the notion that our decline is inevitable. There is no reason 

we can’t rejuvenate the Great American Jobs Machine and return to prosperity. But it won’t happen until we 

get much better leadership from the 

White House. 

I yield the floor. 

f 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

in recess until 5 p.m. today. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 4:08 p.m., 

recessed until 5:08 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. FRANKEN). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. 

SPORTMEN’S ACT OF 2012 MOTION 

TO PROCEED—Continued 

JOINT REFERRAL

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that, as if in executive session, the nomination of Keith 

Kelly, of Montana, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training, sent to the Senate 

by the President, be referred jointly to 

the HELP and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

STATE OF THE ECONOMY

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 4 years 

ago our economy was in a free fall. AIG 

had been bailed out, and Lehman 

Brothers plunged into bankruptcy. The 

depth of the recession we fell into is 

difficult to understate. 

With the economy contracting at 

nearly 9 percent in the last few months 

of 2008 and nearly 700,000 jobs lost every 

month, it is not an exaggeration to call 

the crisis we faced the worst since the 

Great Depression. Demand dried up as 

our financial system collapsed, families struggled to pay the bills, and millions lost their homes to foreclosure. 

Our unemployment rate peaked at 10 

percent nationally and 11.4 percent in 

Illinois. 

It has been a hard road back to stable 

economic ground, but things have 

turned around. Private sector businesses are hiring again and have been 

for 30 straight months. Between July 

2011 and July 2012, the economy added 

an average of 153,000 jobs every 

month—about 1.8 million jobs. Compare that to the average monthly 

losses of 544,000 between July 2008 and 

July 2009. 

There is a lot of work still to be 

done. We all would like to see more 

jobs created, but it is clear our economy is better off and we are better off 

than we were 4 years ago. 

I saw many examples of our economic 

progress as I have traveled my State. 

The Nucor steel plant in Bourbonnais, 

IL, makes rebar and angle iron that is 

used in construction across the country. What makes Nucor unique is that 

during the recession when many other 

companies were shedding employees, 

Nucor made a commitment to keep all 

of their full-time employees. It wasn’t 

easy. When demand slowed, the company’s idle workers developed new 

products for customers or they were 

actually, in many cases, sent out to 

work in the community on service 

projects as they waited for their company to get back into business. 

During this time the Bourbonnais facility applied for and received the Department of Labor’s Voluntary Protection Program star certification, recognizing their extraordinary efforts to 

improve workplace safety. Nucor made 

a commitment not just to the bottom 

line but to its workers and to the communities where they lived. It has paid 

off. Demand has returned, and the company is now firing on all cylinders, employing roughly 300 workers. 

I have visited a lot of different production facilities. There was nothing 

more jaw-dropping than to stand in 

that steel mill and watch these three 

poles go into a caldron of scrap metal, 

burst and explode into flames, and then 

watch steel come trickling out of the 

bottom into these forms to make rebar 

and angle iron. 

Earlier this summer I also met with 

the CEO of Woodward, an aerospace 

and energy firm, about its possible expansion of a facility in Loves Park, IL. 

Woodward was considering two locations for expanding its airline turbine 

product line. In the end, thank goodness for us, Woodward picked Illinois. 

The company is investing more than 

$200 million in the facility, and it is estimated that it will add 600 new jobs 

over the next 5 years. 

There is more to the story. While 

growing demand led to the expansion 

decision, it was the infrastructure and 

skilled workers that sealed the deal for 

Loves Park. Loves Park and the Rockford area has been the home of aerospace companies for decades. Yet they 

made a concerted effort to grow and expand the training opportunities to 

meet modern workforce needs. Through 

a public-private partnership, the community has created an atmosphere that 

attracts new business investments and 

new jobs. 

Illinois is about the last place—and 

southern Illinois certainly the last 

place—one would expect to find a 

world-leading firm in oilspill cleanups, 

but if one goes to Fairfield and Carmi, 

IL, that is what one will find. The 

Elastec/American Marine Company 

specializes in equipment to clean up 

environmental accidents, specifically 

oilspills. In two former Wal-Mart buildings in those towns, 140 employees have 

developed new technologies that have 

expanded our ability to clean up oilspills around the world. Just last year, 

the company won a $1 million X PRIZE 

for recovering more than 2,500 gallons 

per minute—triple the industry’s previous best recovery rate in controlled 

conditions. This is in southern Illinois. 

Testing oilspill cleanup in southern Illinois is hard to imagine. Elastec’s 

equipment was used for cleanups during both Exxon Valdez and the more recent gulf spill. 

This is American ingenuity at its 

best, but the business is driven by regulations governing the discharge of oil. 

Without these ‘‘job-killing’’ regulations, the company, its jobs, and the 

technology it uses to clean up oilspills 

probably wouldn’t exist. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6511 

I also visited Akorn—not the ACORN 

that has been debated at length on the 

floor of the Senate. Akorn, spelled with 

a ‘‘k,’’ is a pharmaceutical company in 

Decatur, IL, which manufactures products such as drugstore eye drops and 

liquid injectables used in surgery. 

Akorn employs 500 people in Illinois at 

facilities in Decatur, Lake Forest, Skokie, and Gurnee. 

Since 2009 the company has been one 

of Chicago’s and Illinois’ fastest growing public companies. In 2011, Akorn 

launched a multimillion-dollar expansion at its two Decatur facilities. They 

have doubled production and added 100 

jobs. They are looking to hire another 

20 to 25 people with backgrounds in finance, production, chemistry, microbiology, engineering, and business. These 

are highly technical, good-paying jobs 

right in central Illinois. 

One of my last stops in August was at 

the Chrysler plant in Belvidere. What a 

great story. Only 3 years ago there was 

a serious concern that this plant was 

going away. At the time Chrysler was 

facing bankruptcy and the plant was 

building a now defunct model, the 

Dodge Caliber, and different models of 

the Jeep. Plant production had slowed 

to a single shift, and employment had 

dropped to as low as 200 people. 

The Federal Government offered a 

bridge loan and helped to facilitate a 

merger with Fiat. With government assistance, Chrysler has emerged from 

bankruptcy and is profitable. In October 2010, Chrysler announced a nearly 

$700 million investment at the 

Belvidere plant to retool for the production of a new Dodge Dart. The plant 

reached full production in July of this 

year, now employing 4,698 workers. If 

the auto industry had been allowed to 

collapse, between 1.1 million and 3.3 

million jobs would have been lost between 2009 and 2011. 

These are stories of businesses in my 

home State. I asked my staff to find 

businesses that survived the recession 

or are expanding and hiring people. I 

want to hear their stories and listen to 

the stories of all kinds of different 

businesses, large and small, expanding 

today—businesses that weathered the 

recession and are now successful. Business is picking up. These businesses are 

hiring people back, in some cases expanding. 

Their stories aren’t unique. Across 

America, 30 consecutive months of private sector job growth tells us we are 

moving in the right direction. In that 

time 4.6 million private sector jobs 

have been created. In Illinois alone 

140,400 private sector jobs have been 

added since January 2010. Manufacturing employment has rapidly grown, 

adding 44,600 or 37 percent of 140,400 

jobs. 

During the last quarter of 2008, the 

economy was shrinking at a rate of 

nearly 9 percent. It was in free fall. 

During the most recent quarter the 

economy is growing on the positive 

side—1.7 percent. In March of 2009 the 

Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen to 6,547. Since then it has nearly 

doubled to almost 13,000 today. 

New home sales were up 3.6 percent 

in July. That is 25 percent over last 

year. U.S. goods and services exports 

increased .9 percent from May 2012 to 

June 2012 and have increased by 5.9 percent from the same time period last 

year. 

The American people see these facts 

and figures. They also feel the improvement in their communities, with 

new businesses opening, and on their 

blocks, with the housing market recovering as well. We are much better off 

than we were 4 years ago. Now is not 

the time to go back to policies that 

brought us into this recession but to 

move forward, creating even more jobs 

and expanding more businesses. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST—EXECUTIVE

CALENDAR

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the 

United States has led the world in creating the legal framework, building the 

infrastructure, and designing facilities 

that ensure inclusion and opportunity 

for people living with disabilities. 

Just recently we celebrated the 22nd 

anniversary of the ADA—Americans 

with Disabilities Act—by reporting a 

treaty out of the Foreign Relations 

Committee on a strong bipartisan 

basis. Members of this body now have 

an opportunity to affirm our Nation’s 

leadership on disability issues by ratifying this treaty. I hope we will do so 

with strong bipartisan support that has 

always characterized the Senate’s work 

on disability issues. 

Everyone knows the story of when 

Bob Dole, a disabled veteran from 

World War II, and TOM HARKIN, his 

Democratic colleague from Iowa, with 

a disabled member of his family, came 

together to create the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. It was an extraordinary bipartisan effort. It did our Nation proud. It gave to disabled people a 

chance to be in the mainstream and 

part of America. 

One of the people it helped, in addition to 54 million Americans living 

with a disability, was a fellow named 

Bob Greenberg. Bob Greenberg was the 

legendary sportscaster who rose to 

prominence at Chicago’s WBEZ radio 

station. 

At the apex of his career, Bob offered 

color commentary for Chicago’s major 

sporting events. He interviewed the 

very best athletes. He analyzed the 

players. He rifled off stats and box 

scores that put the game in context. 

