Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 615, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., Thursday, December 13, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3637, the FDIC TAG Program extension bill; that it be in order for the Republican leader or his designee to raise a budget point of order against the bill; that if a point of order is so raised, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to move to waive the point of order; that the time until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12 noon the Senate vote on the motion to waive the budget point of order, if such a motion is made; that if the motion is successful, the Senate then proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3637; further, that if the motion to waive is not successful, the cloture motion be vitiated and the majority leader be recognized.

Finally, if a budget point of order is not raised, the time until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3637.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2012; that following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; and that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 3637, the FDIC TAG extension legislation, under the previous order; finally, that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to S. 3637 be 10:30 a.m. on Thursday.

Mr. President, there will be up to two rollcall votes at noon tomorrow.

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

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

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

Mr. President, like millions of Americans, on November 6, just over a month ago, on election day, I stood at the polls and I cast my vote, and then when I got home I stayed up late to see the results come in. I was still awake when President Obama delivered his acceptance speech. In those remarks, he said:

I want to thank every American who participated in this

election, whether you voted for the very first time or waited

in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix

that.

There is so much we have to fix. It was 11:38 p.m. on the east coast when the Associated Press called the election for President Obama, but Andre Murias, an 18-year-old first-time voter in Miami Dade County, FL, was still in line waiting to cast his ballot. Andre had been in line at South Kendall Community Church for nearly 5 hours by the time he cast his ballot just before midnight, and that is nothing compared to the 7 and 8 hours many other Floridians waited to cast their ballots during the State's condensed early voting period. ``This is a mess,'' one voter said. ``It is chaos.''

Rashell Hobbs, another first-time voter, waited 5 hours in Chesapeake, VA. ``This is just horrible,'' Rashell said. ``There is no reason it should take this long.''

Voters across the country had other challenges or problems voting. Voters

in Pueblo, CO, said they checked the box on their touch screen panel to vote for Mitt Romney, but it kept switching their pick to President Obama. ``I wonder whether my vote really counted,'' one Colorado voter said.

Voters in Pennsylvania reported a similar problem, although in that case it was the President for whom they were seemingly unable to vote.

Poll watchers in Davidson County, TN, could only stand by as would-be voters saw the very, very long line of people waiting to cast their ballots and drove away, pressed, I am sure, by commitments of family or work to choose not to spend hours standing in line to exercise that most fundamental of American rights--the right to vote.

In Philadelphia, longtime registered voters who showed up to cast their ballots discovered their names simply weren't on the rolls anymore.

In Ohio, Wisconsin, South Carolina, New York, Montana--more than a dozen States experienced some kind of basic breakdown in the administration of their elections in 2012.

This is the United States. The right to vote is fundamental to who we are. It is basic to our democracy. It is in our DNA. We have to get this right.

That is why I introduced the Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely--or FAST--Voting Act of 2012, along with Senators Warner and Whitehouse. And I am grateful that Congressmen Connolly and Langevin in the House have introduced it and are cosponsors there.

In my view, long lines are simply another form of disenfranchising voters. Running out of ballots is simply another form of voter suppression. Incomplete and inaccurate voter rolls, disregarded voter registrations, misleading phone calls and mailing pieces--things that make it harder for citizens to vote are simply a violation of voters' civil rights.

We can and must do better. As widespread as the problem was in 2012, there are also many States that are getting it right, and these States, in my view, continue to be laboratories of democracy from which we should learn. The FAST Voting Act creates a new competitive Federal grant program roughly modeled on Race to the Top, which encourages States to pursue reforms in a different field, in education. States that demonstrate the most comprehensive and promising reform plans win a greater portion of the grant funding in that model. Instead, the FAST Voting Act would inspire election reform. This bill authorizes a Federal program that would award grants based on how well States improve access to the ballot in at least 9 different ways: through flexible registration opportunities, including same-day registration; through early voting at a minimum of 9 of the 10 calendar days preceding an election; through what is called no-excuse absentee voting; assistance to voters who do not speak English or have disabilities or visual impairments; effective access to voting for members of our armed services; formal training of election officials, including State and county administrators and volunteers; audited and reduced waiting times at poorest performing polling stations; and, as we learned given that Sandy, Superstorm Sandy, occurred close to the election, contingency plans for voting in the event of a natural or other disaster that compels a delay of an election.

