Floor Statements

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for Fiscal Year 2013. I wish to commend Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. The Senate has passed the NDAA every year for over one-half century. Senators Levin and McCain have played a key role on NDAA over the past several years, and I am grateful for their dedication and concern for the men and women of our Armed Forces and the defense of the Nation.

I am pleased that NDAA, as amended, includes three of my amendments, including a sense of the Senate resolution regarding conflict-induced displacements in Afghanistan. As Afghan refugees are being pushed into faster repatriation, they are often forced into returning to a country where they have little or no hope. In particular, Pakistan, which has hosted Afghan refugees for more than 30 years, plans to cancel refugee status for the 3 million Afghans at the end of this year. Forcing these refugees back into Afghanistan would only exacerbate the crisis for a country that is still struggling with an ongoing insurgency, an economy dependent on U.S. foreign assistance, and the impending withdraw of NATO troops in 2014.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, more than 5.7 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 2002, increasing the population of the country by approximately 25 percent. In both urban and rural areas, however, more than 40 percent of the returnees have not integrated into their home communities. In addition to difficulties returning refugees face, internal displacement has been dramatically on the rise.

The conflict-induced displaced Afghans face numerous challenges due to continuing violence, tribal conflicts, lack of land tenure and housing, limited opportunities to earn a livelihood, and reduced access to public services and water. As winter approaches, I am especially concerned for the children who will be vulnerable to the harsh weather and illnesses likely to occur from living in such severe conditions. Last winter, there were many reports of children freezing to death in settlement camps and other temporary shelters.

The sense of the Senate resolution not only expresses these concerns for the dramatic rise in conflict-induced displacements in Afghanistan and the corresponding humanitarian needs; it also recommends that the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration and the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan jointly develop a comprehensive strategy to address these displacement issues.

I am also pleased that the Senate passed my two amendments to add the Coast Guard to the current baseline NDAA sections addressing military diversity and military hazing. Nearly 2 years ago, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission issued a report with 20 recommendations to the Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard. The Commission found that the services' leadership does not reflect the diversity of the enlisted members they lead or the American population they fight to protect. While the Coast Guard has made strides in addressing its lack of diversity among women and minorities, it still has significant obstacles to overcome. For instance, of the 91 graduates of the Coast Guard's Officer Candidate School last year, only five were African- American, four were Asian, and nine were Hispanic. The Coast Guard can and must do better to enhance diversity among its senior leadership, which will have a positive impact for generations to come. And like other branches of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard continues to suffer from hazing incidents. Just last year, seven members of the Coast Guard were found to have tied down their fellow crew members and performed sexual hazing on them.

I am also pleased that the Senate adopted the Feinstein amendment, which restricts the ability of the U.S. Government to detain without charge or trial U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents suspected of carrying out terrorist activities. The role our civilian-led military plays within the borders of the United States has always been balanced with the protections of civil liberties, civil rights, and the due process of law.

On the subject of detainees, however, I am disappointed that the Senate approved the Ayotte amendment, which prohibits the use of funds for transferring or releasing detainees from the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for prosecution and trial in the United States. In my view, any provision that extends the life of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay unnecessarily sullies America's human rights record. The Ayotte amendment also represents a significant cost burden going forward for the U.S. Government, as it would force the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to remain open indefinitely. The Ayotte amendment also handicaps our Federal courts. Our Federal courts--unlike military tribunals--have an excellent track record of trying and convicting the most dangerous criminals and terrorists in the world, and Congress should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use our Article III courts. Our Federal prison system can also securely hold for life those convicted of terrorism offenses.

When it comes to personnel issues, I support the baseline NDAA bill, which will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill provides a 1.7-percent pay increase for all Active, Reserve, and Guard servicemembers. The bill prevents the Department of Defense from increasing TRICARE deductibles and annual catastrophic caps and levying enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard and TRICARE for Life. Also, the bill further advances service opportunities for women by directing the Secretary of Defense to make further regulatory and statutory changes in

combat-related restrictions. Finally, I want to commend the Senate Armed Services Committee for authorizing veterans to participate in the Transition Assistance Program for 1 year after their discharge so that they can be better prepared to lead a productive civilian life.