For his loyal and large Chicago radio 

audience, Bob Greenberg described 

sporting events they couldn’t see. 

Bob’s story is unique because he 

couldn’t see the games either. Bob 

Greenberg was blind, but he never let it 

stop him from achieving his dreams. 

There is no doubt that laws such as the 

ADA helped make Bob’s road to achieving his dream a little bit smoother. We 

lost Bob to cancer last summer, but we 

will never lose the power of his life and 

his life’s story. 

Most of us don’t give a second 

thought to crossing the street, reading 

the newspaper, or describing things we 

have seen. But for Bob and millions 

like him, our Nation’s commitment to 

equal access for those living with disabilities has literally expanded their 

world. 

Now we have an opportunity to once 

again demonstrate our commitment 

and advance disability rights around 

the world by ratifying the Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The support for this treaty is 

broad and bipartisan. 

I wish to thank my friend, Senator 

JOHN MCCAIN of Arizona. He is leading 

this effort with me to pass this Convention on Disabilities. He is a great ally. 

Without him we wouldn’t have reached 

this point. I wish to also thank Senators JOHN BARRASSO, TOM HARKIN, 

TOM UDALL, JERRY MORAN, and CHRIS

COONS for their bipartisan support and 

dedication to ratification. 

This treaty is supported by 165 disabilities organizations, including the 

most prominent, the U.S. International 

Council on Disabilities, and many others. In addition, 21 veterans groups 

came and testified. They were the earliest witnesses, and for obvious reasons. Disabled veterans know the limits on life and how important it is to 

have countries such as the United 

States and countries around the world 

opening doors, literally, for them to 

the future. 

The Wounded Warrior Project supports it, as does the American Legion, 

the Disabled American Veterans, and 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, and they are 

all calling on us to ratify this treaty. 

President George H.W. Bush signed 

the ADA into law. 

Former Senator Bob Dole, as I mentioned, a lifelong advocate for disability rights, strongly supports this 

treaty. The Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities is a human 

rights treaty that seeks to ensure that 

people living with disabilities have the 

same opportunities as others. 

Thanks to the ADA and similar laws, 

the United States has been so successful at providing opportunities, increasing accessibility, and protecting the 

rights of the disabled, our Nation today 

is in full compliance with every term 

of the treaty I am bringing to the floor. 

Before transmitting this treaty, the 

Obama administration conducted an 

exhaustive comparison of the treaty’s 

requirements to current U.S. law. 

Their conclusion was that the United 

States does not need to pass any new 

laws or regulations in order to meet 

the terms of the treaty. 

The fact that we already meet or exceed the treaty’s requirements is a testament to our Nation’s bipartisan commitment to equality and opportunity 

for those living with disabilities. So 

why would we ratify a treaty if it is 

not going to change life in the United 

States or put any new requirements on 

the United States? 

Well, there are more than 5.5 million 

veterans living with disabilities— 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

American veterans. They and thousands of other Americans live with disabilities, but they travel, study, work 

and serve overseas, often with their 

families. Ratifying this treaty will 

help to ensure that they enjoy the 

same accessibility and opportunity 

they do right here at home. 

Ratifying this treaty will give the 

United States a well-deserved seat at 

the international table so that the 

United States can provide its guidance 

and expertise and experience to other 

countries working to adopt laws, upgrade infrastructure, and modernize facilities to meet the high standards we 

already set and met. 

American businesses have invested 

time and resources to comply with the 

ADA, the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. Businesses in some countries are 

not required to comply with similar 

standards. Compliance with the treaty 

levels the playing field by requiring 

foreign businesses to meet accessibility 

standards similar to those already met 

by American businesses. We also lead 

the world in developing accessible 

products and technology. As other 

countries comply with this treaty on 

disability, American businesses will be 

able to export their expertise and products to the new markets serving more 

than 1 billion people living with disabilities around the world. 

Ratifying this treaty is not only important to the 54 million Americans 

living with disabilities, it is important 

to the 10 percent of the world’s population living with disabilities. The 650 

million people living with disabilities 

around the world are looking to the 

United States to join them and show 

leadership, as we have here at home, on 

an international basis. 

Not only do these people around the 

world courageously live with disabilities, they live with many challenges 

and hurdles in other countries that 

might be removed if other countries 

follow our lead. Let me tell you just a 

few things when it comes to disabilities 

around the world. Ninety percent of 

children with disabilities in developing 

countries do not attend school—90 percent. Less than 25 percent—45 of the 

193—of countries in the United Nations 

have passed laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s 

disability. Studies indicate that women 

and girls in developing countries are 

more likely than men to have a disability. Women and girls with disabilities in developing countries are more 

likely to be raped, forcibly sterilized, 

or physically abused. 

This treaty will help provide the 

framework so countries around the 

world can help their own citizens living 

with disabilities improve, live productive, healthy lives. Just as we did by 

enacting the ADA 22 years ago, ratifying this treaty will send the world a 

message that people with disabilities 

deserve a level playing field. 

While this treaty will ensure inclusion and access, it is also important to 

note what it will not do. The treaty 

will not require the United States to 

appropriate any new funds or resources 

to comply with its terms—not a penny. 

The treaty will not change any U.S. 

law or compromise our sovereignty. 

The treaty will not lead to new lawsuits because its terms do not create 

any new rights and it cannot be enforced in any U.S. court. For families 

who choose to educate their children at 

home in the United States, the treaty 

will not change any current rights or 

obligations. I was pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee adopted an 

amendment I worked on with Senator 

DEMINT to clarify that particular 

issue. Let me add too that leading prolife groups, such as the National Right 

to Life Committee, confirm that the 

treaty does not promote, expand access, or create any right to an abortion. Senator MCCAIN, in his testimony 

before the committee, made that eminently clear. He is pro-life. This treaty 

has no impact on that issue. 

Thanks to decades of bipartisan cooperation, our country embodies the 

worldwide gold standard for those living with disabilities. When the Senate 

ratifies the Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities, we can be 

proud that our coworkers, friends, family members, and courageous veterans 

will soon enjoy the same access and opportunity when they travel abroad that 

they have come to expect here at 

home. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 6, Treaty Document 112–7; 

that the treaty be considered as having 

advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including 

the presentation of the resolution of 

ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; 

that any statements be printed in the 

RECORD as if read; further, that when 

the vote on the resolution of ratification is taken, the motion to reconsider 

be considered made and laid upon the 

table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action 

and the Senate then resume legislative 

session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving 

the right to object, I would like to take 

just a few moments to explain why I 

plan to object. 

I have right here a letter that is 

signed by 36 Members of this body who 

express the viewpoint that because of 

the prerogative we have as U.S. Senators to ratify treaties—see, two-thirds 

of us have to provide our advice and 

consent to ratify a treaty before it can 

take effect. This is important, in part 

because article VI, section 2 tells us 

that once ratified, the treaty becomes 

the supreme law of the land. 

We have 36 Senators on this letter— 

a letter addressed to Leader MCCONNELL and Leader REID—explaining that 

for various reasons we do not think any 

treaty should come up for ratification 

during the lameduck period of the 

112th Congress, and we explain that no 

treaty should be brought up during this 

time period and conclude that we will 

oppose efforts to consider any treaty 

during this time period. 

The primary reason cited in the letter is the fact that it is very important 

to make sure we have a full understanding of what these treaties mean. 

It is also important that before we undertake any significant changes to the 

law—law becoming supreme law of the 

land—we need to understand the implications of these treaties fully. 

If it is true, as 36 Members of this 

body concur in this letter, that it is 

too fast to move something like this or 

another treaty through during the 

lameduck session of the 112th Congress, 

it follows a fortiori that it is also too 

fast to do it now. With regard to this 

particular treaty, we have had exactly 

one—and only one—hearing on this, on 

July 26 of this year. 

I appreciate and respect the words of 

my friend, my distinguished colleague, 

the senior Senator from Illinois, and I 

am pleased with the fact that he is 

comfortable with the language of the 

treaty. I and some of my colleagues are 

not yet comfortable with it, and I and 

some of my colleagues are not yet convinced as to the full ramifications of 

the language of this proposed treaty. I, 

therefore, object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would 

like to respond to my colleague, Senator LEE. Repeatedly he said we should 

not consider this in the lameduck session. We are not in a lameduck session. 

This is the regular session of the Senate. We do precious little in this regular session, and now the Senator is 

saying we should not do it in the lameduck session. We are not in a lameduck 

session. 

And I might say that this treaty has 

been out there for review for months. 

It had a full review before the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee. Senator 

KERRY called it. The Senator was there 

and other Members were there and had 

a chance to go through it page by page 

and offer amendments, which many 

Senators did. So to argue that this is 

somehow being sprung on the Members 

of the Senate without time to review it 

is to ignore the obvious. 

We are not in a lameduck session. 

This was produced for review and 

amendment in a full hearing before the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

and a vote was taken. 