These are the big areas mentioned in this FAST Voting Act, making it easier to register, making it easier to vote early, making it easier to vote absentee, shortening lines, better preparing for catastrophes, making it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote.

This is a good one, and I am working with a host of civil rights and voter protection groups who work, day in and day out, on strengthening our electoral process. It encourages States and localities to find new and creative and local solutions that other States can learn from.

Mr. President, as you know, in my service prior to coming to this body I was a county executive and long active with NACO, the Nation Association of Counties. Counties have different roles in different States. There are more than 3,000 counties spread across our 50 States but in most States they are responsible in part for administering elections. Many election officials are county-elected officials and many voter boards are parts of county government. One of the things I think is best about this bill, this FAST Voting Act of 2012, is that rather than mandating some specific response it encourages and incentivizes State and local officials to put together plans for how to learn from the lessons of 2012, how to learn from the long lines and the barriers that were put in front of those who came out to vote, and finding the best solutions; rather than imposing or compelling, incentivizing and leading in a way that I think State and local officials will respond to well and will accept and celebrate.

There is strong momentum. Although the election is now more than a month behind us, my hope is that we will continue to focus on the challenges of this last election and fix them before the next. The Pew Conference, today and tomorrow, on voting in America is bringing together some of our Nation's foremost experts and scholars. For that we are grateful to the Pew Charitable Foundation.

The Judiciary Committee on which we serve has a hearing announced this coming week and I applaud Chairman Leahy and Senator Durbin for highlighting the need to get to the bottom of what happened in 2012 and championing the need to get reform. Other Members, Senators Gillibrand and Boxer, have introduced bills as well and I look forward to working closely with them to harmonize our bills and making sure we have the best approach moving forward.

In addition to serving on the Judiciary Committee, I am chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. In that role I advocate for free and fair elections with African leaders every day. The United States is often cited as their role model. We need to act like it and we need to earn it.

What kind of message are we sending to electoral commissions, to heads of State, to members of civil society, and advocates of free, fair, and open elections in the rest of the world when we so visibly and publicly fail to deliver on that promise here in our own country? What kind of message are we sending to Andre Murias, a first-time voter? What kind of message are we sending to Rashell Hobbs? What kind of message are we sending to first-time voters about the value of their right to vote, for which so many fought, worked, struggled, sacrificed, even died in the course of our history? What message do we send to them when we allow modern-day barriers to be put in their place?

Voting is a fundamental civil right, and when States prevent their citizens from exercising that right, whether deliberately through law or through regulations or accidentally through lack of preparation or mere incompetence, it is a violation of voters' civil rights. The Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Voting Act is one critical way we can try to fix our elections and make sure what happened across our country in 2012 never happens again.

Mr. President, today is Human Rights Day, and I wanted to simply add my voice to the many others who have spoken about the important work the United States can do to continue our leadership around the world as a country that holds itself accountable and leads others toward being accountable for a world in which human rights have meaning and substance. There are two things we can do between now and the end of this calendar year that will make a significant contribution to human rights and to the U.S. global leadership.

First, the House of Representatives can take up and pass VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill passed months ago by this Chamber. It is a strong, broad, sensible reauthorization bill that I think well deserves consideration and passage by the other Chamber.

Second, TVPA, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, needs to be reauthorized. I was proud last month to join with Senator Portman and the Presiding Officer, Senator Blumenthal, as the three of us jointly founded the Caucus to End Human Trafficking. Slavery exists in the world today. In this country and around the world, there are victims of human trafficking whose voices demand to be heard. By reauthorizing TVPA, this Chamber and this country can make a meaningful contribution toward ending trafficking of persons in the United States and around the world.