On another crucial personnel matter, however, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate defeated my amendment to prevent an across-the-board cut to the Defense civilian workforce that could lead to an additional 36,000 government job losses in the coming years. These cuts--on top of cuts that already will occur--would be made without consideration to required workload, mission, or funding as currently required by law. The Senate version of NDAA, if unchanged, will force an arbitrary, sequestration-type of cut in the DOD's civilian workforce, injuring the defense industrial base and undermining economic recovery. There is a better way to make judicious personnel decisions in the Department of Defense than the bill's section 341. I hope the NDAA conferees will heed the administration's deep concerns with regard to section 341, which the House NDAA--H.R. 4310--does not include.

A bill this large and complex won't please everybody entirely. I have just outlined some of the provisions I support and some of the provisions I don't support. I will vote to pass NDAA to advance it to conference. H.R. 4310, like S. 3254, has good and bad provisions, in my estimation. For instance, it contains provisions that further restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the United States or foreign countries, and it limits the administration's ability to implement the New START Treaty or to set U.S. nuclear weapon policy to further nuclear force reduction. But, on the other hand, it doesn't contain section 341. I hope the legislation the conferees report will be something I can support.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, for his outstanding contributions as a jurist, administrator, and justice advocate. His work on the bench has transformed the Maryland judicial system. His success in Maryland has provided leadership for national initiatives. And Chief Judge Bell has secured his place in history as a civil rights leader, both in Maryland and nationally.

Chief Judge Bell has served as the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals and the head of Maryland's Judiciary for the past 15 years. But before Chief Judge Bell took the bench, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate that Chief Judge Bell was already involved with our State's judicial system. As a high school student, he was a civil rights protestor who engaged in civil disobedience in Baltimore, and his case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Maryland State Archives has used the Bell v. Maryland case as part of its series on ``Teaching American History in Maryland''. According to the account by the Archives, in 1960, the majority of restaurants in downtown Baltimore were still segregated and blacks were not served at all-white dining establishments. Students from Dunbar High School and Morgan State

College were recruited by the Civic Interest Group to enter all-white restaurants and demand service. On June 17, 1960, a group of students entered Hooper's Restaurant, located at Charles and Fayette Streets, and asked to be served. They were told to leave, but 12 of the students, including 16-year-old Robert Mack Bell from Dunbar High School, refused. They were each charged with trespassing, found guilty, and fined $10. The case was appealed, and one of the students' lawyers was Thurgood Marshall from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, who went on to become the first African- American Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The students and their attorneys argued that the use of the State's trespassing laws to support segregation of public accommodations violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the ``equal protection of the laws'' to all persons.

In 1962, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the students' convictions and the decision of the lower court, and the case was appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. In the summer of 1964, the United States Senate finally overcame a filibuster and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited segregation and discrimination in public accommodations. The State of Maryland also passed a public accommodations law. Shortly after this action by Congress, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Maryland Court of Appeals. On April 9, 1965, the convictions were reversed, the students were cleared of all charges, and the City of Baltimore was ordered to pay court costs to the students.

Robert Mack Bell went on to graduate from Morgan State in Baltimore and then Harvard Law School, and was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1969. After working in private practice for several years, he was appointed as a Baltimore City District Court judge, which handles misdemeanors. In 1980, he was elevated to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, which handles felony cases and jury trials. In 1984, he was elevated again to the Court of Special Appeals, our intermediate appellate court. In 1991, Judge Bell was appointed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, our State's top court. Finally, he was appointed as Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals in 1996, becoming the first African-American to serve in that capacity. He is one of the few judges to serve at all four levels of the Maryland judiciary during his career. And Chief Judge Bell also has the rare distinction of serving on and then running a court that had previously ruled against him.

During his 2 decades on the bench, Chief Judge Bell has been a moving force on committees and commissions that have looked at ways to provide greater access to justice, to better incorporate the advantages of technology, and to enhance legal training and compensation.

In 2002, Chief Judge Bell appointed a Commission on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Judicial Process to evaluate outcomes and recommend ways to reduce or eliminate unequal access to or treatment by the court system. In 2008, he created the Access to Justice Commission to develop, consolidate, coordinate, and implement policy initiatives to expand access to and enhance the quality of justice in civil legal matters. He sought ways to find non-traditional methods to help solve the problems of crime by promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR, programs throughout Maryland. He promoted the growth of drug treatment courts in Maryland and established the Standing Committee on Problem- Solving Courts to coordinate these efforts. He used technology to provide more accurate and uniform data critical to the enforcement of domestic violence and peace orders, and launched an ongoing effort to prepare Maryland judges to adjudicate cases involving science and biotechnology. And when the housing crisis hit Maryland, he called Maryland's legal community together to provide pro bono assistance to homeowners faced with foreclosure. As a result of those efforts, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to better protect homeowners.

