`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6510-S6520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

[[Page 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--

[[Page S6512]]

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 pro-life 
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.

[[Page 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

[[Page S6514]]

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 disaster-stricken 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,

[[Page 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.


[[Page S6516]]


  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

[[Page 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

[[Page S6518]]

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 
Egypt-Israel 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 al-
Qaida, 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

[[Page 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

[[Page S6520]]

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.

                          ____________________`