I simply wanted to add today, Human Rights Day, those two simple calls for action so this Congress and this country can continue our global leadership.

The House of Representatives needs to take up and pass VAWA and the Senate needs to pass the TVPA reauthorization. Together let us continue to make history in America's leadership on human rights.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this is a critical moment. Over the next few weeks, serious choices must be made about how our Nation spends its money, about our national budget. At its heart, a budget is a statement of balance. A budget shows the world what we care about, what we prioritize, what we invest in, how we intend to build our future. Everyone who comes to this Chamber comes with their own values, representing their own State. But each of us also knows we have to find a way to bridge those divides to work together to solve the enormous fiscal challenges we face as a Nation. That means addressing the more than $500 billion in automatic spending cuts, tax increases, and other fiscal changes all scheduled to take place at the beginning of the next year and known collectively as the fiscal cliff.

We find ourselves at the edge of this cliff because of our shared beliefs that deficits matter and that we can't keep spending money we don't have. As it stands today, our deficit and debt are unsustainable. Last year we ran a budget deficit of well over $1 trillion, and now we have a national debt that exceeds $16 trillion. If we don't get these numbers under control, interest payments will inevitably skyrocket, taking up a larger and larger percentage of our budget until they crowd out other critical, progrowth investments in our country's competitiveness and the essential social safety net that puts a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our country. I don't believe either one of us wants to put those two vital things at risk.

When a budget is so out of balance we have to take a hard look at both the money coming in and the money going out. The only way to get back on track, in my view, is to address both sides of this equation-- revenue and spending. We have to find a balanced solution that combines tough spending cuts with reforms to our Tax Code that bring in more revenue while also ensuring fairness to taxpayers. I believe there is real momentum for this kind of big, balanced, bipartisan solution for the first time in a long time.

We have seen some courageous Republicans in both the House and Senate recently stand and say that revenue has to be on the table and a few even that an increase in tax rates for the wealthiest Americans may be necessary to get a budget deal that moves us forward. They know what we all know--that, frankly, even the most drastic across-the-board spending cuts, like the kinds contained in the sequester that will kick in in January, won't save enough to close the budget gap. At the same time, across-the-board, meat ax cuts to domestic programs violate some of our basic American values by failing to protect the most vulnerable in our society, those who I believe our values call us to put a circle of protection around, even in this most difficult recovery.

Risking public safety, for example, by cutting funding for police and firefighters or leaving families out in the cold this winter by cutting heating assistance to low-income seniors--these are not American values. They are not the best way to solve our fiscal challenge. The truth is that those programs specifically have already been cut more than I would ever have liked to have seen. The Budget Control Act passed last year made a dramatic $1 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade, which fell like an ax on some community-based programs on which Delaware families depend and which I used as county executive, in partnership with our community, to fight for the disabled for affordable housing and for low-income heating assistance programs.

So let's not let this moment pass us by. Let's instead seize the opportunity before us and start finding areas where, across the aisle and between the Chambers of the Senate and the House, we can agree. One of those areas of agreement is the need to extend tax cuts for the middle class, for families and small businesses still working their way out of the deep hole of the financial collapse of 2008 and still making their way through this recovery.

No one from either party, from the House, the Senate, or any State in this country, wants to raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses and families like Deborah's.

Deborah is a single mother in Wilmington, DE--my hometown--who is working a full-time job and a part-time job on top of that just to make ends meet. She wrote to my office, concerned about tax increases and the fiscal cliff. She said that ``the middle class is the heart and soul of this country--what keeps it going--what else can we be hit with? I know that I cannot take on any more financially.''

So my first call today is let's give Deborah and families like hers in Delaware and around the country the certainty, before we end this calendar year, of knowing their taxes will not go up in 26 days when the calendar turns to 2013. One way to do that is for the House to take up and pass legislation this body has already considered and passed in a bipartisan way that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses while also achieving nearly $1 trillion in debt and deficit reduction.