Time and time again, when Chief Judge Bell has faced challenges, he has seized the opportunity to find solutions. He has done so with grace and intellect and compassion. He has rallied the legal community and expanded opportunities for those with few options and no voice.

From Robert Bell's days as a high school student, long before he even went to law school, he has strived to promote justice and equality for all Americans. The Preamble to the Constitution provides that ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Just like Thurgood Marshall, a fellow Baltimorean and legal giant, Chief Judge Bell has played a large part in upholding and defending our Constitution in Maryland, and in helping our State and nation move toward ``establishing justice'' and creating a ``more perfect union.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Judge Robert Bell for his civil rights leadership, contributions to the legal community, and inspirational life as he retires after an outstanding career of public service.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the contributions of Lee Norman Sachs, one of America's outstanding first- responders and human beings whose contribution of time, talent, and leadership span over 3\1/2\ decades. Lee graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and the University Of Maryland School Of Law, and began practicing law in 1967, concentrating on family law and real estate matters. But his desire to do more for his community led him to take Emergency Medical Technician, EMT, training and join the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Department. Over the years, Lee took more and more training, first to qualify as a paramedic and then as a firefighter, fire driver/operator and lastly a fire instructor.

Lee's dedication, training, and leadership skills have resulted in his election to many volunteer fire positions, most notably as president of the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Department, the Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association, and the Maryland State Firemen's Association. He has been inducted into the Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association Hall of Fame, named Executive Officer of the Year, and received the organization's President's Award. He was recognized by the Maryland State Firemen's Association as EMS Provider of the Year and recipient of the Gladhill-Thompson Trophy.

At the same time Lee was performing all of this public service, he was also working as a well-respected attorney, volunteering time at the Women's Law Center and the Maryland Bar Association, and providing pro bono legal services to clients referred by the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service.

Lee Sachs has led a life dedicated to serving his community. I hope all Senators will join me in thanking him for his commitment to public service and his efforts to ensure the health and safety of his fellow Marylanders.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Mikulski in recommending to the Senate the confirmation of Judge Paul William Grimm of Maryland to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland.

I am very proud of the process Senator Mikulski has instituted for making recommendations to the President to fill judicial appointments. I believe that under this process, we are able to get the very best to recommend to the President and then to our colleagues for confirmation. Judge Grimm clearly falls within this line.

The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Grimm's nomination by a voice vote on June 7 of this year. Judge Grimm was nominated to fill the vacancy that was created in Maryland when U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg took senior status in June.

Judge Grimm brings a wealth of experience to this position. Early in his career he served in the military in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, handled commercial litigation in private practice, and served as an assistant attorney general in Maryland. He also sat as a Federal magistrate judge in Maryland for 15 years.

Judge Grimm was born in Japan and received his undergraduate degree from the University of California in 1973, and graduated from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1976. Judge Grimm was admitted to the Maryland bar in 1977.

He has strong roots, legal experience, and community involvement in the State of Maryland. Judge Grimm lives with his family in Towson, MD.

After graduating law school, Judge Grimm began his legal career in Maryland as a captain in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. He then worked in the Pentagon before heading back to the Baltimore region, alternating between working in private practice and working in the State attorney general's office, while continuing to serve as a U.S. Army JAG Corps officer with occasional stints in the Pentagon.

In 1997 Judge Grimm was selected as a magistrate judge by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2006, Judge Grimm became the chief U.S. magistrate judge in Baltimore.

In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Grimm to serve as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 2010 he was designated as chair of the Civil Rules Committee's Discovery Subcommittee.

I mention that because it is evident from the Chief Judge's appointment that Judge Grimm is a nationally recognized expert on cutting-edge issues of law and technology. He has written numerous authoritative opinions, books, and articles on the subject of evidence, civil procedure, and trial advocacy. He also continues to inspire the next generation of lawyers by teaching classes at both of our law schools. On several occasions Professor Grimm has been awarded the title of outstanding adjunct faculty member. As a magistrate judge, Judge Grimm has found time not only to teach but to be an outstanding professor. He has shown his commitment in so many ways to public service.