It is disappointing. We had hoped to 

do this and do it now because many of 

the supporters of this treaty are facing 

their own physical challenges. One of 

them is our former colleague, Senator 

Bob Dole. Twenty-two years ago, he led 

the fight for the Americans with Disabilities Act. When Senator JOHN

MCCAIN took this up, he said: I am 

going to call Bob Dole first. And he did. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6513 

In his honor, I hope the Senator from 

Utah will reconsider his position. And 

now, before the lameduck session, perhaps we can have some communication, and perhaps there is a way we can 

ratify this treaty in the Senate. We do 

precious little in the Senate. To do 

this, at least to honor Senator Dole, is 

not too much to ask, not to mention 

the positive impact it will have on so 

many disabled people around the world. 

I know Senator LEE is a conservative, 

but I also know he has a heart and I 

know he cares, as I do, about these people—children in other countries who 

have no chance in life because of a disability, women discriminated against 

because of disabilities. These are 

things on which we should speak out. 

We are proud to be Americans, but 

we are doubly proud of the values we 

stand and fight for. This is one we 

should fight for. 

I see Senator HARKIN on the floor. I 

am going to yield. He has been, literally, the leader on our side of the 

aisle on disability issues time and time 

again, and I thank him for his help on 

this matter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I truly 

am sorry to see this happen on the Senate floor, I say to my good friend from 

Utah. 

This has been a long time coming. 

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities started here, 

started in America. It started with the 

passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ninety-one Senators 

voted yea on that—strongly supported 

by conservatives, liberals, moderates, 

understanding that we had to take that 

next step in having a broad civil rights 

law that covered people with disabilities in our society. After that was 

passed and during the 1990s, it became 

clear that it kind of ignited a conscience around the world that we needed to do something globally about people with disabilities. So really the 

United States sort of became the leader 

in promoting this Convention on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities at 

the United Nations. In fact, I have a 

quote I would share with my friend. 

When President Bush signed the bill on 

July 26, 1990—and we were all gathered 

at the White House—here is what he 

said: 

This historic act is the world’s first comprehensive declaration of equality for people 

with disabilities—the first. Its passage has 

made the United States the international 

leader on this human rights issue. 

So starting after that, our diplomats 

and others started working on this 

issue, and so this convention was developed through the United Nations. I do 

not know all the wherewithal of how 

that was done, but it was done and we 

had great input. 

So now the convention has come out. 

It was sent to us a couple of years ago. 

Under our laws, the President, whoever 

it might be, has to send that out to all 

of the departments and agencies to see 

whether there are any conflicts of laws 

or did we have to change any of our 

laws to comport with this convention. 

Well, that bureaucracy takes a while. 

That took a couple of years to wind 

through. I do not know when the President got it back, but he sent it down to 

us this spring, and the finding was that 

the administration made it clear that 

through all of this, the ratification of 

this convention will not require any 

change in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. So it does not require any 

change in our laws. That makes sense 

because we are the leader in the world 

on disability law. We are the leader. 

Senator MCCAIN and I were the two 

leadoff witnesses when the Foreign Relations Committee had their hearing. 

But we were not the only ones. 

Boyden Gray, who was so very helpful 

in 1990 in getting the initial ADA 

passed through the Congress, was 

there. He testified. Senator Dole sent a 

letter. He could not show up in person. 

Former Attorney General Thornburgh 

testified. Steve Bartlett, who was a 

Congressman from Dallas, later left the 

House, became mayor of Dallas, and 

now I think he is the executive director 

of the Business Council here, testified 

and has been instrumental in not only 

helping us pass the ADA but passing 

the ADA Act amendments of 2008 which 

the second President Bush signed into 

law. 

I say this to my friend from Utah. 

This is not something that sort of 

popped up overnight. This has been a 

long time coming. A lot of effort has 

been put into it. As I said, all the departments have said there is no conflict with our laws. We do not have to 

change anything. 

I also say to my friend that we do 

want to be that city on the hill, that 

shining city on the hill. This is one 

area in which the United States has no 

equal. We have taken the lead in the 

world on this issue. Countries come to 

us to see how they can do something, 

what they can do for people with disabilities. One hundred sixteen nations 

have already signed it, and the European Union. If we do not sign it, then 

when other countries have to change 

their laws to comport with this convention, I think we should be at the 

table. We should be there with them, 

sharing with them what we have done 

in America to make accommodations 

better, to make education accessible to 

people with disabilities, employment, 

all of those things. If we do not sign it, 

we are not going to be a part of that. 

Yet the rest of the countries are looking to us for leadership. So we should 

be at the table. 

One other thing I would say to my 

friend from Utah is, we are a very mobile people. We travel around the world 

a lot. More and more people with disabilities are traveling, veterans with 

disabilities, nonveterans. And yet how 

many times have I heard from people 

who have traveled overseas say: Gosh, I 

wanted to go here, I wanted to go 

there, but because I have a disability I 

could not get around? It would be nice 

if other countries did this. 

Well, other countries have now 

signed on to it. I was hoping we could 

vote and we could be a part of it and we 

could be a part of helping other countries to change their systems and to be 

more accommodating for people with 

disabilities. Quite frankly, I must say 

to my friend from Utah, I am perplexed, I really am, as to why this is an 

issue. I do not know why there is an objection. Maybe there is something I do 

not understand. I thought I did. But 

maybe there is something I do not 

know that the Senator can enlighten 

me on as to why we should not bring 

this up. I suppose if someone wants to 

vote against it, they can. It takes a 

two-thirds vote of the Senate to pass 

this. 

I am perplexed as to why we cannot 

do this. It seems to be so bipartisan. It 

seems to me to be so much above the 

political fray. I do not know the politics in this whatsoever. So I had assumed we would bring this up and pass 

it. I was not aware this was going to 

happen this way. I was in my office 

when I was alerted to this. So I say, I 

do not know why we cannot bring this 

up and have a small debate on it and 

vote on it. 

I have more to say, but I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, with great 

respect to my distinguished colleagues 

who are supporting this treaty and supporting a move to move it to the floor 

for a full vote right now, I understand 

and appreciate that they may not 

share some of the concerns expressed in 

this letter, concerns surrounding the 

fact that treaties, once ratified, become the law of the land, the supreme 

law of the land, concerns surrounding 

the fact that many Americans may 

have concerns about this, concerns 

that may be expressed during the upcoming election season. 

To the extent this becomes a matter 

of debate, it may have an impact on 

the election. I think this might have 

been part of what motivated 36 Senators to sign this letter saying that 

neither this treaty nor any other treaty ought to be voted upon during the 

lameduck session. 

With regard to the comment made by 

my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois moments earlier, I, 

of course, understand we are not now in 

a lameduck session. That is my entire 

point. If it is true that the lameduck 

session is too soon to consider treaties, 

it follows a fortiori, it is a much 

stronger point to make the point now 

that it is too soon to consider this now. 

With regard to the Law of the Sea 

Treaty, we have held a number of hearings—I cannot remember exactly how 

many—in the Foreign Relations Committee. I want to say at least three, 

four, maybe five, this year. We have 

had exactly one hearing on this one. I 

understand that some of my colleagues 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

might be satisfied with the assurances 

provided by some lawyers within the 

State Department to the effect that 

this is entirely compatible with U.S. 

law to the effect that it would not impose any additional, new, different obligations on U.S. law. I am not satisfied that that is the case. I therefore 

object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I do not 

know what it would take to satisfy my 

friend from Utah. It goes out to all of 

the departments. They have to analyze 

this. They took over a year, almost 2 

years, to do this, to find out if there 

were any conflicts with laws. So if you 

go through all of that, and all the departments report back and they cannot 

find any conflicts of laws or any laws 

we have that need to be changed, I do 

not know what would satisfy the Senator from Utah. What could that possibly be? He is almost raising an impossible barrier, unless the Senator can inform us as to what it would be that 

would satisfy him. 

I do not know what else you could do 

other than what has been done on this 

bill. Again, I can understand people 

saying they had a hearing on it. I think 

it was well attended. But as I said, this 

is not something that sprung up overnight. This has been in the works for a 

number of years. To think that here we 

are the world’s leader on this issue. I 

did not understand all the Senator 

said. He said something about it could 

have an effect on the election or something like that. I have no idea what he 

is talking about. If there is truly a 

nonpartisan, bipartisan issue, it is this. 

We have always made it thus. 

When we passed the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, it was truly bipartisan. When the Supreme Court made 

their decisions in the Sutton case, the 

Sutton trilogy in the Toyota case in 

the late 1990s, early 2000, that kind of 

threw a monkey wrench into the works 

on employment in terms of disability, 

it caused a lot of consternation in the 

disability community and in the business community. We had to right that. 

We had to kind of tell the Supreme 

Court what we meant. 

Well, that was in 2001. It took us 7 

years of working with Republicans and 

Democrats and the administration, everybody. But in 2008 we passed a bill in 

the Senate unanimously, passed it in 

the House unanimously. President 

George Bush, the second Bush, signed 

it into law. I was down there for it. The 

first President Bush who signed the 

initial Americans with Disabilities Act 

was there. We were there with Republicans and Democrats. It was not seen 

as any kind of an issue. 

If I am not mistaken, 2008 was an 

election year. And yet President Bush 

did not say, we cannot sign this because there is an election. This has 

nothing do with politics. So I find it almost bizarre that the Senate cannot 

act on something so close to us as a 

people, something we have taken such 

a lead on, something which means so 

much in terms of our leadership globally, that we cannot act on this. 