This bill extends tax cuts that would otherwise expire for all Americans who earn income and for all small businesses that earn revenue but just on the first $200,000 of individual income or $250,000 in family income.

Tax rates on income over and above $\1/4\ million a year would revert to the levels of the Clinton administration, the time of enormous economic growth and prosperity.

This one step would blunt the impact of the fiscal cliff for the vast majority of Americans and give them the certainty they so badly need. It would also be a serious downpayment on meaningful deficit reduction and ensure that our budget more closely reflects our values, our fundamental belief in the American dream and that if you work hard, you can still get ahead.

Leading Republicans in the House and the Senate, including Senator Snowe and Congressman Cole, have urged the House to move forward and pass this bill to provide badly needed security and certainty to middle-class families before the end of this year. I join their call, but let's not stop there. Let's keep going and find additional areas of compromise and constructive common ground to provide the business community with the certainty they need to plan the deployment and investment of capital so they can get Americans back to work. This would provide the market with certainty to sustain this recovery, while continuing to invest in our future. This would help families who need to know their budget future and need to be able to have confidence to take risks, to invest in growth. They want to educate their children, to buy a larger home, to take care of their children and their parents. To find the kind of balanced, bipartisan, long-term solution we need is to find a solution to all of these problems.

It is only by coming together over the next few weeks--not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans--that we can avoid a fiscal calamity that was entirely predictable. This is the result of a decade of unresolved budget fighting in this Chamber. For both parties, simply blaming the other side and waiting for the next election to give us a stronger mandate is no longer a tolerable or sustainable path forward. Working together is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.

Americans have faced tough times before, but our strength has always been our unity and our ability to come together. It is my hope, my prayer, that faced with the challenge of the impending fiscal cliff, we can do it again.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to enter into a colloquy with the senior Senator from Delaware.

Madam President, as anyone who has looked at the beautiful

Delaware flag knows--and it flies in our offices and hallways here--it has a date emblazoned on the bottom--December 7, 1787, and that is known as Delaware Day. That is the day when Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution. So to celebrate Delaware Day, we do some things together, don't we?

We are looking forward to doing that in just a few minutes, actually. We have Dogfish Head Beer, we have Grottos pizza, and Capriotti subs, and dozens of restaurateurs and breweries and wineries from across Delaware--in age-appropriate settings--who will make available some of the finest of what Delaware has to offer. So it is my hope members of staff and our colleagues will join in the celebration of Delaware Day.

One of the questions folks who are listening might have is: What about Delaware are you celebrating? It is, in my experience--and I believe my colleague's--a State that is not just the First State because of a wonderful accident of history, where we were the first State to have the vision and the courage to sign the Constitution, to ratify it, but it is also a State that has a nearly unique culture--a culture of respect, of innovation, of education, and of civility. It is a place that has a special, even a unique political culture, one that is at times the polar opposite of what I have seen here--forgive me, Madam President--in the last 2 years. Delaware, much like New Hampshire, feels and seems like a small town that is, through the magic of federalism and the Connecticut Compromise and the Continental Congress, a State with two Senators.

One of the things I am proudest of about my State--and Senator Carper knows this well--is a tradition that just celebrated its 200th anniversary. It is the epitome of what we call the Delaware Way. It is a tradition that happens 2 days after every election. It is called Return Day, and it happens in Georgetown, which is the county seat of our southernmost county, Sussex County. What happens 2 days after the election--or the first thing that happens, because there are a lot of different pieces to it--is we all gather out at a local farm, and two by two--ark rules--the candidates who ran against each other in the general election get into horse-drawn carriages and ride--slowly--down the main streets of Georgetown where crowds of thousands come out to see the candidates, who just days before were engaged in vigorous political combat, being polite, being friendly, and waving to the crowds.

What happens after that, I ask Senator Carper?