As a magistrate judge, Judge Grimm is responsible for handling criminal matters such as issuing search warrants, conducting preliminary criminal proceedings, and presiding over misdemeanor criminal cases.

Judge Grimm is also responsible for handling civil cases and has presided

over bench and jury trials with the consent of the parties. Judge Grimm has conducted settlement conferences, resolved discovery disputes, and handled other nondispositive matters at the referral of the U.S. district judges.

Judge Grimm has estimated that in his 15 years as a magistrate judge he presided over approximately 50 civil trials, 150 criminal misdemeanor trials, including jury and bench trials. He is well qualified and has the experience necessary to serve on our district court. He received a unanimous rating of well qualified, the highest possible rating for a judicial nominee from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As I previously mentioned, he received a voice vote of confidence from the Judiciary Committee.

I am absolutely confident that Judge Grimm possesses the qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice to make him an outstanding United States District Court judge for the District of Maryland.

I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation here on the Senate floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Chairman, I call up amendment No. 3025.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate an arbitrary cap on the civilian and contractual workforce. The administration supports this amendment. Without this amendment being adopted, the Department said it will need to significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps.

The amount of civilian and contractual workforce should be determined by mission, by workload and by budget, as the law provides. This arbitrary cap would be like a second sequestration type of cap on the civilian and contractual workforce.

My cosponsors include Senators Akaka, Mikulski, Begich, Durbin, Brown of Ohio, McCaskill, Harkin, Boxer, Leahy, and Tester.

I urge my colleagues to approve the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me just point out the civilian workforce is going to be cut. According to the House Armed Services Committee, over 10,000 positions will be eliminated in FY12 alone.

The House bill does not contain this provision. This provision imposes an effective cap on civilian and contractual workers.

Mr. President, I will not take 3 minutes.

The point I am bringing up is that what this would do is impose an additional cap on civilian and contractual. They are already controlled by law. The law says by mission and budget. That is what it should be. The administration supports this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to approve it.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I think it is time to explain amendment No. 3025 that I hope I will be able to call up shortly, knowing full well that our schedule might get difficult when these amendments are brought up at a later point.

My amendment would strike section 341 of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It included language that would arbitrarily require the Secretary of Defense to cut the civilian and contractor workforce to achieve equal savings as they achieve from planned reductions in the military personnel for fiscal year 2012 through 2017.

This provision does not consider the work requirements of the Department nor the law that states:

The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall

be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and

consistent with (1)

the workload required to carry out the functions and

activities of the department.

What that means is that when we consider the number of civilian personnel needed by the Department of Defense, we look at the mission they need to accomplish and we look at the budget support. That is how those decisions have been made.

My amendment would strike the current section 341 that is in the committee draft and reaffirms the civilian manpower requirements by stating the following: The Secretary of Defense, consistent with longstanding law--which was expanded in a bipartisan effort in the fiscal year 2012 NDAA bill--ensures that the civilian workforce is sufficiently sized--a term copied from 10 USC 129a)--after taking into account military strategy requirements and military endstrength.

The Comptroller General is required to report back to the Congress whether the Department is compliant with the law.

I am pleased this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Akaka, Boxer, Begich, Brown of Ohio, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Mikulski, McCaskill, and Tester.

I might point out that there is no such provision included in the House NDAA.

I would like to note what this amendment does not do. It would not prevent the Department of Defense from downsizing the civilian workforce. Indeed, according to the House Armed Services Committee, the Department is already reducing its civilian workforce by over 10,000 positions in fiscal year 2012 alone. It would not treat service contractors any differently than civilian employees.

The goal of this amendment is pretty simple. It would reaffirm the law that prohibits DOD from managing its civilian workforce by arbitrary constraints. That is what this provision that I am asking to be stricken by my amendment would do. It would set caps and cuts. Downsizing is inevitable but be consistent with the law. It should be based on a workload analysis and the budgets that are provided through the congressional process.

This would repudiate the notion that what happens in one department's workforce automatically affects the other. The way the language came out from the committee, regardless of the needs of our civilian missions within the Department of Defense, its cut would be tied to the military side and the contractors would also be affected. It should be based upon their vision. It should be based upon their budget. There should not be arbitrary provisions.