Again, so many people have taken 

the lead. Senator DURBIN and Chairman 

KERRY of Foreign Relations, Senator 

MCCAIN, Senator BARRASSO, Senator 

MORAN, Senator LUGAR, Senator 

UDALL, Senator COONS, many bipartisans have been working on this. 

I admit, obviously I have a deep interest in this since I was the Senate 

author of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has been a key part of my 

Senate career for 25 years now—25 

years. One of the great joys was passing the Americans with Disabilities 

Act with such bipartisan support. 

Thanks to the ADA, our country is a 

better place for everyone, not just for 

people with disabilities but for their 

families, for everyone. I cited earlier 

what President Bush said when he 

signed it. He said: 

This historic act is the world’s first comprehensive declaration of equality for people 

with disabilities—the first. Its passage has 

made the United States the international 

leader on this human rights issue. 

That is President Bush, 1990. The 

first. We were the first. We are the 

international leader on this issue. And 

now, 116 other nations, the European 

Union, can sign onto this but we cannot? This is truly bizarre. 

Thanks to the ADA and other U.S. 

laws passed under the umbrella of the 

ADA, America has shown the rest of 

the world how to honor the basic rights 

of children and adults with disabilities, 

how to integrate them into society, 

how to remove barriers to full participation and activities that we now take 

for granted. We can take pride in the 

fact that our support for disability 

rights has inspired a global movement 

that led the United Nations to adopt 

the CRPD, the Convention on the 

Rights of People with Disabilities. We 

led that. Our legal framework influenced the substance of the convention 

and is informing its implementation in 

the 116 countries that have signed and 

ratified it along with the European 

Union. 

As I said, I am grateful for the leadership on both sides of the aisle; some 

Senators who were here before but not 

now, Senator Dole; some who were here 

who were active in supporting the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, Senator MCCAIN; new Senators, Senator 

BARRASSO, Senator MORAN, and others. 

President George Herbert Walker Bush, 

the first President Bush, has been an 

active supporter of the CRPD. His 

White House counsel Boyden Gray, his 

Attorney General Dick Thornburg, 

have all been enthusiastic supporters 

of the Senate ratifying the CRPD. By 

ratifying this convention, the United 

States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. 

As I said earlier, Americans with disabilities, including disabled veterans, 

should be able to live, travel, study, 

work abroad with the same freedoms 

and access that they enjoy here in the 

United States. 

As the state parties, these different 

countries, come together to grapple 

with the best ways to make progress 

and remove barriers, we, America, 

should be at the table with them, helping them learn from our experience. As 

I said, the administration has submitted what they call reservations, understandings, and declarations that 

make clear that U.S. ratification of the 

CRPD will not require any change in 

U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. 

I do not know what else you can do 

to satisfy someone. I would say, if people feel that we do not want to take 

that leadership, then they can vote 

against it. But at least we ought to 

bring it up for a debate, discussion, and 

vote on the Senate floor. I would say 

that although U.S. ratification will 

have no impact on our laws, it will not 

have a fiscal impact, my hope is that 

U.S. ratification will have a moral impact—a moral impact. 

My hope is we would send a signal to 

the rest of the world that it is not okay 

to leave a baby with Downs syndrome 

by the side of the road to die. It is not 

okay to warehouse adults with intellectual disabilities in institutions, 

chained to the bars of a cell where 

their only crime is that they have a 

disability. It is not okay to refuse to 

educate children because they are blind 

or deaf or they use a wheelchair. It is 

not okay to prevent disabled people 

from voting or getting married or owning property or having children. It is 

not okay to rebuild the infrastructures 

in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, 

Haiti, and other war-torn or disasterstricken areas without improving the 

accessibility of the infrastructure at 

the same time. 

Former President Reagan frequently 

talked about America as a city on a 

hill, a shining example for the world of 

a nation that ensures opportunity and 

freedom for all its people. Thanks to 

our country’s success in implementing 

the ADA, advancing that law’s great 

goals of full inclusion and full participation for all our citizens, America indeed has become a shining city on a 

hill for people with disabilities around 

the globe. By ratifying the CRPD, we 

can affirm our leadership in this field. 

We can give renewed impetus to those 

striving to emulate us. We can give 

them that renewed emphasis by our example and by sitting down with them, 

if we are signatory to this treaty. 

Again, I guess I have to recognize 

there are some Senators who were not 

part of the bipartisan vote to support 

it in the Foreign Relations Committee. 

I guess there are some who are not 

ready to support the unanimous consent request before us. My hope, since 

we are obviously coming to a close, is 

that we will use the time between now 

and when we come back in our lameduck session after the election to address any issues that have been raised 

about the CRPD. If Senators have 

issues and want them raised, let us get 

them out and then let us move forward, 

when we come back after the election, 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6515 

with a strong bipartisan vote for us to 

ratify the CRPD. 

When we voted on the ADA—the 

Americans with Disabilities Act—in 

1990, we had 91 Senators. OK, there 

were nine who didn’t vote for it. I understand that. But 91 Senators voted in 

support of that historic law. 

My hope is, when this comes up for a 

vote after the election, we can achieve 

the same kind of strong bipartisan 

statement of support for the human 

rights of 1 billion people with disabilities around the world. We must reaffirm our leadership on this issue and 

let the rest of the world know we are 

not stepping back on this. We are going 

to maintain our support for the dignity 

and the rights of people with disabilities not only in America but anywhere 

in the world. 

I am very sorry we couldn’t have 

brought this up. I haven’t done any 

head counts for any votes, but I think 

I know most of the Senators are people 

of good will, and I believe when they 

look at this and think about it, it is 

going to get an overwhelming vote of 

support. So I am sorry we couldn’t 

bring it up, but I look forward to passing this when we come back after the 

election. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to 

thank Senator DURBIN for his determined support of the Convention on 

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

and for his request for the Senate to 

approve the treaty today. I appreciate 

the thought that he has put into the 

consideration of this treaty and the 

work he has done in advancing the 

rights of persons with disabilities. 

It has been 22 years since the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act 

knocked down barriers to employment 

and government services here at home. 

Now it is time to do the same for 

Americans with disabilities when they 

travel overseas. 

This is not an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats. The Foreign 

Relations Committee approved this 

treaty in a strong bipartisan vote on 

July 26, the 22nd anniversary of the 

ADA. I am deeply grateful to former 

Majority Leader Dole and President 

George Herbert Walker Bush, who have 

joined a bipartisan group of Senators, 

including Senators LUGAR, BARRASSO, 

MORAN, COONS, DURBIN, HARKIN, and 

UDALL in advocating for such an important cause. Senator Kennedy would be 

proud if he could see us coming together today in support of the Convention as we did 2 decades ago in support 

of the ADA. 

Members from both sides of the aisle 

worked hard to achieve this moment. 

The questions have been answered. The 

only question that remains is whether 

we will be remembered for approving 

the Disabilities Convention and extending essential protections for the millions of Americans with disabilities, or 

for finding excuses to delay and defer 

our core responsibility as Senators. 

I have heard from countless advocates on this issue—from the Perkins 

School for the Blind in my home State 

to disabled Americans and veterans 

groups across the country, all of whom 

tell me that this Convention will make 

a difference in their daily lives. 

And, believe me, it will. This Convention will extend essential protections 

to disabled persons everywhere, including our disabled servicemen and women 

and veterans when they travel, live, 

study or work overseas. It will enshrine the principles of the ADA on the 

international level and provide us with 

a critical tool as we advocate for the 

adoption of its standards globally. 

We already live up to the principles 

of this treaty here in America. Our 

strong laws—including the ADA—are 

more than sufficient to allow us to 

comply with this treaty from day one. 

Nothing is going to change here at 

home. But our delay in joining this 

treaty has an impact abroad. 

For decades the world has looked to 

America as a leader on disabilities 

rights. It is hard to believe but some 

are now questioning our resolve—because of the failure to ratify this treaty. That is not acceptable and that is 

not what America is about. 

It isn’t a question of time. It is a 

question of priorities—a question of 

willpower, not capacity. This treaty reflects our highest ideals as a nation, 

and now is the time to act. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The Senator from Alabama. 

THE BUDGET

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, 

Senator REID was, I think, stung this 

morning when remarks were made 

about the failure of the Senate to pass 

a budget or to move a single appropriations bill. For the first time in over 100 

years, I understand, not a single appropriations bill was brought to the floor. 

This was a decision made by the Democratic leadership, to not bring up even 

a single bill, so that we end up with a 

big omnibus CR. The leadership also 

didn’t bring up the Defense authorization bill for the first time in 51 years. 

Senator MCCAIN explained that yesterday and the day before and he expressed his frustration about it. I was 

disappointed this morning to hear comments from our budget chairman, KENT

CONRAD, about this frustration and, I 

believe, truth-telling from Republicans. Senator REID said: ‘‘It’s a big lie 

for the Republicans to come here and 

say we haven’t passed a budget.’’ 

Let’s look at the facts. The law requires the Senate majority to produce 

a budget, a financial plan, every single 

year. It is in the code of the United 

States—a plan that covers taxes, entitlement spending, and debt. It is fundamental to the future of our country, 

and that is why it is required by law, 

because people saw the need for it. 