Whether it is the reception in the morning, the long carriage ride through the middle of Georgetown, the speeches on the podium, the announcement of the results, the literal burying of the hatchet, or the receptions that go on all afternoon and into the night, the experience of Return Day for me--and I believe for my colleague Senator Carper--has been one of reconciliation, one of moving past the election and then forward toward the challenge of making decisions together for the people we represent.

Everybody shows up--the winners and the losers. It is only the sorest of losers who don't show up and only the most arrogant of winners who don't show up. So, frankly, it is almost always everybody. In the elections I have been blessed to stand in and be successful in for the people of Delaware, the Return Day is a great end to the campaign season and beginning of our season of service to the people of Delaware.

So as we go from the floor now to the reception in honor of Delaware Day, I want to say how grateful I am to serve with my senior Senator, who has always been personally a model of the civility, of graciousness, and of the service that marks the Delaware Way and marks Delaware Day which we celebrate officially tomorrow but which we kick off tonight with a reception.

I thank my colleague.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address a challenging situation in Mali. Mali is a west African country, a country of nearly \1/2\ million square miles, a vast country that stretches from the Sahara Desert to the Niger River area and is home to roughly 15 million people. Yet it is not at the top of the list of concerns for many Americans.

This spring, back in March, a rogue element in Mali's security forces launched a coup and forcefully overthrew a longstanding, democratically elected government in the nation of Mali, our ally. This may seem inconsequential to the average American, but it could have big implications for our security, as well that of our regional and global allies, because in the power vacuum created in that spring coup, al- Qaida saw an opportunity, and they stepped in. Three different extremist groups, all linked to or controlled by al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb, or AQIM, now control an area the size of Texas in the northern part of Mali. They succeeded in fracturing a formerly stable democracy and contributing to broad security, political, and humanitarian crises that I believe have grave implications for the Sahel region and for America's interests. To put it simply, this matters.

Mali, a relatively strong democracy for more than two decades and an ally

to the United States, is now embroiled in turmoil. The United States, in partnership with the international community, must show leadership in helping it rebuild its democracy and restore its territorial integrity by reclaiming northern Mali from terrorists and extremists. So this morning, as the chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, I chaired a hearing to assess the developments and the path forward for U.S. policy in Mali.

What I heard from our experts, from the Department of Defense, from the State Department, from the USAID, as well as a range of outside experts and one witness who testified from Bamako, the capital of Mali, was of real concern to me.

Northern Mali today is the largest terrorist-controlled area in the world. In the north, extremists have imposed a harsh and strict version of Sharia or Islamic law and committed gross violations of human rights. Many folks have heard of Timbuktu but don't know that it is an ancient city in northern Mali, a site where these Islamic extremists have behaved much as the Taliban did in Afghanistan before 9/11. They destroyed sacred religious and historic artifacts in Timbuktu, imposing a harsh version of Sharia that has meant amputations, stonings, violations of women's rights of free speech, religious exercise of rights, fundamentally changing the tolerance and exclusive history of Mali.

This created a humanitarian crisis as more than 400,000 Malians have fled, either internally displaced within Mali or going into neighboring countries as refugees.

With growing ties between these terrorists and Nigeria, Libya, and throughout the region, AQIM, we believe, may now use its safe haven in northern Mali to plan for regional or transnational terrorist attacks. Just as we should not have ignored developments in Afghanistan, which seemed a remote and troubled country when the Taliban took it over more than a dozen years ago, so too we would ignore the chaos in northern Mali at our peril.

In fact, Secretary Clinton has said that Mali has now become a powder keg of potential instability in the region and beyond. The top American military commander in Africa, GEN Carter Ham, said publicly just this week that al-Qaida is operating terrorist camps in northern Mali and is providing arms, explosives, and financing to other terrorist groups in the region. So I believe it is critical that the United States has a strong and comprehensive policy to deal with this threat.

I am concerned that the current U.S. approach may not be forward leaning enough to address all three crises--security, political, and humanitarian--in a coordinated, comprehensive, and effective way at the same time. Given the compelling U.S. interest in stability, security, and good governance in Mali, we must ensure that we don't miss the bigger picture of what this situation means for the future of Mali, to our allies, and to our security.