Proponents of section 341 would insist that the civilian workforce should be automatically reduced by approximately 5 percent because the Obama administration would reduce the military workforce by approximately 5 percent. They are different missions, different priorities; they need to be judged based upon their respective priorities and missions.

Earlier today the administration released a Statement of Administration Policy that clearly rejects the current section 341 of the bill. I am quoting from the administration's statement of policy:

The Administration objects to section 341, which would

reduce funding for the civilian and contractor workforce by a

rate that is at least equal to the percentage of funding

saved from the planned reductions of military personnel end

strength. This would require savings in civilian and contract

workforces in excess of $5 billion over the planned savings

through FY 2017. The Administration believes the size of the

civilian workforce should be determined based on workload and

funding, not on arbitrary comparisons to the military. To

comply with this legislation, the Department would need to

significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps.

What the committee did--I don't know if it was intentional or not-- what the committee did, they imposed their own sequestration order on the civilian and contractor workforce within DOD. That makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone here has been outspoken that it is wrong to do these across-the-board cuts that have nothing to do with priority or mission. My amendment would strike that provision from the committee bill. It would substitute instead law that requires that the workforce be determined by mission and budget. It does not at all prevent us from downsizing. We all know we have to downsize, and the budget downsizes the civilian and contractor workforce. But we should not be setting arbitrary caps within what we have already done through the review and budget process.

I am pleased that this amendment is supported by many of the groups directly impacted by the decisions here. When I have a chance to offer this amendment, I will urge my colleagues to support the amendment so we can correct this provision in the bill, which I think allows us to comply with current law, protect the mission of the Department of Defense, and establish priorities in the way we should, not by arbitrary caps.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3199

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and give thanks to my State director, Bailey Fine, who is retiring at the end of the 112th Congress after 27 years of devoted service. There is great sadness but deep appreciation as I say goodbye to Bailey who, in 1982, ran my reelection campaign to the Maryland House of Delegates; then served as my campaign aide during my first congressional race in 1986; as my district director for 20 years; and, finally, as my State director during my first term in the Senate.

Over the years, Bailey has been a friend to my entire family, a trusted confidant, a reliable sounding board for my legislative district and statewide agendas. For more than three decades I have been truly fortunate to have her at my side, providing knowledgeable advice and a commonsense approach to the many issues that face Members of the House and Senate.

Bailey is a people person who understands how our work in Washington affects the everyday lives of Marylanders, and she regularly reminds my staff and me of that fact. Bailey's knowledge of Baltimore and of Maryland is unparalleled. She grew up in Northern Virginia but settled in Baltimore in 1970 where she worked first for the Housing Commissioner and later for the late Mayor William Donald Schaeffer.

During her years handling special projects for the mayor, Bailey developed a deep love for Baltimore City and a true understanding of how Baltimore works. Bailey became a creative genius at promoting and highlighting the many achievements of the city under Mayor Schaeffer. Before Mayor Schaeffer left city hall, he nominated Bailey to serve as president of the Baltimore City school board. In that role, she helped parents navigate the school bureaucracy, suggested workable solutions for teachers, and brought a commonsense approach to the Baltimore City school system.

But Bailey's knowledge and expertise goes beyond how government works. She has her pulse on Baltimore and on Maryland. She knows the key players in the city and the State, many of them on a personal level. For many years Bailey has been the go-to person when people need to get things done.

Without a doubt, Bailey has been an invaluable resource to my entire staff, to me, and to the people of Maryland. But she is also a tireless advocate and a voice for families and individuals who may not have had the understanding or resources to access the services they need. Whether it is working with the mayor of Oakland when spring floods threatened a dam near the town, getting housing and other services for a veteran, or working with community groups to improve their schools, Bailey is a relentless public servant. There is also no denying that her energy and enthusiasm are unstoppable and unsurpassed and that her retirement will leave a real void.

Through her efforts, so many people have been connected to jobs, affordable housing, quality health care, or government benefits. So many of these people have benefited from her advocacy, their lives changed for the better, and most of them will never know her name. To me, that is the highest form of public service.

I ask my Senate colleagues to recognize the many contributions that Bailey has made and the example she has set for public service. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Bailey's family, her husband Stanley, and her children Michael and Laura, for their support and understanding as Bailey has worked to help others.