That plan must be produced and voted 

on in committee and brought to the 

Senate floor. 

The Republican House put together 

such a plan. They moved it and passed 

it, but Senate Democrats have no plan. 

They have proposed nothing, offered 

nothing, put nothing on paper. 

Senator REID, our Nation is facing a 

debt crisis. Surely you agree. What is 

your plan? Where is your budget? What 

is your proposal to rescue the finances 

of this Nation? I haven’t seen it, but I 

am just the ranking Republican on the 

Budget Committee. The American people haven’t seen it. It doesn’t exist. 

The House has a plan. Where is your 

proposal? Have you forgotten that you 

canceled our Budget Committee markup on this spring and refused to bring 

up a budget to the floor last year? 

What do you plan to do on taxes, on entitlements, on welfare, on spending, on 

debt? How does your majority plan to 

balance the budget of this Nation? Do 

you have a plan? Surely you know the 

spending caps in the Budget Control 

Act are not a financial plan for America. 

As the magazine Politico put it: 

‘‘Democratic leaders have defiantly refused to lay out their own vision for 

how to deal with Federal debt and 

spending.’’ 

Let me say that again. Is there any 

problem greater for America today 

than debt and spending? This is what 

Politico reported not too long ago. 

‘‘Democratic leaders have defiantly refused to lay out their own version of 

how to deal with Federal debt and 

spending.’’ 

That is exactly right. It is indisputable. We have had the worst performance of a Senate on financial matters in the history of the country, in 

my opinion. I can’t imagine any Congress being less fulfilling of its duty. 

Speaking on FOX News earlier this 

year, Chairman CONRAD said: 

What we need, I believe, is at least a 10- 

year plan. That’s why I am going to mark up 

a budget resolution the first week we are 

back in session. 

That was in April. That markup 

never happened. 

This is what The Washington Free 

Beacon reported: 

Conrad stunned observers Tuesday when he 

announced that he would not follow through 

on his expressed intention to offer, mark up 

and pass a Democratic budget resolution. 

Many suspect that Conrad’s plan was derailed at the last minute by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Senate 

Democrats who did not wish to cast politically difficult votes. 

I haven’t heard that disputed. There 

is no dispute that Senator REID decided, along with the Democratic conference, frankly, we are not going to 

bring up a budget. We would have to 

vote. We would have to lay out our 

plan and then people can look at it and 

say what is wrong with it. We would 

rather just spend our time attacking 

their plan. We don’t want to show our 

cards, provide any leadership. 

That is what happened. Here is what 

the New York Times reported regarding Senator CONRAD’s canceling of the 

markup: 

Mr. Conrad’s announcement surprised Republicans and Democrats who were expecting 

him to produce a Democratic budget that, if 

passed by the committee, would have been 

the first detailed deficit reduction plan in 

three years. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

That is the way the New York Times 

reported it, and I say they are accurate. That is the way I saw it. 

Senator JOE LIEBERMAN caucuses 

with the Democrats and he said he was 

‘‘disappointed by the party’s refusal to 

confront the issue,’’ and said further, 

‘‘I don’t think the Democrats will offer 

their own budget, and I’m disappointed 

in that.’’ 

Senator MARK PRYOR admitted: 

‘‘We’ve had three years with President 

Obama where we’re not able to get a 

budget resolution passed.’’ 

But it gets worse. Not only have 

Democratic colleagues failed to do 

their duty, they have savagely attacked the House for producing a budget and laying out a plan. Here is what 

Senator CONRAD said today. Senator 

CONRAD is a good friend, but give me a 

break, Senator CONRAD. He said the 

House plan ‘‘fails any moral test of 

government.’’ He said the House plan 

failed the ‘‘moral test,’’ and he repeated that several times. 

These comments are outrageous. 

They are inaccurate, but they are also 

hypocritical. I ask: What is the morality of the majority party in this Senate 

that has violated the law purposely and 

deliberately in order to avoid presenting a plan to save this Nation from 

financial disaster? They have deliberately refused to go forward. What 

about the families who will be impacted by a debt crisis? What about our 

military? What about our future as a 

nation? Where is our duty during this 

defining hour of our Republic—America’s hour of need? Is there no response 

and no leadership? 

Every Senate Democrat in every 

State, I think, will have to explain why 

they have not stood up to Senator REID

and his proposal. Presumably, they are 

all in it together. None have actually 

come to the floor and opposed him and 

said they would vote to bring up a 

budget. 

I know the Senator was stung a bit 

this morning, but it is not a lie to say 

we didn’t have a budget this year, and 

I know it was painful to listen to the 

litany of failures of this Congress. 

First, no budget in over 3 years—1,240 

days; no appropriations bills this 

year—not one. We failed to bring up 

the Defense authorization bill for the 

first time in 50 years. We have failed to 

confront the sequester and debate how 

to fix it. We know we are going to have 

to do that. Yet we are going to let it 

wait until the end of the year, causing 

great turmoil at the Department of Defense. We have not dealt with the fiscal 

cliff. 

All of those are fundamental things 

this Senate should have done and we 

haven’t done any of them. We don’t 

even bring up the bills. We should have 

had a great historic debate for the last 

2 years over the future financial status 

of America because it is clearly the 

greatest threat facing our Nation. Yet 

we haven’t had it. We have had little 

groups meet in secret—gangs and 

groups and secret committees and special committees. 

But this is what I would say about 

this budget. If I were prosecuting a 

case—as I used to when I was a Federal 

prosecutor—I would say the defendant 

has confessed. This is what Senator 

REID said back in May of 2011: ‘‘There 

is no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion.’’ 

It is not a question of his opinion. It 

is the law of the United States. Nobody 

asked his opinion. He has a duty to follow the law, I would think. 

How about this. He goes on to state: 

‘‘It would be foolish for us to do a 

budget.’’ 

Senator REID, I think, has moved 

into this modern world—postmodern 

world—where words mean about anything we want them to mean. We can 

just say it is a lie that we don’t have a 

budget; that we produced a budget and 

refer to the Budget Control Act, which 

was simply a part of the compromise to 

raise the debt ceiling and set some 

spending limits on spending in the discretionary accounts only—not all the 

accounts of the United States. That is 

not a budget, and the Parliamentarian 

has already ruled that is not a budget. 

There is no question we don’t have a 

budget, and we haven’t had leadership. 

It has been very disappointing. And I 

was disappointed to have my good 

friend Senator CONRAD attack the 

House for having the gumption to lay 

out a plan that would change the debt 

course of America and put us on a path 

to prosperity. I am sorry Senator REID

has overreacted and declared that it is 

not true what we, the Republicans, 

have asserted, that we don’t have a 

budget, because we don’t have a budget. It is true. 

I thank the Chair, and I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. 

COAL ASH RECYCLING AND OVERSIGHT ACT OF

2012

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I 

rise to speak on energy legislation 

which is important to this country and 

legislation I truly believe we can and, 

in fact, need to pass this year. 

The U.S. House of Representatives is 

working on key energy legislation. I 

think it is very likely they will pass it 

this evening. That legislation includes 

a bill that is very similar to energy 

legislation I have put forward in the 

Senate. The legislation I am talking 

about is the Coal Ash Recycling and 

Oversight Act of 2012. 

Simply put, this legislation sets commonsense standards for managing and 

recycling coal ash with a States-led, 

States-first approach. 

We have strong bipartisan support 

for the bill. As I said, we need to take 

up the bill this year and pass it. Simply put, we have the support on a bipartisan basis to support it. We have 

more than a dozen Democratic sponsors and more than a dozen Republican 

sponsors. 

So why is it important? In simple 

terms, this is exactly the kind of energy legislation that can help take our 

Nation to energy security or energy 

independence. What I mean by that is 

with the right energy plan, we can 

move this country to the point where 

we produce more energy than we consume. Working with our closest friend 

and ally, Canada, we can produce more 

energy than we consume—meaning we 

truly are energy independent or energy 

secure so that we are not importing energy from the Middle East. 

And it is not just about energy, it is 

about jobs—good-paying jobs at a time 

when we have more than 8 percent unemployment. It is about economic 

growth—economic growth that we need 

to get on top of the debt and the deficit. We need to find savings, but we 

also have to get this economy growing 

to get on top of this deficit and our $16 

trillion Federal debt. 

It also is about national security. 

Look at what is going on across the 

Middle East. Yet we still import energy 

from the Middle East. Americans do 

not want to be dependent on importing 

energy from the Middle East. The reality is, with the right energy plan, we 

can produce that energy at home and 

be energy secure, create good jobs, and 

get our economy growing at the same 

time. This is just one step, but it is one 

more important step on that journey. 

Let me give an example of what we 

are doing in my home State of North 

Dakota and doing in States across the 

country. In North Dakota, just north of 

the capital Bismarck, there is a large 

electric power complex, the Coal Creek 

Power Station, that is operated by 

Great River Energy, a company that 

operates from North Dakota to Minnesota. It is a large complex. It generates 1,100 megawatts of electricity, 

two 550-megawatt powerplants. It employs the latest, greatest technology. 

It has emissions controls that are state 

of the art. 

This plant captures waste steam, 

steam that was formerly exhausted 

into the air, and uses it to power an 

ethanol plant. So they are making renewable transportation fuel with waste 

steam, very low cost, very efficient. It 

reuses the coal ash or the coal residuals that are produced. It recycles those 

for building materials. 