The U.N. Security Council is now considering what they call a concept of operations for an African-led military operation. The United States can and should play a more active role in supporting this and preventing the country from becoming a permanent home for extremists and a safe haven for terrorists.

An active role does not mean putting American boots on the ground. Instead, we can provide operational support for a regionally led, multilateral, African-led force being organized by ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, and the African Union. In the weeks ahead the U.N. Security Council will likely vote on a resolution authorizing this coalition to lead a military intervention to dislodge the terrorists in the north. We have seen models like this work in Cote d'Ivoire and Somalia, so there is reason to believe in the potential of a regional military solution to the security crisis in the north.

However, even if this intervention works, it will take time to train, equip, and assemble the regional force and to develop the appropriate plans for what happens during and after a military intervention. Frankly, Mr. President, security and stability can't be restored to Mali with military action alone. The current crisis is as much about governance as it is about security. A stronger Malian democracy is the best way to ensure security and societal gains in the short term and the long term, but democracy doesn't just begin or end with an election.

One of the reasons Mali's democracy crumbled so quickly was that Malians didn't feel connected to, represented, or well served by their government. Voter turnout in the last few elections was lower and lower, with the government viewed as corrupt, social services not benefiting the relatively sparsely populated north, and institutions nationwide that were weak.

The political and security challenges in Mali are two sides of the same coin; they are not separate issues. I will urge that we break down silos between departments and agencies in our government and take a comprehensive view.

If we focus on the political only and insist on Mali moving forward briskly with an election even when the security situation will prevent most northern Malians from meaningfully participating, I think we risk unintentionally strengthening the hands of those who want to ensure that Mali's regional divide is permanent and hand a symbolic victory to al-Qaida.

On the other hand, if we rush forward with a security solution, with a regional military intervention before it is adequately planned, before they are responsibly trained and equipped, we risk defeat on that front as well.

I think we can and should do better. We can work closely with our allies, with regional partners in the international community to address all the security, political, and humanitarian crises unfolding in Mali. Effective, inclusive elections early next year should be one goal but not the only one. We also have to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis of the 400,0000 displaced persons and refugees, the more than 4.5 million people in need of emergency food aid in the region, and the security crisis of terrorists controlling an area this large.

To bring long-term peace and stability to Mali and to ensure northern Mali doesn't slide into being the base of operations for the next al- Qaida attack on our allies, our interests abroad, or even the United States, we can't afford to ignore any of the pieces of this complex puzzle. The United States simply cannot afford, despite the many distractions and other priorities facing us, to ignore Mali.

I pledge to work in close partnership with my colleagues in the Senate and with my friends on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure an effective engagement by the United States in this important area.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also thank Senator Kerry for his chairmanship on the Foreign Relations Committee and his leadership on this very important issue. I thank Senator Lugar as well. Both Senators, in combination, led strongly on this important issue.

Let me briefly add 2 minutes to the chorus on this floor today. First, as to the Senators who have spoken pointedly about their fears and their concerns about home schooling. I listened to their arguments while I was the Presiding Officer. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke passionately about his youngest daughter who homeschools her kids and about their fears that somehow this convention would hand the power to an unelected group of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children in Oklahoma.

I heard Senator Lee of Utah add a question to that negative chorus. He said, I have justifiable doubts that a U.N. committee in Geneva can judge the best interests of children in Utah.

I agree. This convention does nothing to empower an international convention of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children in Delaware, West Virginia, Indiana, or in Massachusetts.

I am, frankly, upset that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who homeschool their children all over this country. My own office has gotten dozens of calls and letters demanding that I vote against this convention. As a matter of international law and as a matter of U.S. law, this convention does nothing to change the home schooling of children in America; rather, it does something positive.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which was led so brilliantly in its ratification by Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Robert Dole, who was a central architect in the passage in this Chamber, stands as a great accomplishment in this country in our steady progress toward freedom and inclusion. This convention, ratified by this Senate, would allow our voice to be heard in an international forum all over the world. A billion citizens of this world live with disabilities every day, and our voice deserves to be heard.