Today is Bailey and Stanley's 41st wedding anniversary, and on December 8 Laura will be married. Please join me in wishing Bailey Fine a healthy and happy retirement and well-deserved time with her family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Ann Y. Lee, a Department of Defense fellow, during the Senate consideration of S. 3254, the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to vote for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I have the honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was present during the hearings we had with regard to the ratification of the treaty. I listened to the witnesses who testified and listened to all the arguments that always have been made about treaties. I must tell you, it was overwhelmingly supportive of the ratification of the treaty.

I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Lugar, who is on the floor. He has been a real champion on basic human rights issues and advancing it through treaties on which the United States has taken leadership. I applaud his unstinting commitment to advancing the rights of people with disabilities.

I also want to acknowledge our chairman Senator Kerry, and the work he has done in regard to this treaty; Senator Harkin, and many others, have been involved in the United States' participation in this treaty. To put it directly, we were responsible for this treaty moving forward because the United States has been in the leadership of protecting people with disabilities. The way we treat people with disabilities is a civil rights/human rights issue.

We know the history of America was not always what it is today, and we know the struggles people with disabilities have had in getting access to services that we sometimes take for granted.

Many years ago I visited our State institution for children with developmental disabilities. I saw in one large room literally 100 children receiving no care at all, most of them not clothed. I knew we could do better in this country, and today our access to health services for people with disabilities is remarkably better.

I remember when if you had a physical disability and were confined to a wheelchair, it was basically impossible to get use of public transportation. We have changed those policies in our country, recognizing that every American has the right to basic services. I remember when it was difficult for people to get public education in traditional schools if they had disabilities. We have changed those laws in America. We have changed our public accommodation laws. We have changed our employment laws. We have led the world in saying that it is a basic right, and people with disabilities have the same protections as every one of us.

I am proud of the progress we have made here in the United States. I was part of the Congress in 1990 that passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. I am very proud to be part of the Congress that passed that law. I remember two of our colleagues who have been in the forefront of this work: Senator Dole, whose name has been mentioned, has been one of the great leaders in this body in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, and Congressman Tony Coelho, with whom I served in the other body, the House, took on a leadership position to bring to the public attention for us to do what was right for people with disabilities.

The United States has provided international leadership. The year after we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, my colleague in the House, Congressman Steny Hoyer, took that effort in the United States internationally. In 1991, in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, we passed the Declaration on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities because of the U.S. leadership. It is now known as the Moscow Document. We have provided international aspirations to make sure that we treat people with disabilities as we would treat anyone else.

We have in America the strongest protections of any country. We have improved our laws. We have led the world in providing the right legal framework, the right policies, and the right programs so people with disabilities can gain access to all services.

The ratification of this treaty is particularly important to the United States. I say that because it further demonstrates our leadership on this issue. We have added language in this treaty; we don't have to change any laws if we ratified this treaty. We are in full compliance. There is no need for America to take any further steps. All this treaty ratification does is reaffirm America's leadership on this issue and provides protection for our citizens internationally. We made that very clear with amendments we added to this treaty during the committee markup. We don't have to change any laws. Yet it helps U.S. citizens abroad. The rights of the disabled should not end at our border. They should have the same protections when they travel to another country or when they work in another country or when they temporarily live in another country. We want to make sure American citizens are treated fairly.

A witness testified at our hearing on the ratification of this treaty about how she was in a wheelchair in another country and she was not permitted to use her wheelchair to get access to an airplane. That is wrong. This treaty will protect an American who happens to be in another country and who happens to have a disability to make sure that person can get reasonable access to transportation, reasonable access to public accommodations, and that the person is not discriminated against because of her or his disability. This helps advance globally the basic human rights of people with disabilities. Other countries will learn from the United States. Until we ratify, we can't participate in the international discussions taking place to protect people with disabilities. Yet we have the most advanced laws. By our ratification of this treaty, we are in a position to help other countries advance the rights of people with disabilities, and that is exactly what we should be doing in America.

Our Nation was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and each of us has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of our abilities. Ratifying this treaty is a strong act of diplomacy and a symbol of America's continued commitment to equal justice for all. The history of our Nation has been the continued expansion of rights, opportunities, and responsibilities to more and more Americans. It is in our interests and in the interests of all humankind to see that the expansion happens in other countries as well.