Along with a company called Headwaters, a natural resource company 

out of Utah, Great River Energy takes 

this coal ash and makes FlexCrete out 

of it, which is concrete they use on 

highways, roads, bridges, anywhere you 

would use concrete. But they also 

make other building products as well, 

such as shingles, that one would use to 

put on the roof. So this is truly a concept where we are recycling the coal 

ash and the coal residuals. 

Formerly, coal ash was put in landfills, and the company would pay about 

$4 million a year to landfill hundreds of 

thousands of tons of coal ash. Now they 

sell it, and it is made into these building materials. They generate something like $12 million a year selling 

this coal ash for building material. If 

we do the math, that is about a $16 million swing from across the $4 million a 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6517 

year to a revenue stream of $12 million 

a year. 

What does that mean? That means 

families, small businesses, consumers 

throughout North Dakota, Minnesota, 

and beyond now pay $16 million less for 

their electricity than they did before 

because of this creative use. This truly 

is American ingenuity and American 

innovation at work. 

In fact, I have a couple examples of 

buildings that are made from building 

material produced with coal ash. The 

first one is the National Energy Center 

of Excellence at Bismarck State College, where we train people in the energy field. So people are learning how 

to have a great career in all different 

types of energy at a facility that is 

made with the coal ash that I am talking about. It overlooks the Missouri 

River. It is an absolutely beautiful facility. 

Let me give another example. This is 

a building under construction right 

now. This is the North Dakota Heritage 

Center on the capitol grounds of our 

State capital in Bismarck. It is our 

heritage center, so it is a museum of 

our State history. Right now, we are 

doing a $50 million expansion to this 

facility that is being constructed with 

coal ash. It is a beautiful building 

being constructed right now. 

By using coal ash nationwide, we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion Btus a year. That is an energy 

amount that is equal to 1.7 million 

homes. So we save an amount of energy 

equal to powering 1.7 million homes. 

Water use. We save by recycling coal 

ash; we save 32 billion gallons of water 

annually. That is equal to one-third of 

the amount of water used in the State 

of California. 

So talk about saving energy and saving water use. This is truly a concept 

on which those who favor renewable 

energy, as well as those who favor traditional sources of energy, ought to be 

able to get together. This is recycling, 

saving huge amounts of energy, saving 

huge amounts of water. 

So why do I tell this story? The reason I tell this story is this: Right now, 

coal ash is regulated under subtitle D 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. That is nonhazardous 

waste, but EPA is looking at changing 

that to regulating it under subtitle C, 

which is the hazardous waste section. 

They are looking at doing that in spite 

of the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, State 

Regulatory Authorities, and even EPA 

itself acknowledging that it is not a 

toxic waste. 

The EPA proposed that change in 

regulation in June 2010. Clearly, that 

would undermine the industry, drive up 

costs, and eliminate jobs when our 

economy can least afford them. Just to 

put that in perspective, the industry 

estimates that it would cost $50 billion 

annually and eliminate 300,000 American jobs. Let me go through that. 

Meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA’s subtitle C 

proposal would cost between $250 and 

$450 a ton as opposed to about $100 a 

ton under the current system. That 

translates into a $47-billion-a-year burden on electricity generators who use 

coal. And, most importantly, of course, 

who pays that bill? Their customers, 

families, and small businesses across 

the country. Overall, that could mean 

the loss of 300,000 American jobs. 

That is why I brought this legislation 

forward with Senator CONRAD, my colleague in North Dakota, and also Senator BAUCUS of Montana and others. We 

have more than 12 Republican sponsors 

on the bill and 12 Democratic sponsors 

on the bill. So it is very much a bipartisan bill. 

Furthermore, this bill not only preserves coal ash recycling, as I have described, by preventing these byproducts from being treated as hazardous— 

and this is important: This bill establishes comprehensive Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this 

legislation, States can set up their own 

permitting programs for the management and the disposal of coal ash. 

These programs would be required to 

be based on existing EPA regulations 

to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement 

an acceptable permit program, then 

EPA regulates the program for that 

State. As a result, States and industry 

will know where they stand under this 

bill, and the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program 

will be set in statute. 

EPA can say, yes, the State does 

meet the standards or, no, the State 

does not meet the standards. But the 

EPA cannot move the goalpost. This is 

a States-first approach that provides 

regulatory certainty. 

What is certain is that under this 

bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. 

Again, this is important. We are requiring that they meet established 

standards. These standards include 

groundwater detection and monitoring, 

liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, and the financial assurance and recordkeeping needed to protect the public. So we set stringent 

standards. 

This legislation is needed to protect 

jobs and to help reduce the cost of 

homes, roads, and electric bills. I 

thank the Republicans and the Democrats who have stepped forward on this 

bill, particularly Senator CONRAD, my 

colleague in North Dakota, Senator 

BAUCUS, and others. We have the bipartisan support to move this bill forward. 

We need to be able to bring it to the 

floor and do it this year. It is about energy for this country that we need, and 

it is about jobs for American workers. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. 

FOREIGN AID

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise 

today to address the legislation that 

has been offered as an amendment that 

would cut off all foreign aid to Egypt, 

Pakistan, and Libya. 

As I watched our flag being shredded 

by a gloating mob at the walls of the 

American Embassy in Cairo, I shared 

with fellow Hoosiers and Americans a 

sense of sadness and deep anger. That 

mob, and the one that led to the death 

of four American diplomats in Libya, 

including our Ambassador, or those 

who stormed our Embassy throughout 

the Muslim world, showed us again how 

much contempt and disrespect those 

people have for the United States and 

for Americans. 

Many in those countries clearly still 

hate us. As displayed on our televisions 

this past week, the Arab spring is 

evolving into a very bleak winter. 

Events this past year, and especially 

this past week in the Middle East and 

North Africa, continue to present us 

with enormous challenges. We have 

mishandled them badly. No one should 

be deluded enough to see it in any 

other way. 

The best judge of a policy is the results. By that measure our report card 

is found among the ashes of the consulate in Benghazi. 

The questions the administration and 

this body must answer soon is how best 

to react to this failure and what steps 

offer the greatest chances of making 

things right—or, at the very least, 

making things somewhat better. The 

search for answers must involve a complete reevaluation of the full range of 

American policy tools, including military actions, diplomatic dialogue, economic measures, multilateral efforts, 

and, simply, better leadership—not 

leadership that leads from behind. 

Now, it is understandable to ask: 

Why on Earth should we send one more 

dime to these people who hate us so 

much? We will soon be voting on an 

amendment that codifies the instinct 

to cut off all assistance programs to, 

yes, problematic countries including 

Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan. Based on 

recent events, I agree we need to reassess the foreign aid we do send to these 

countries. However, I also believe we 

need to avoid a shortsighted reaction 

and consider a broader review of the 

purposes and the costs of foreign aid. I 

wish to address those two issues. 

First of all, the costs. Foreign aid, as 

many do not know, is just a fraction of 

our Federal budget so we need to understand how much foreign aid costs 

taxpayers. Our foreign aid programs 

are less than 1 percent of the Federal 

budget and, put even more vividly, according to the OECD, just 0.12 percent 

of our gross national income is devoted 

to foreign aid. 

Not only is that figure about a tenth 

of the number of Sweden or Norway, 

but it is only a third of the figure for 

France and half as much as the United 

Kingdom. We even devote a smaller 

share of our national wealth for foreign 

assistance than, of all countries, 

Greece. 

I have been on this floor several 

times calling for Washington to get 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

control of excessive spending and I 

take a back seat to no one in that effort. I have repeatedly said that in 

order to address our $16 trillion national debt everything must be on the 

table, including foreign aid. But we 

must assess and reassess all foreign aid 

to determine if it is still effective and 

even necessary. We should cut where it 

makes sense to cut. But when there is 

a discussion about eliminating all aid 

to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt, let’s be 

honest with the American people about 

the true cost of all that. Together, this 

aid only constitutes a fraction of a single percent of our Federal budget, and 

cutting it would be nothing but a gesture toward the real austerity required 

to deal with our $16 trillion deficit. 

But that is not the primary reason 

and that is not the real question before 

us. The real question before us is, aside 

from the cost argument, which is minuscule, the national security reasons 

for why we should pause and consider 

our next step very carefully ought to 

drive us to think this through. 

We must keep a clear eye and recognize that sending American taxpayer 

dollars overseas is, first and foremost, 

a matter of strategic purposes and national security. 

I want to repeat that. We must remember that the money we send overseas is, first and foremost, a matter of 

strategic purpose and national security. Without that component, then we 

do have to reassess the value and what 

we receive in return for foreign aid. 

We can be sure that foreign assistance plays a role in the struggle for the 

hearts and minds of the world’s poor. 

Today it is also central to the contest 

for political power. 

Other rivalries are apparent as well. 

China plays in the contest for political 

influence and access to natural resources by engaging in foreign assistance as defined by their own standards. 

Chinese assistance activities in Africa, 

Latin America, and Southeast Asia 

grew from $1.5 billion in 2003 to $27.5 

billion in 2006, a nearly twentyfold increase in 3 years, and it continues to 

grow and their influence continues to 

grow in those countries around the 

world as China expands its reach and 

exerts its influence. 