When we open the Senate every day, we say the Pledge of Allegiance. At the end of it, we hold up to the world our standards: Liberty and justice for all. In this country, the Americans with Disabilities Act says we have accomplished real progress toward liberty for the disabled and justice for all. By ratifying this convention, our voice would be heard on these vital issues all over the world. It is a voice that deserves to be heard. I urge my colleagues to ratify the convention.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of amendment No. 3262, which I am honored to cosponsor with Senators McCain and Levin. I thank the Senators for their disciplined, diligent, and very strong leadership of this year's NDAA process. This is an authorization bill that has been taken up and considered by the Senate for 52 years, and despite a lot of challenges and a lot of difficulties we had getting to bills, getting past objections, getting to reasonable processes and amendments, these two fine Senators have led admirably in a very difficult environment.

This amendment does what I think we need to do next, to put before the Senate in an appropriate classified setting useful information about the possibilities before us and before our allies in a very difficult and very complex region that is, as Senator Paul has noted, currently undergoing dramatic conflict.

Let me speak to a few points that persuaded me to join Senator McCain and Senator Levin in cosponsoring this amendment.

First, despite the comments from my colleague from Kentucky, these plans will be delivered to the Senate in classified form. They will not be accessible to the general public, and they will not be broadcast to our opponents or those who might seek to learn about America's plans. They will only be delivered in classified form.

Second, and I think most important, it is explicit in this amendment that nothing in this section shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force. Senator Paul's repeated concerns that we are rushing headlong into an overengagement in a civil war that is best left to the people of Syria is reflected clearly and in plain language in that provision within this amendment.

Earlier today we took up and voted on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I spoke to this issue as well. Despite the plain language of that convention that would prevent it from having any of the noxious impacts it would have on families in the United States, despite the plain language of that convention and the various restrictions and reservations that were added to it, it would have no impact on homeschooling and no impact on reproductive rights in the United States. It would have no impact on any of the variety of things that were cast about on the floor of the Senate today. So, too, here we should not allow--despite this plain language--Senators to mislead our colleagues into thinking that somehow secretly embedded within this is an authorization for the use of force.

So what is this? This is asking that the United States, in consultation between the Department of Defense and this Senate, make reasonable assessments of what our path forward in dealing with the tragic situation in Syria might be. This amendment is clear that it will not consider ground troops being deployed onto Syrian territory. It will only look at a means that might be used by the United States or our allies to stop Assad's reckless, relentless criminal use of airpower to murder his own civilians and his own citizens.

I have been heartbroken as I have read account after account of jets and helicopters being used to stray from red lines, being used to bomb hospitals and schools, and of the thousands of innocents who have died.

The Syrian civil war is a very complex conflict. Senator Paul asked what I really think is the central question. He said: How can we be confident that the opposition will be tolerant, inclusive, peaceful, and that it will not prosecute or persecute Christians; that they will be an ally to Israel and not impose the sorts of threats and difficulties he cited from Libya, Egypt, and other countries? That is exactly the core question at issue for us going forward: Should the United States stand on the sidelines as Bashar al-Assad massacres tens of thousands more of his civilians or should we consider what ways we can be involved through providing humanitarian assistance?

Should we support our regional allies, Turkey and Jordan, through multilateral engagement, supporting Turkey's request to NATO for defensive material? Should we better learn and understand what the opposition on the ground is inclined to do and set clear standards for how, if they demonstrate they are reliable partners in pursuing peace and if they commit themselves to the elements of the national coalition and the Free Syrian Army and to being exactly what Senator Paul would hope--tolerant, inclusive, pro-democracy--why would we stand on the sidelines of history and allow Islamic extremists to instead write the future of the Syrian people?

For these and many reasons I am grateful for the opportunity to join with Senators McCain and Levin in cosponsoring this amendment.