I urge my Senate colleagues to vote for the ratification of this treaty. It is the right vote to take for the United States. Standing up for basic human rights is right. It is right to protect our citizens when they travel internationally. I urge my colleagues to vote for ratification.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the millions of brave American veterans who have given of themselves to protect this great Nation and our precious liberties. I thank not only our veterans but also men and women currently in uniform and all their families. The sacrifices our veterans and service members make are enormous: remote deployments, long deployments, injuries, and worse.

Despite the inherent risk, the United States continues to attract the most qualified and dedicated citizen soldiers. The role of the citizen soldier in this country is older than the United States itself. From the first shots declaring our independence to the current war in Afghanistan, Americans have enjoyed unparallel freedom and security thanks to those among us who are willing to put themselves in harm's way.

This past Sunday, we formally honored our Nation's veterans and we celebrated how privileged we are to have a fighting force as committed to excellence as our own. Our expressions of gratitude, however, should manifest themselves in actions that make positive impacts on the lives of the veterans to whom we owe so much. President John Kennedy once said: ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' So today I will utter words I hope you will join me in living by. When we say ``we owe our freedom to our men and women in uniform,'' we must make sure our veterans are treated as such. We must make sure that those veterans who need help transitioning back to civilian life have the resources to do so. We need to be sure veterans can find suitable jobs. When our men and women return home, they should have access to the best medical care, education, and training available so they can continue to be beacons of model citizenry.

Let this Veterans Day be a catalyst for how we treat veterans for the rest of the year and beyond. The appreciation, gratitude, and respect shown to veterans today should be ever-present. The men, women, and families who protect us deserve so much more than just 1 day to be publicly appreciated. Every American can do something to repay our veterans. There are many organizations dedicated to helping veterans. For instance, I have had the distinct honor to work on legislation with my colleague C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger to help Fisher House, an organization that arranges for travel and accommodations for family members who visit their wounded warriors as they recuperate in hospitals away from home. Fisher House established a program called Hotels for Heroes which allows travelers to donate credit card hotel reward points to military families. Many of those families will be visiting their loved ones at Water Reed in my home State of Maryland. With fewer than 1 percent of all Americans currently serving in our All-Volunteer Armed Forces, the sacrifices of the few are not always felt by the many. Donating unused frequent flyer airline

miles and hotel points is a wonderful--and easy--way for Americans to express their appreciation for our brave warriors and their families. Another worthy organization is America's Vet Dogs, which is working with inmates provided by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to train service dogs to aid returning veterans who are disabled.

There are countless other groups doing an immeasurable amount of good for our veterans and their families but we always can--and should--do more. So on this Veterans Day, I ask that all Americans give something back to the people who have given so much for this country. Our veterans deserve it, and our country is made stronger when everyone makes sacrifices for it. Veterans understand sacrificing for others; we honor our veterans if we understood that too.

Mr. President, as we honor the brave men and women who have served in our military, we also must turn our thoughts and prayers to those who currently wear a uniform in service to our country, especially those in harm's way in Afghanistan and around the world. They are tomorrow's veterans. So during this lameduck session of the 112th Congress and as we prepare for the 113th Congress, I urge my colleagues to consider our Active-Duty service members, our veterans, and their families' needs as we legislate. It is my deepest hope addressing those needs will not be mired down by partisanship on either side of the aisle.

In closing, I would like to extend my deepest and most sincere thanks to our Active-Duty service men and women, veterans, and their families. I thank you for your selfless service, your dedication, your strength of character, and your courage. As a nation, we owe you an eternal debt of gratitude and appreciation for your innumerable sacrifices on our behalf.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 75th anniversary of the city of Greenbelt, the first planned community in the United States built by the Federal Government. Greenbelt was envisioned as a social experiment by Rexford Guy Tugwell, a friend and adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The town was built under the authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. It was designed to provide low-income housing and drew 5,700 applicants for the original 885 residences. The first families arrived on October 1, 1937. They were chosen to meet income and other criteria, including a demonstrated willingness to participate in community organizations.

Most early residents were under 30 years of age and were from diverse religious backgrounds. They were blue and white collar workers, but due to the segregation at the time, no African Americans were able to purchase homes or live in Greenbelt. Physically, Greenbelt was designed as a complete city with homes, businesses, schools, roads, recreation facilities, and town government. Homes were clustered in ``superblocks'' with a system of interior walkways permitting residents to go from home to town center without crossing a major street. Streets were designed to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and community amenities and businesses were centrally located for easy access.