None of this means that we in the 

Senate should support wasteful foreign 

aid programs with little regard to solid 

purpose, good design, proper accountability, and visible standards of positive result. 

I want to see our foreign aid program 

reassessed. I believe we need to reevaluate the way we make our foreign 

aid determinations. But rather than 

cutting off all foreign aid in an instinctual way after these horrific scenes we 

have seen on television, it is important 

to step back and assess how we go 

about reassessing our distribution of 

foreign aid, what our strategic purposes are, and the other criteria that 

ought to be applied before we make a 

knee-jerk or too quick decision. 

To achieve our support I think these 

programs need to achieve three guidelines. First, which programs most 

clearly achieve our national security 

interests? If they do, it is money well 

spent. Second, which best reflect American values and encourage foreign 

countries to support and adopt those 

values? We need to support our friends 

first. And, third, which programs are 

most effective at the least cost? We 

need clear, unambiguous standards of 

what effective means. 

The consequence of no aid, though, is 

far greater now to the immediate question before us, which is the question of 

how we serve national security interests while at the same time ignoring 

the fact that the recipient may not be 

our best friend and may not support 

our broader purpose. In those cases— 

and Libya, Pakistan, and Egypt recently are among them—our broader 

strategic interest linked to our national security must have priority. 

Let’s look at Pakistan. In the case of 

Pakistan, I and some of my colleagues 

are profoundly skeptical. In the State 

and Foreign Operations appropriations 

bill markup this year, I joined with my 

colleague Senator GRAHAM to cut a 

portion of our assistance to Pakistan 

because of the outrageous conviction 

and imprisonment of Dr. Shakil Afridi, 

the doctor who helped us locate Osama 

bin Laden. The cut was a gesture of our 

dissatisfaction with the regime’s behavior and a signal more cuts could 

come should that behavior not improve. 

Yesterday I met with the Pakistan 

Foreign Minister and Ambassador to 

America from Pakistan. Earlier, Senator GRAHAM and I had a lengthy discussion with the Ambassador. We conveyed our dissatisfaction with this decision and a number of other things 

that we have differences about with 

that country. At the time, Senator 

GRAHAM said at the hearing that it 

may become necessary to cut aid off altogether but that time has not yet 

come. In my view, that time is not yet 

here, because what is at stake in Pakistan is so vast as to defy a brief description. 

A radicalized and hostile Muslim 

country with a potent, fully developed 

nuclear arsenal is the most dreadful 

global nightmare. We must continue to 

employ every single tool available to 

us to make sure that does not come to 

pass, despite how skeptical and pessimistic we might be about the future of 

that country. 

I am not arguing that our assistance 

packages to Pakistan have been well 

used, or even resulted in the support 

we seek or that the regime there has 

even shown much gratitude or respect 

in return. I am simply noting in this 

case the stakes are huge; the assistance programs do give us some leverage; and anger and despair are not a 

proper basis for us to make policy judgments, particularly when it comes to 

the security of the American people 

and our national interests. 

Let’s look at Egypt. Similarly, we 

cannot abandon Egypt despite how we 

have come to judge the results of their 

elections. Those elections have shown 

us that once again a democratic vote 

does not ensure democracy or stability. 

Elections are a necessary condition for 

modern enlightened government, but 

much more is required. We must be 

there to help the political and security 

environment evolve in the right direction. Cutting off aid to the Egyptian 

military, arguably an essential element in Egypt’s future political evolution, is bound to make it far harder 

to achieve our strategic objectives in 

the entire region. I believe even the 

Israeli Government would oppose an 

end to U.S. assistance because such a 

step could further radicalize the new 

government, the military, and even the 

population itself. Aid is one of the few 

tools we have that requires Egypt to 

maintain observance of the EgyptIsrael peace treaty. 

Let’s look at Libya. The issue of aid 

to Libya is even clearer. It is no coincidence that the attack on our diplomat 

occurred on September 11. This attack 

was almost certainly generated by radical elements connected to al-Qaida or 

similar terrorist organizations active 

in this country. We have seen ample 

confirmation that neither the Libyan 

Government nor the vast majority of 

the Libyan people supported that violence in any way. What we have seen is 

Libya is in a fragile state of transition 

that simply must be supported and encouraged by us and our allies. We have 

seen a Libya that wants to support us, 

wants to go forward with democracy, 

but has yet to gain control of certain 

parts of its country and certain elements, infiltrated by terrorists and alQaida, certain elements that need to be 

addressed in terms of Libya’s future 

and in terms of our own national interests. 

If we cut off aid to Libya, we risk losing the gains of that revolution to the 

radical elements that are active there 

and everywhere else in the region. It is 

impossible to see how ending our assistance programs would be a responsible move for our country and for our 

allies. 

Most of us in this body have just 

come from a lengthy discussion with 

our Director of National Intelligence, 

with Secretary Clinton, our Secretary 

of State, with top representatives from 

our military, from the FBI, and from 

the administration, discussing this 

very question, gathering all the information we possibly can, making sure 

we have the facts before we make a 

quick judgment about the role of Libya 

and the role of terrorists, and what we 

have seen to date is the response by the 

Libyan Government, even the firing of 

one of their top officials who made an 

inappropriate remark relative to this 

attack. 

In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to pause and look at the larger 

picture when it comes to foreign aid. 

Cutting off aid and disengaging from 

these countries is exactly what the perpetrators of these attacks and protesters are trying to achieve. I do not 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6519 

know if supporting the government in 

this volatile region and this revolutionary movement will bring the results we so urgently need, but if we are 

to review the tools available to us, and 

I am convinced we must, we should not 

begin by throwing out the tools we 

have. We need to sharpen those tools, 

better define their use, but not discard 

them prematurely. 

I yield the floor. 

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE PRACTICES

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise to protest an action by the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that punished my State of Connecticut and four 

other States for effectively protecting 

our citizens against unfair and abusive 

mortgage foreclosure practices. 

I want to say right at the outset I am 

determined to fight this action along 

with my colleagues during the comment period that we have, to contest 

this very unwise, misguided, unacceptable decision. These agencies have just 

posted for 60-day comment a decision 

to increase Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac’s guarantee fee for Connecticut 

and four other States—New Jersey, 

New York, Illinois, and Florida. 

Why? Because of the protections we 

have in place now against those abusive banking tactics that have so pervaded the mortgage foreclosure process 

and increased the length of time that it 

sometimes takes for foreclosure. And 

we have a mediation process that keeps 

people in their homes and enables settlements that actually save money. 

That is Connecticut’s crime. That is 

the reason Connecticut and four other 

States and our homeowners will pay 

more in those guarantee fees. 

Those fees, by the way, are imposed 

by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in exchange for assuming the risk that a 

loan will default. These entities guarantee investors in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, making it less 

expensive and easier for home purchasers to obtain financing. 

The cost of the guaranteed fund is 

generally passed along to the borrower 

so homeowners will pay these increased 

fees. They will bear this burden, and it 

will be a burden not only on those 

homeowners, but eventually on the 

housing market, which is in all too 

slow and fragile a recovery. Also, our 

economy depends so vitally on the 

housing market. 

I am proud of Connecticut. I am 

proud of every State like Connecticut 

that protects its homeowners from 

robo-signing or fraudulent affidavits. 

We believe in justice and due process. 

We believe in giving homeowners an 

opportunity to mediate with the banks 

because so often the banks fail to come 

to the table. In effect, they give homeowners the runaround. They often fail 

to even give them a person with whom 

to negotiate in good faith, and mediation forces them to come to the table. 

In 80 percent of the cases where there 

is mediation, homeowners stay in their 

homes. That saves money for other 

homeowners in the neighborhood because their property values are maintained. It saves money for the homeowner who doesn’t have to find a place 

to live and maybe even buy another 

house, and it saves money for Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, every 

time they avoid foreclosure, they save 

on average at least $11,000. That is the 

kind of savings they ought to relish, 

not reject. The foreclosure process 

around the country has rightly raised 

fears of abuses that Connecticut has 

sought to prevent. This kind of protection ought to be rewarded, not rejected. 

The additional time it has taken for 

foreclosure because of these protections is a cost well worth the larger 

savings that are eventually realized. 

That is the reason I have determined 

that I will fight this new proposed 

guarantee fee, which increases significantly and substantially by 30 basis 

points for every homeowner who takes 

advantage of a Freddie Mac or Fannie 

Mae loan. From the moment families 

take out a loan, they are faced with 

fees and charges that we ought to seek 

to minimize so we can expand and enlarge and continue the recovery in our 

housing market while preventing unnecessary and illegal foreclosures. I am 

determined to fight this fee. 

I will enlist help from other colleagues who have already indicated 

their opposition, and I believe that together we will succeed in persuading 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that this 

increase in fee is misguided, unwise, 

and unacceptable. 

I also want to speak separately and 

distinctly about the DREAM Act. 

DREAM ACT

Last week I came to the floor to talk 

about the importance of the DREAM 

Act and to share the story of a Connecticut DREAMer. I am here again 

with the story of a different DREAMer. 

This is another young person from Connecticut. Again, I urge my colleagues 

to take action on this critically important bill. Young people who are known 

as DREAMers are undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country at an early age. Some were infants. 