The first residents were pioneers in community engagement. They quickly formed a government--the first city manager form of government in the State of Maryland. They formed the first kindergarten in Prince George's County, started a journalism club that today continues to publish the weekly Greenbelt News Review, formed the Greenbelt Health Association, established police, fire and rescue squads, and opened the first public swimming pool in the Washington area in 1939. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc. operated the grocery store, gas station, drug and variety stores, barber and beauty shops, movie theater, valet shop, and tobacco shop, and over the years, as needs arose, citizens formed numerous cooperatives.

The Federal Government built an additional 1,000 homes in 1941 to accommodate families coming to Washington in connection with the defense programs of World War II. In 1952, Congress voted to sell off the Greenbelt towns, and citizens in Greenbelt formed a housing cooperative which purchased the homes. In 1997, when Greenbelt celebrated its 60th anniversary, the U.S. Department of Interior recognized Historic Greenbelt as a National Historic Landmark.

Today, many of the original features of this planned community still exist, although the city itself has expanded to include additional shopping centers, high-rise office buildings, garden apartments, townhouses, and private development. Around a dozen original families still live in Greenbelt, passing on the cooperative spirit and sense of community that has made Greenbelt a thriving city and a special place to call home.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the residents and the city of Greenbelt on successfully nurturing 75 years of community planning, cooperation, and engagement.

Mr. President, would the Senator from South Dakota enter into a colloquy to discuss concerns I have with his bill S. 1956 and a suggested amendment I have filed for consideration, which is currently running through the hotline process?

First of all I want to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me to address some of the concerns I have with this bill as it was reported out of the Commerce Committee.

While I have some ongoing reservations about the precedent and potential impacts this bill could have on our relations with our closest European allies, I am willing to allow legislation to move forward if I may get consent to have my amendment agreed to.

I would like to discuss my amendment and the process which the legislation prescribes the Secretary of Transportation to follow in determining whether to prohibit U.S. airlines from participating in the European Union's carbon emissions trading scheme.

The second paragraph of subsection (a), section 3 of the legislation contains a provision that is designed to ``hold harmless'' U.S. airlines from the fees, taxes or fines that they incur from the EU under the emissions trading scheme.

While the Secretary of Transportation has discretion as to how he will act to ``hold harmless'' our air carriers, it is understood that these actions could possibly require some form of payment by the Federal Government.

One of my greatest concerns with the bill, which I believe the sponsors of the bill share with me, and I appreciate their interest in working with me to address this issue, is that any payments that may result from this provision not come at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I would like to ask the Senator this question: is it correct that it is not his intent that any costs or remunerations triggered by this legislation come at the expense of U.S. taxpayer dollars?

I appreciate the Sentor clarifying his intent, and I am glad he shares my concern.

I believe my amendment helps make the intent of the legislation clear.

My amendment adds a third paragraph to subsection (a) of section 3 of the bill.

The amendment will explicitly exclude any appropriated funds or user fee receipts to be expended on actions taken under the hold harmless clause.

This amendment will ensure that any taxpayer dollars, either through appropriations or through user fee receipts, are expressly prohibited from supporting actions resulting from the held harmless clause of the bill.

Would my colleague agree that my amendment assures that no U.S. taxpayer dollars will be expended on any held harmless actions that may result from this bill?

I thank the Senator for his cooperation with me on this important fiscal matter.

I want to make it clear to my colleagues, as this bill progresses forward or is reconciled with a less thoughtful House proposal, I do want my colleagues to understand that should the Senate have to reconsider a different proposal in a conference report that I intend to reserve my right to object.

I also want my colleagues to understand that I feel that the United States and countries around the globe must take actions to address the threat carbon emissions pose to the global environment.

I think there are some legitimate concerns with the way the EU has proposed to take unilateral actions to reduce carbon emissions from the aviation sector.

I don't fault the EU for their leadership in the face of what has thus far been nearly 15 years of failed multinational negotiations on how we as cooperating nations should be reducing or mitigating aviation carbon emissions.

I would like for the United States to take greater action to address this problem, and in many respects I think it is unfortunate that the United States has not demonstrated the same kind of leadership that the nations of Europe have taken on this issue.