Through no fault of their own, the consequence is they are here without proper documentation. America is their 

home. They often know no other language. All of their life they have been 

here. They have no memories of the 

country of their origin, where they 

were born. Our unfair and impractical 

immigration system fails to give them 

a path to citizenship and to stay in this 

country, the country they know and 

love. 

The DREAM Act would give these 

young immigrants a chance to earn 

their citizenship through education or 

military service. By earning their citizenship they can begin to give back to 

this country. In fact, they are individuals who will continue to contribute to 

this country and give back to it. 

Again, I wish to recognize the distinguished leadership of my colleague 

Senator DURBIN, who has been fighting 

tirelessly for the passage of the 

DREAM Act for over 10 years. At the 

State level I have fought for similar 

measures that would give rights, particularly in the area of education and 

tuition aid, to these DREAMers. We 

have succeeded in Connecticut in giving them the benefit of in-state tuition. 

The immigrants who would benefit 

from the DREAM Act have already 

been helped by an order from the President that defers their deportation for 2 

years. Although it defers their deportation, it does not permanently grant 

them any rights. In fact, if there is a 

change in administration, that order 

could be easily reversed. So the benefit 

is temporary and the need is for a more 

certain, stable, and secure solution so 

they can come out of the shadows, 

avoid being marginalized by our outdated immigration laws, gain the kind 

of scholarship aid they need, seek to 

serve our country on a more permanent 

basis, and benefit, but also discharge 

the obligations of citizenship in this 

country. 

I want to talk today about 

Yusmerith Caguao. Yusmerith Caguao 

is a college student who grew up in 

Norwalk, CT. She was born in Venezuela. She came to this country when 

she was 11 years old. She was told by 

her mom that the reason for coming 

here was to learn English, and the idea 

of learning a new language in a new 

country was immensely exciting to 

her. Her family settled in Norwalk, and 

she began middle school a week or two 

after arriving in America. She remembers those early days of her life, but 

she also remembers the excitement and 

struggle. Arriving without any knowledge of English, she mastered this language. Her grades improved over time 

and she kept in mind why her parents 

had brought her to America. She was 

dedicated to that day when she would 

be successful, when she would have visions realized and dreams achieved 

that she could not accomplish in Venezuela. 

She graduated from middle school 

with excellent grades. She was proud of 

what she had accomplished and 

learned, and soon after completing 

middle school, to her dismay, she became aware of her legal status in this 

country. Learning that she was undocumented affected her performance 

and her state of mind. By the time 

Yusmerith Caguao was in high school, 

she stopped trying to get perfect grades 

because she feared that colleges would 

not accept her anyway. 

At this point Yusmerith says she became depressed and felt hopeless. She 

graduated high school. She had almost 

given up the idea of attending college, 

but she didn’t lose hope. After she 

graduated from high school, she decided to continue her education in Norwalk Community College, a wonderful 

institution. I attended their graduation 

this year. It is a place that does wonders and provides immense opportunities for people regardless of their race 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

or background or documentation and 

citizenship. It did wonders for 

Yusmerith. 

She worked at a lot of different jobs 

to pay for her education, from 

waitressing in restaurants to working 

at a pet store and babysitting. She continues to work to pay for her education. 

Now having graduated from Norwalk 

Community College, Yusmerith went 

on to attend Western Connecticut 

State University. This picture is of her 

graduation, but we are hopeful she will 

have another graduation. She is currently pursuing a double major in accounting and finance at Western State 

University and expects to graduate in 

2014. She hopes to be an accountant. 

She hopes to have a career where she 

can put her skills to work. She hopes 

to give back to this country. That hope 

deserves recognition and realization, 

and that is why I stand here asking 

this body to give Yusmerith and thousands of other young people in Connecticut, the DREAMers, that opportunity to have a secure and permanent 

status, a path to citizenship that they 

will earn through education or military service. 

I am hopeful my colleagues, even in a 

time of tremendous partisanship, will 

see the importance of what Yusmerith 

and the DREAMers can do not only for 

themselves but what they can give to 

our Nation and us. With her skills, talent, and dedication, this Nation will be 

even greater. We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world, but 

even greater with the contributions of 

young people such as Yusmerith. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent 

to speak as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

NOMINATIONS

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise 

tonight to speak about one subject, but 

a very important subject for our country and for our system of justice, and 

that is the confirmation of Federal district court judges. I will focus tonight 

on one Federal district in Pennsylvania, the Middle District. By way of 

background, I will review where we are 

in the Senate. 

Earlier today Majority Leader REID

was required to ask for unanimous consent in order to proceed on Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court 

nominees. Of course, this is from district courts across the country. As the 

majority leader and many of our Senate colleagues have noted, the district 

court nominees on the Senate Calendar 

are nearly all noncontroversial and 

have received significant bipartisan 

support. The judges I will speak about 

tonight fit that description. 

Historically the Senate has deferred 

to the nomination of the President and 

the support of home State Senators. 

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be 

the case today in too many instances. 

Of course, not in every instance but too 

many instances. There is an old expression in the law that many of us have 

heard, and it is very simple, but I think 

it has substantial consequences for real 

people. The expression is: Justice delayed is justice denied. 

When we have a situation where we 

have two judges in the Middle District 

of Pennsylvania—I should say for the 

record and for the description of the 

geography in our State we have three 

Federal judicial districts: the Eastern 

District, the Middle District, and the 

Western District. When we have two 

district court nominees in Pennsylvania, or in any of the other States 

that have judges who are still pending, 

we can imagine the number of cases. It 

is not just hundreds but thousands of 

cases. In this case 17 judges could be 

handling these cases right now across 

our country. That old expression, justice delayed is justice denied, has real 

significance for real people out there, 

people who come before the district 

court as litigants. Whether they are individuals, corporations, or whatever 

the party, they come for basic justice 

and that gets very difficult when there 

is a backlog and there are not enough 

judges. 

It is especially egregious and outrageous that they are held up here 

when in many cases they get out of the 

Judiciary Committee after a long process of getting to the Judiciary Committee. Sometimes there are many 

months of vetting and investigation 

work. Often the names are available for 

voting here in the Senate after not just 

getting through the Judiciary Committee, but part and parcel of that 

means in almost every instance the 

two Senators from that State have 

agreed they should come up for a vote. 

Yet when it lands here on the Senate 

floor after committee consideration, 

judicial nominees are held up. 

The ability of the Federal courts to 

provide justice for the American people 

has indeed been threatened by the vacancy crisis and the overburdened Federal district courts. Families, communities, and small businesses are not 

able to get a fair hearing or have their 

claims resolved in a timely fashion. 

These Federal court vacancies need to 

be filled to mature a functioning democracy and a functioning judicial system. 

The Pennsylvania nominees to the 

Senate Calendar are two individuals, 

Malachy Mannion and Matthew Brann. 

Both are to be confirmed as U.S. district judges for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania. 

I won’t go through their backgrounds 

and qualifications today. We have done 

that already. They don’t need me to do 

that. They are through the Judiciary 

Committee. These men are both very 

well qualified to be U.S. district 

judges. 

Both of these judges would fill judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania’s Middle District. Just to give 

my colleagues a sense of what we are 

talking about, the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania has six posts, six judicial 

slots, and these are two vacancies for 

those six. The Middle District is the 

largest Federal district in Pennsylvania geographically, and there are 

four courthouses, one of which is several hours’ drive from the others. Because of the vacancies, the judges with 

senior status still continue to hear 

cases. Three of these judges are at least 

86 years old. Let me say that again. 

Three of these senior judges who have 

to do extra work because of the vacancies are at least 86 years old. 

Mal Mannion and Matthew Brann 

were both reported by voice vote out of 

the Judiciary Committee earlier this 

year, and both nominees were supported by Senator TOOMEY as well as 

me. Both of us came together through 

the process of introducing both of these 

nominees to the Judiciary Committee. 

They are, as I said before, through that 

process. 

I strongly urge that we move forward 

and allow a vote on all of these highly 

qualified, noncontroversial U.S. district court nominees, two in particular 

in Pennsylvania. 

I should mention that there was an 

article written—I won’t summarize it 

here—in the Atlantic magazine just 

last week by Andrew Cohen that highlighted some of the impacts this crisis 

has on real people when they appear 

before district courts such as the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

I yield the floor. 

f 

NOMINATIONS 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the 

majority leader was required to take 

the extraordinary step of asking for 

unanimous consent to secure Senate 

confirmation votes for 17 district court 

nominations. Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of 

weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those 

nominated by Republican Presidents 

and Democratic Presidents. Deference 

was traditionally afforded to home 

State Senators and district court 

nominees supported by home State 

Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously. 

However, Senate Republicans have 

raised the level of partisanship so that 

these Federal trial court nominees 

have now become wrapped around the 

axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy 

crisis that threatens the ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the 

American people, Senate Republicans 

now refuse to allow a vote on any of 

the 17 pending district court nominees, 

including 12 that have been declared judicial emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans’ across-the-board obstruction 

of President Obama’s judicial nominees 

that began with their filibuster of his 

very first nominee continues. For the 

first time I can recall, even district 

court nominees with support from Republican home State Senators face 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE