Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LTCs Todd Ladwig and Victor Glover, Navy fellows in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the conference report of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, one of the most overused quotes about this town is Harry Truman's observation years ago that if you want a friend in Washington, go out and get a dog. I have spent a good many years here now. I suppose there is a little truth in that advice. Some Washington friendships are a little like temporary alliances between nations that for a brief period of time have mutual interests or enemies. But not all friendships here are like that, not all of them.

Today I say a formal fond farewell to a departing colleague whose friendship has been and will always be one of the greatest treasures of my life. My friend Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring from the Senate after 24 years of service. Of course, he is not leaving, nor will he ever leave, the affections of those of us who have come to value him so highly as a statesman and as a friend, but we will not see him around the place as much.

His office will not be near ours. We will not hear him speak from this floor

or in committee hearings. We will not have the daily benefit of his counsel and his example. We will miss his contributions to the Senate. We will miss his good humor, his wisdom, and sincerity, especially in those moments when we find ourselves again wrapped around the axle of partisanship and politics has taken primacy over the Nation's interests, when tempers are frayed and we are consumed with putting each other at a disadvantage. That is when we will miss him the most, on those occasions when Joe's thoughtfulness and patriotism stirred him to remind us again, as he did earlier this week, that the public trust and not our party's fortunes is our most important responsibility.

Joe's presence, his wit and courtesy and kindness have improved the conviviality of our institution. But more than that, he has set an example that I think our constituents surely wish more of us would emulate. It is his conscience and devotion to America, not his party affiliation, that has inspired his work.

He has been a very accomplished legislator and a recognized leader on national security issues. He is a nationally prominent politician, majority leader in his State senate, the attorney general of the State of Connecticut, elected to the Senate of the United States four times, a vice presidential nominee in the year 2000, a candidate for President, and I should probably add nearly a nominee for vice president again.

That he managed to achieve such prominence while being the least partisan politician I know is a credit to his character and to the exemplary quality of his public service and to the public's too often frustrated desire for leaders who seek office to do something, not just to be someone.

He has been a tireless advocate for the rights of the oppressed, the misfortunate, the disenfranchised, and tireless too in his concern for the security of the United States, for the strength of our alliances, the excellence of our Armed Forces, and the global progress of our values. He came here to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God.

It is hard to find anyone here who does not like and admire Joe. He is impossible to dislike, even if one only knows him a little. Most of his detractors seem to be people who do not know him and who tend to view people very strictly through the perspectives of their ideology and partisan identity. The only thing to resent about Joe Lieberman is that he is so damn considerate of everyone that you can find yourself feeling a little ashamed when he catches you raising your voice to someone or behaving in other ways that fall short of his unfailing graciousness.

He is not an easy example to emulate. I have fallen short of his standard more often than I care to concede. But I know, as I suspect most of us know, that our constituents deserve and our country needs more public officials who keep their priorities in the right order, as Joe always has, and who offer their respect for their colleagues without expecting anything in return but our respect.

We spent a lot of time together, Joe and I. We have traveled many thousands of miles together. We have attended scores of international conferences together, met with dozens of world leaders, with human rights activists, and the occasional autocrat. We have visited war zones, shared the extraordinary experience with equal parts gratitude and awe of talking with and hearing from the Americans who risk everything so the rest of us may be secure in our freedom.

I have been able to study Joe at close quarters. He has never failed to impress me as a dedicated public servant, a loyal friend, a considerate gentleman, a kind soul, and very good company. I have also been privileged to witness the sincerity of his faith. I have awaken in the middle of the night on a long plane ride to find Joe in his prayer shawl, talking to the God he tries very hard to serve faithfully every day. I have witnessed the lengths he goes to always keep the Sabbath, and occasionally I have even filled in as his Shabbos goy. I have enjoyed every minute of our travels together. He is a quality human being, and time spent in his company is never wasted.

I have worked with Joe on many issues and opposed him on more than a few. But I have always been just as impressed by him when we disagree as I am when we agree. He is always the same: good natured, gracious, and intent on doing his best by the people who sent him and the country he loves.

He is leaving the Senate, and I am going to miss him a lot. But I doubt any of the many friends he has made here will let him stray far from our attention. We will still rely on his wise counsel and warm friendship. I know I will. I hope we are not done traveling together. I hope to see him in other conferences and meetings abroad. I want to go back on the road and learn from him and just pretend he has not left the place that brought us together. He is as fine a friend as I have ever had and irreplaceable in my life and I cannot let him go.

Thank you, Joe, for all you have done for me; for your many kindnesses, your counsel, your company, and for teaching me how to be a better human being. I will see you again soon.

I yield the floor

Madam President, I would request we do as usual in morning business, back and forth, if that is all right, and I could follow the Senator from Louisiana.

Madam President, it is customary in the days before Congress adjourns--and I am still hopeful this Congress will eventually, mercifully adjourn--for Members to offer farewells and testimonials to departing colleagues. I rise today to say a few words about a Senator who is leaving us and whose example I esteem and friendship I have relied on for many years.

Senator Jon Kyl and I have served the State of Arizona together for a quarter of a century since Jon was first elected to the other body and I to the Senate in 1986. We have worked together in this body for the last 18 years. That is a long time to get to know someone with whom you share responsibilities to the State we are honored to represent, and I have gotten to know Jon very well over these many years. I can also say in all honesty that my admiration for him has grown

every single day I have been privileged to serve with him.

I share that admiration for Jon with the people of Arizona, who elected him to the Senate three times, and would have, I am sure, comfortably elected him to a fourth term had he sought reelection. Arizonans hold him in very high regard for a very obvious reason: He has been a very diligent, very effective advocate for their interests.

I have observed him closely as we tended to issues that might seem arcane and unglamorous to Senators from other States but are among the most important and often the most contentious issues to Arizonans-- issues such as land exchanges and water rights settlements. I have never failed to be impressed by the qualities Jon brings to these matters--his unflappable patience, his tireless work ethic, his careful attention to detail, his determination to be fair to all parties involved, and to achieve results that are in the best interests of our State of Arizona.

I have tried to learn from his example, and I wish I could say I have emulated him, but, regrettably, as Arizonans and my Senate colleagues can attest, I still possess a short supply of some of Jon's most conspicuous leadership qualities. His patience, for example, his meticulous preparation and thoroughness are, I am sorry to say, not qualities I will be remembered for, but they have been indispensable to the people of our State. It is fortunate for them and for me that States are represented by two Senators and that Arizonans have had Jon Kyl here to compensate for my shortcomings.

Jon works harder than almost any Member of Congress I know. We all joke about how we are often required to vote on legislation before we have had time to read it. But it is a poorly kept secret that we rarely, if ever, read from preamble to conclusion any of the bills we consider, even if we have had months to do so. Jon does, though. He reads them. When you debate with him over legislation, you better know what you are talking about, because he does and he is almost always better prepared than you are not only to explain his argument but to explain yours as well. He often writes the bills he sponsors, work that most of us almost happily rely on staff to perform. He takes his responsibilities as the author of legislation literally, rather than figuratively, as most of us do.

It is hard to imagine where he finds the time to hold himself to such exacting standards of responsibility, but he does, often working late into the night after the rest of us have gone home, when he reads bills and writes them and tends personally to the concerns of his constituents. He is a Senator's Senator. He is principled, purposeful, informed, collaborative, and able to get things done by cooperation and compromise without ever sacrificing the principles that motivate his public service. He would rather reason with opponents than insult them. He prefers accomplishments to acclaim.

It is little wonder then why our caucus elected and reelected him to our leadership. He has the complete confidence of every one of us. He is an easy man to trust with leadership responsibilities. He is scrupulous in his attention to his responsibilities and fair-minded in use of authority. He has strong views on issues and advocates for them effectively. But if he can't persuade some members of our caucus to agree with him, he will do all he can to defend our rights to be heard and have our position considered fully by the Senate.

I think Members on both sides of the aisle would testify to Jon's fairness, collegiality, and effectiveness. I think we would all testify too to the credit his service has reflected on the Senate, a place we all love but which we must admit doesn't always function as well or as congenially as we would like, a failing that has not escaped the notice of the American people. Were Jon the kind of politician who worried more about his press than his responsibilities to his constituents, his colleagues, and his country, I think many Americans would recognize him as the kind of Senator they wished there were more of here.

It has been my privilege to work with Jon not only on issues of unique importance to the State of Arizona but on many of national importance. We worked together on comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. None of the sponsors of the legislation, including myself and my friend, the late Senator Kennedy, was more instrumental in forging the compromises necessary to put that bipartisan bill together or more diligent and effective in defending it in debate.

I was running for President that year and often away from the Senate. In addition to all the work Jon did to write the bill with Senator Kennedy and others, and seek support for it in both Houses, he had to assume many of my responsibilities as well. He did a better job with them than I did, and though we fell short of success, Jon deserves none of the blame for failure and much of the credit for making the bill as broadly bipartisan as it was and for providing the framework for what will be the kind of compromise I hope and believe we will get to the President's desk in the next Congress.

Longevity in public office isn't always that important a distinction. I have served one term more than Jon and for that minor accomplishment I am referred to as the senior Senator from Arizona. But honestly, I have always looked up to Jon as my senior. He has been my leader, my senior partner in much of the work we have done in Arizona, my friend, and one of the people I most look up to in this place, an example of selfless, capable, honorable public service.

He is leaving the Senate, and he will have time now to spend with his lovely wife Caryll, his son and daughter and his grandchildren. He will have more time too to hike his beloved White Mountains. I envy him that. But I think we would all concede the Senate will miss him, and I will miss him particularly.

Thank you, my friend, for your service, your example, and your friendship. It has been a privilege.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation in order so I could send an amendment to the desk?

I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

This is McCain-Coburn amendment No. 3355. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3355.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. It calls for striking the funding of some $58 million for the USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property. It is actually a farm bill subsidy program that is run by a relatively unknown agency that is called the Farm Service Administration, which is primarily responsible for managing crop insurance.

Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting activities. Obviously, this has nothing to do with an emergency, and there is nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to Hurricane Sandy areas. Under this bill, this $58 million can be used just about anywhere.

I would like to make a few remarks about the bill itself so we have this in the right context.

First of all, I want our colleagues--everyone--to understand there are none of us who do not support--there is no one who does not support--giving the much needed funding as quickly as possible to help relieve the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy, and we believe there are important parts of this appropriations bill that we should pass immediately. But we also believe there are many provisions in this bill that both have nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy and many of the programs in this bill will not even take effect before the year 2015. We are about to reach the year 2013. We cannot consider this much needed appropriation outside the context that we now have nearly a $17 trillion debt, and, obviously, this $60 billion is now going to be added to the debt because none of it is paid for.

Let's be clear about this. Every one of my colleagues on this side of the aisle wants to act quickly to provide much needed relief for the people who have been impacted by the horrible effects of Hurricane Sandy. But we cannot consider this legislation in a vacuum. We are looking at a $17 trillion debt--somewhere between $16 and $17 trillion. We have committed generational theft. We have mortgaged our

children's and our grandchildren's future. So we must be very careful as to how much more of the taxpayers' dollars are spent. For what? When is this money necessary? Those are the questions this body should be asking itself.

I would argue there are a whole lot of billions of dollars in this bill that fit into the categories of, one, not necessary as a result of the impact of Hurricane Sandy and certainly not an emergency situation.

I would like to go over some of the projects that are in this bill, and some of them hold merit. Some of the projects in this bill are very meritorious. It goes way beyond emergency aid and funds projects, as I said. At a time when we face these deficits, we cannot justify this spending. Again, I wish to emphasize some of the projects are meritorious, but they should go through the normal budget and appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for such spending requests.

The CBO examined both the Senate bill and the administration's request and found--and this is from the Congressional Budget Office--64 percent of the funds appropriated under the Sandy supplemental will not be spent until fiscal years 2015 to 2022 and after, therefore, raising concerns about the rush to spend $60.4 billion without any attempt to pay for it.

Two weeks ago, FEMA Director Fugate told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the Disaster Relief Fund currently has enough money and will not need additional funding until the spring of 2013. CBO's assessment, combined with the statement of Director Fugate, clearly shows we need to pass a Sandy supplemental bill that only includes prioritized disaster aid funding.

I and my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, have been examining this bill over the last few days, and I will tell my colleagues, we have not gotten all the way through it. We have not identified a lot of these spending bills--what they are for and where they came from. The appropriators and their staff I always admire. They have turned it into an art form, and our ability to ferret out some of these appropriations has required a great deal of hard work and effort.

We have billions to replace ``Federal assets'' damaged by the storm, including automobiles owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles. Do you think we could find replacements within our own inventory, the current inventory? Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrats' car?

There is $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, DC, while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no permanent roof over their own heads.

There is $150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path as Mississippi and Alaska.

There is $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and droughts for areas, including Colorado, and, by the way, including my own State of Arizona. That money is needed. It is needed. We are having wildfires across the Southwest and the West in an unprecedented fashion because we are in severe drought, and I want that money for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program. But it has nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. That is what is wrong with this bill. I will fight for the $125 million that would help my State of Arizona, and I will fight to find ways to pay for it. I will do both. But we are including $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which is several hundred miles away from the path of Hurricane Sandy.

There is $20 million for a nationwide Water Resources Priorities Study. While studies are important, they are not emergencies and should be submitted during the upcoming budget debate.

We badly need a water resources priorities study. There was just a recent study about the Colorado River basin and how we are going to run out of water. But, again, the water resources priorities study is not associated with Hurricane Sandy.

There is $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane minimal. One day after the storm hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.'' Does this mean we need $15 million for NASA's facilities?

There is $336 million for taxpayer-supported Amtrak without a detailed plan for how the money will be spent. Some of the funding will go for repairs. Money will also go to increasing capacity and future mitigation efforts. Amtrak is up and running. We can go right over here--not very far from here--to Union Station and get on Amtrak. It is not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and included in this spending package. Further mitigation should be debated next year.

The dirty little secret is that Amtrak loses billions of dollars every year. That is because we subsidize unneeded and unnecessary routes. The route on the east coast from here to New York, for example, makes money. But we cling to those routes that neither make money nor does anybody care to patronize.

There is $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers--more than the Army Corps of Engineers' annual budget. With no clarity as to how the money will be spent. Included in the Senate bill is $50 million in funding for more studies, which will most definitely lead to additional Army Corps projects and a new task force established by executive order.

More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental spending on the Army Corps has not paid off.

The bill includes $12 to $13 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it. I think we need future disaster mitigation activities. We need studies. We are experiencing climate situations which we never anticipated. Certainly Hurricane Sandy was never anticipated by any of us. We need the studies. But that is not an emergency to handle the effects of Hurricane Sandy and should come out of normal funding and be paid for. I support these studies. But should they come out of the taxpayers' pocket without a way to pay for it?

There is no justification to include these projects in this emergency spending bill. Waiting to fund these projects until next year during the normal budget and appropriations process, we will have a better understanding of the path forward and reduce the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse.

There is $10 million to improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure. Mr. President, $10 million to improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure--do we truly need to include that in an emergency funding bill for Hurricane Sandy? As I mentioned at the beginning, at some point we are going to have to start paying for things. At some point we are going to run out of Chinese money. At some point we are going to be like Greece. At some point the American people are going to say ``enough.'' Every American family has to balance their budget. Every American family has to make tough decisions. Why don't we make some tough decisions if we want to have things paid for such as weather capabilities, such as Amtrak, such as replacing Federal assets, buying vehicles when we have 660,000 vehicles in the inventory? Why don't we start making tough decisions?

I often mention that the approval rating we have from the American people is rather interestingly low. The last one I saw was an 11- percent approval rating. No wonder--no wonder--we are about, in a matter of literally hours, to spend about $60 billion of the American taxpayers' money--estimates by some are it should be around $24 billion--without hearings, without the kinds of

scrutiny it deserves in the normal appropriations process.

I understand why we need some of this money in an emergency fashion. But it is akin to the train leaving the station. It is loaded with pork and it is moving and so everybody wants to get on board. It is not the way the Congress should do business.

So, Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, which is to strike funding for $58 million for the tree planting subsidy known as the Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property.

I am asking for the yeas and nays.

OK. Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

I thank the majority leader. Today, the Senate lost, America, and especially his beloved citizens of Hawaii lost a unique, brave, wonderful legislator, a man who brought to this institution the most unique credentials I would argue probably of anyone who has ever served in this pretty diverse body.

Dan Inouye was born of Japanese parents who came to Hawaii, as many Japanese did in that period of time at the turn of the century, to work in the pineapple fields and agriculture, which was a fundamental of the economy for the State of Hawaii. Their conditions were not good. They worked hard. But they raised their families with pride, with dignity and honor, and were proud to call themselves Americans.

Dan Inouye was as proud as any. As we know, one of the most shameful chapters of American history took place during World War II when an incredible act of injustice took place. The United States of America decided to intern Japanese Americans who lived in California. They were put into internment camps because they happened to be Japanese Americans, not because they had done anything wrong, not that they did not love America, but because they happened to be Japanese Americans. By the way, some of those internment camps were in my home State of Arizona. Conditions were not terrible, but they were not good. People were incarcerated because they happened to be ethnic Japanese.

In Hawaii, there was a group of young Japanese Americans who decided that they wanted to serve their country and they wanted to serve in uniform. One of the most well-known and famous and most highly decorated units of the entire World War II was the battalion in which Dan Inouye served. They were in many of the most gruesome and difficult blood lettings of the entire conflict as the American forces fought their way up through Italy against a very well trained, very well equipped, professional German opposition. Dan Inouye was a proud member of this battalion. In fierce combat, Dan Inouye was gravely wounded on the battlefield. He was brought home. He, as we all know, lost his arm as a result of one of the wounds he sustained.

Interestingly and coincidentally, he went to a veterans hospital in Chicago where a person in the same ward, was a American Army second lieutenant who had also been wounded seriously in Italy, one Bob Dole-- 2LT Bob Dole of Kansas. And there began a friendship that lasted to this day, both gravely wounded, both dedicated more than ever to serve their country. Both served with distinction. The friendship, the bonds of friendship that were forged in that hospital between Bob Dole and Dan Inouye were unique and enduring.

So Dan Inouye returned to his beloved Hawaii. The story goes--and I do not know if it is true or not--the story goes that a Dan Inouye went down to join the veterans organization, and when he applied for membership, he was told that the only members they took in that organization were Caucasian.

Dan Inouye decided that he wanted to continue to serve his country and the State of Hawaii. He was the first Senator from the State of Hawaii and has served longer than any Senator in this institution. He was loved by all of us. I did not always agree with Dan. Occasionally, we had differences about how we use appropriations bills. No one--no one ever, ever accused Dan Inouye of partnership or unfairness.

He loved Native Americans, and he loved his Hawaiians. One of the more rewarding periods of my time here in the Senate was being on the Indian Affairs Committee under his chairmanship. Very important pieces of legislation came out of that committee. It was a great honor for me to have the privilege to serve with Dan Inouye. He loved Native Americans. He knew that Native Americans had been wronged in our history. He knew that solemn treaties must be honored by our government even if those treaties sometimes meant that there would be significant expenditures of America's tax dollars.

Have no doubt that our treatment of Native Americans and the treatment of Native Hawaiians is not the most glorious chapter in American history when we look back at what happened to the proud Native Americans, the Native Hawaiians as their civilization collided with the civilization that came to the United States of America from around the world.

Dan Inouye fought for the things he believed in and the principles that he held dear. He held nothing more dear than the glory of being able to serve people who needed to be served.

Dan Inouye will be missed. There will not be another like him. There will not be another Senator literally deprived of his rights. There will not be another Senator who will serve in length and with the dedication that Dan Inouye served this Senate and his beloved Hawaii. So we will all miss Dan Inouye. I hope from time to time, with the bitter partisanship that exists here sometimes in the Senate, maybe we could use Dan Inouye's record as an example of bipartisan, of friendship, of a willingness to reach across the aisle and work with the other side; it characterized Dan Inouye's record here in the Senate.

For some reason, when I heard and thought about Dan's passing today, I was reminded of another person who died and is buried on the island of Samoa, and his poem is inscribed on his gravestone as an epitaph. I think it applies to our dear and beloved friend who passed today. It was by Robert Lewis Stevenson. I quote:

Under the wide and starry sky,

Dig the grave and let me lie.

Glad did I live and gladly die,

And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you 'grave for me:

Here he lies where he longed to be;

Home is the sailor, home from the sea,

And the hunter home from the hill.

I see my dear and beloved friend, the other Senator from Hawaii, Dan Akaka, on the floor.

I thank you, Danny, and God bless.

Mr. President, I do not intend to object to the request of the Senator from Washington, and I do not object to the policy provision of this bill at this time. But I strongly object to the Senator seeking to fund these new veterans benefits out of the Department of Defense budget that funds the needs of our military men and women serving in combat overseas.

The cost of Senator Murray's bill, provided by the Congressional Budget Office, is $568 million over 5 years. To cover that cost, Senator Murray proposes to strip $568 million from wartime funding for troops in Afghanistan over the next 5 years without even considering the impact of that cut on their safety and security. This is preposterous. This bill assumes that Congress will still be passing emergency spending bills for Afghanistan 5 years from now, and somehow our troops will be able to bear the risk of having hundreds of millions siphoned from their critical needs for a program that has nothing to do with the war they are currently engaged in. Every dollar requested in the defense budget for our combat forces will be needed to keep them adequately equipped, armed, and engaged in defeating the enemy and coming home with honor.

The proposed offset for this new program is an irresponsible budget gimmick designed to shift the funding burden for these new benefits from VA to DOD. Funding for the DOD Overseas Contingency Operations fund is within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, and should be considered by the full Senate, rather than slipped into a reported bill at the last minute without debate or discussion.

I also am surprised that Senator Murray, a vocal supporter of improving the welfare of our troops, would actually propose cuts to funding for our combat troops without even assessing the impact of those cuts. The job of making that assessment lies within the Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction, and I will seek to ensure that the Senate has an opportunity to make that assessment before passing any legislation that attempts to shift defense dollars from the direct combat needs of our Armed Forces to any new benefits or policies.

Mr. President, I will have a lot more to say about my friend from Connecticut in the next few days. In the meantime, I wish to thank him for a very important, a very visionary, and very wonderful statement. We thank him for it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how about 1 p.m.?

Mr. President, may I ask my friend from Maryland if he has spoken on the Magnitsky portion of this bill?

Mr. President, I also note several of our friends, including Senator Lieberman, who are on the floor. Senator Lieberman also has had a major role in this legislation, and I would ask unanimous consent that he be included in the colloquy.

Mr. President, I ask my friend, Senator Cardin, I had a statement I wanted to make before the colloquy and I know the Senator has a statement. Since it is his legislation, I would be glad to wait with my remarks until the Senator from Maryland completes his. And how much time, could I ask, of my colleague?

And I would have about 10 minutes, if that is agreeable to my friend from Connecticut--who, obviously, is jobless and homeless. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland make his remarks, followed by mine, and then the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 6156--the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. This day has been a long time in coming, and the fact that it has now come is thanks to the great work of many of my colleagues, and I want to take a minute to recognize a few of them personally.

First and foremost is the Senator from Maryland. It is not an exaggeration in the least to say that, were it not for Senator Cardin's leadership on behalf of human rights in Russia and his tireless dedication to memorializing the courageous dissent of one remarkable man--Sergei Magnitsky--we would not be here today. Senator Cardin is the original author of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. He passionately educated his colleagues about the need for this legislation, which is why it eventually won 25 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate. The Senator from Maryland has my deepest respect and gratitude for his efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia. He has established himself as a leading voice in our country on these issues. I have been honored to be his partner in this endeavor from the very beginning as the original lead Republican co-sponsor of the Magnitsky Act. And when this legislation is passed, as I am confident that it will be, Senator Cardin deserves all the credit in the world for this historic achievement.

I also want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Montana. I appealed to Senator Baucus last year to join the Magnitsky Act together with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova and the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to both countries. He agreed, and in a letter to me, as well as a few of my colleagues, the Senator from Montana pledged to marry the 2 pieces of legislation together and to do everything in his power to see that the Senate could act on them together. He has been true to his word at every step of the way, and I am pleased to stand here today as an original co-sponsor of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova, as well as the Magnitsky Act.

Finally, the person I want to acknowledge above all is Sergei Magnitsky--whose remarkable life and tragic death is the reason that brings us here today. Sergei Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in Russia. He did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian government. He was an ordinary man, but he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness and the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning.

What Mr. Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian government in turn blamed the crime

on Hermitage Capital and threw Mr. Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Mr. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials pressured him to deny what he had uncovered--to lie and recant. But he refused. He was sickened by what his government had done, and he refused to surrender principle to brute power.

As a result, Mr. Magnitsky was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and drink unsanitary water. He was denied basic medical care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in increasingly worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.

What is even more tragic is that the case of Mr. Magnitsky is only one of the most extreme examples of the broad and dramatic deterioration of rule of law in Russia, and its replacement with arbitrary and nearly unchecked state power, which is increasingly concentrated in the hands of one man, President Vladimir Putin.

What is emerging in Russia today can only be described as a culture of impunity--a sense among those who control the levers of power that Russia is theirs for the taking, and the only question left to debate is how government officials and other elites will divide up the wealth, the power, and the spoils. This culture of impunity begins, first and foremost, with President Putin. He sets the tone in the country. And right now, with his return to the presidency, and with many of the actions that the Russian government has taken recently, the signal is being sent across the country, especially to every petty tyrant and aspiring autocrat in the Russian state, that Putin is doing what he wishes. He is using the instruments of the state to crush his critics. He is getting away with it. And you can too.

This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse over many years. It has been deepened by the increased surveillance and harassment of members of opposition and civil society groups . . . by the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the truth about official corruption and other state crimes in Russia today . . . and of course, by the continued detention of numerous political prisoners, not least Mikhail Khordokovsky and his associate Platon Lebedev, who remain locked away but not forgotten. I continue to fear for the health and safety of both men. And I pray for them.

The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in Russia's recent elections--the parliamentary election last December and the presidential election in March--which were criticized for their flaws and irregularities by impartial, objective international organizations. It can be seen in the recent NGO law passed by the Russian legislature, which requires any civil society group in Russia that receives international funding to register as a ``foreign agent.'' The vast majority of these civil society groups have nothing to do with politics. Clearly, the intent of this law is nothing less than to demonize, and marginalize, and stigmatize as treasonous whatever independent civil society organizations still remain in Russia.

The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in the government's new and growing interpretation of its law against extremism. A law that may once have been designed to address real concerns with terrorism and violent extremism is now being broadened to put pressure on civil society groups and religious minority groups, even including the Jehovah's Witnesses. A Russian court even went so far as to classify as an extremist organization the punk rock band of Russian girls that staged a protest performance this year in Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. Any media outlet in Russia that would dare to broadcast this group's material could now be subject to having their outfit closed down by the Russian state.

This culture of impunity was extended even further last month in Russia's new law against treason. That term has now been defined so broadly that it allows the state to ban websites and impose fines, and likely worse penalties, against Russians who participate in unregistered demonstrations, who fail to register as foreign agents where now required under Russian law, and even to those who are suspected of giving advice to foreigners. Many Russians rightly believe that this new treason law is so expansive that the government can use it to stifle the legitimate rights and freedoms of anyone they deem to be an enemy of the state.

This culture of impunity also extends to the recent decision by the Russian government to terminate the presence and all programming of USAID in Russia. Whatever the stated reason for this decision, there should be no doubt why it was done--to try to further isolate, and marginalize, and emasculate civil society groups in Russia by denying them an ability to work in partnership with the United States, as many of these groups have freely done and wish to continue doing.

Ultimately, this culture of impunity in Russia is why Sergei Magnitsky is dead. That is why, even now, no one has yet been held accountable for his murder. And I suspect no one ever will. What is worse, the Russian government has done the opposite: It has put Sergei Magnitsky, a dead man, on trial, perhaps in an effort to prove that he got what he deserved. They have even required Mr. Magnitsky's mother and family to appear at the trial, which sinks this case to a whole new low. This culture of impunity is why videos are surfacing even now that document the brutal conditions of Russia's prison system, and the systematic abuse and torture to which detainees are subjected there at the hands of midlevel tyrants who want to run their small part of the Russian state just as their president does.

This is why we need to pass the Magnitsky Act. If citizens and civil society groups in Russia do not have a path to justice in Russia, then the international community has a responsibility to show these people that there can still be accountability, that there can still be consequences, for what they are suffering.

The Magnitsky Act does that. And I want to be clear: What is so important about this legislation is that its provisions would not simply apply to those Russian officials responsible for the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky; it would also apply to other persons in Russia who commit human rights abuses. In short, this is not just about historical accountability; it is also about preventing future Magnitsky cases. It is about imposing consequences on all human rights violators in Russia.

The allegation that this legislation infringes on Russian sovereignty is nonsense. The Magnistsky Act does not require the Russian government or Russian citizens to do anything they do not wish to do. It cannot force human rights abusers in Russia to stop what they are doing. But if they continue, what this legislation does do is tell those individuals that they cannot bank their money in the United States, that they are not welcome in this country, that they cannot visit this country, and that they will have no access to the U.S. financial system.

Now, I know we have had a debate about whether to make this bill globally applicable--a tool that could be used to apply these same kinds of penalties to human rights abusers anywhere in the world. This is a worthy goal, and I believe we should have such a debate in the next Congress. It is important now, however, that the Magnitsky Act remain focused squarely and exclusively on Russia. That is what Russian democrats and civil society groups tell me they want right now. They want Congress to send their government a message on human rights, and by keeping the Magnitsky Act focused for now on Russia, we can do just that.

Furthermore, the administration can use its own executive authority at this time to apply similar kinds of pressures contained in the Magnitsky Act to human rights abusers in other countries. I, for one, will be watching closely to see if they do, for many other cases are crying out for greater U.S. leadership on behalf of human rights. And if the administration does not take the initiative to apply the leverage at our disposal to these other cases beyond Russia, that is the surest way to ensure that the Congress will act to globalize the Magnitsky Act next year.

There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti- Russia. I

disagree. I believe it is pro-Russia. I believe it is pro-Russia because this legislation is about the rule of law, and human rights, and accountability, which are values that Russians hold dear. I believe it is pro-Russia because it does not make all Russians pay for the crimes of a small handful of corrupt officials, and in this way, the Magnitsky Act is an improvement on Jackson-Vanik and an ideal replacement for it. I believe the Magnitsky Act is pro-Russia in the same way that Permanent Normal Trade Relations is also pro-Russia-- because both measures are ultimately about strengthening ordinary Russians who long for greater opportunity, greater freedom, and greater protections for their rights under the rule of law.

I am not under any illusion that the passage of either the Magnitsky Act or PNTR for Russia will ensure the success of rule of law in Russia. Not at all. But while both measures are very different and present very different kinds of benefits to the Russian people--one a material benefit, the other a moral benefit--both of these measures, I firmly believe, are nonetheless beneficial to Russia. Both create high standards to which we and others can hold the Russian government, both on the trade front and on matters of human rights. Both provisions create levers for international accountability where few currently remain in Russia. In other words, the Magnitsky Act and PNTR for Russia can serve as tools that will help to empower ordinary Russians who do not want their lives or their livelihoods to be determined solely by the predatory elites in the Russian state.

Ultimately, passing this legislation will place the United States squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads. I remind my colleagues that today is the anniversary of the massive protests that rocked Russia one year ago. As I have said before, I do not believe that the demand for freedom and dignity that have so profoundly shaken the Arab world are unique to that part of the world. I think the effects of these upheavals will be global, because the values and aspirations at their heart are universal. I think this makes Mr. Putin and his cronies very nervous--and it should. The desire for peaceful change and democratic and legal reform can be delayed for a time. They can be delayed, but they cannot be denied. This legislation is a vote in favor of a brighter, better future for the Russian people--a future that they can determine, freely and independently, for themselves.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not conclude with a word on Moldova, because this legislation would also take the long overdue step of repealing Jackson-Vanik for Moldova and granting it Permanent Normal Trade Relations as well. This should have been done years ago. I have been an advocate for this action for many years. I have continually insisted that the Congress should not be allowed to pass PNTR for Russia without doing the same for Moldova. That was a condition of my co-sponsorship of this legislation, and I am proud that the Senate is now on the verge of clearing the way for normal trade relations between the United States and Moldova. That small country has taken enormous strides toward democratic and economic reform, and toward deeper integration in the European community. Passing this legislation will be a critical vote of confidence in Moldova's political and economic reforms and in support of its democratic future.

For all of these reasons, and for the many more that I have listed with regards to Russia, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Finally, I say to my three colleagues on the floor, there are times when we do a lot of things for the people we represent and a lot of things for the country. I think what we are doing here, which will be rapidly approved and has already been approved by the House and will be made into law, is something we are doing for people in Russia who need our help now, our voice and our commitment. Many of the great and wonderful ideas, promises, and prospects after the fall of the Soviet Union that was the case of Russia have been dashed. Maybe we should take responsibility for not playing a more constructive role in the 1990s when Russia was going through a critical phase.

I promise today, not just to Sergei Magnitsky's widow, but to all people throughout Russia who will be encouraged by this message because, as they were years ago, the legislation we are now repealing, the Jackson-Vanik act, was a call to the people in Russia who were being held under terrible conditions that they would now be able to freely immigrate to a land with promise of a better future. I believe that today this legislation is one of the most important ones that in years to come we can be proud we were a small part of.

Madam President, a quick response to my friend from Maryland, and that is we talk a lot about the globalization. Don't think that dictators, brutal rulers, and oligarchies all over the world are not paying attention to this legislation. Our message to them is: Keep it up; you are next.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with a bit of a heavy heart today because I think the Senate may not act to approve the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I would say the issue is not going away. I think there are too many Americans and too many veterans organizations and too many people who are committed to this cause, that over time we may have every chance and every opportunity to succeed.

I remind my colleagues that virtually every major veterans organization in America supports the treaty, people who represent those men and women who have fought and particularly try to assist those with disabilities that are the result of combat. They are AMVETS; the Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; the American GI Forum; the Association of the United States Navy; the Blinded Veterans Association; Disabled American Veterans; Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans; the Military Officers Association of America; the National Association of Black Veterans; the National Guard Association of the United States; the National Military Family Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; the American Legion; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst, a program of the United Spinal Association; Vietnam Veterans of America; and the Wounded Warrior Project.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of all these veterans organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues a very moving letter to the U.S. Senate from a very famous man, a Chinese dissident who was blinded, who recently was able to leave China, which was printed in the Record yesterday.

I will not quote from his whole letter. He says:

This treaty is making this idea real in significant ways

around the world. Today there are over 1 billion people with

disabilities, and 80 percent of them live in developing

countries. Disability rights is an issue that the world

cannot afford to overlook. When the United States enacted the

Americans with Disabilities Act over 20 years ago, the idea

of true equality for people with disabilities became a

reality. Many nations have followed in America's footsteps

and are now coming together under shared principles of

equality, respect and dignity for people with disabilities as

entailed in the treaty.

The United States, which was instrumental in negotiating

this treaty, can continue to advance both its principles and

issues of practical accessibility for its citizens and all

people around the world and, by ratifying the treaty, so take

its rightful place of leadership in the arena of human

rights.

That is what this is all about--American leadership, American leadership in the world. I don't know how many millions of people around the world are deprived of the same rights that Bob Dole and Tom Harkin and so many others made possible, but do I know this is an expression of American leadership throughout the world--I think an obligation America should embrace.

I would like to read a statement by our distinguished former colleague and leader, Bob Dole. More than a dear friend, Bob remains an authentic hero to millions of his countrymen, someone whose personal example of wartime sacrifice was equaled--if such a thing is possible-- by his service in this body. He is respected wherever people value political courage and civility.

Bob Dole returned from World War II, one of the countless wounded warriors whose defense of our liberty curtailed his own. Gravely injured, disabled for life, he developed a unique personal understanding of his fellow Americans excluded from the mainstream. In the years that followed, Bob fought to ensure not only that no American would be relegated to the back of the bus but also, in the case of the disabled, that no one would be prevented from boarding the bus.

Bob Dole has been our leader on the issue of disabilities from the moment he stepped foot into the Chamber. To Bob, it is unthinkable that Americans

could not get over a curb or enter a school building or even watch a debate in this Chamber if they were in a wheelchair.

On April 14, 1969, the same date he was injured in the hills of Italy 24 years earlier, he made his maiden speech on the topic of Americans with disabilities. In every legislative initiative since then, Bob Dole has been a leader on behalf of people with disabilities, bills such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA; the Developmental Disabilities Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was responsible for including people with disabilities in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and for ensuring that people with disabilities are part of the State Department's annual report on human rights around the world.

After leaving this Chamber, Bob Dole prompted the Congress to pass the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999-- breakthrough legislation on health care and employment for people with disabilities.

This past year he has been instrumental in working with the administration and Congress to ensure bipartisan support for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reflect American leadership and values and safeguarding the rights of every individual in the world.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes to be added on to the time of the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent to have Bob Dole's statement printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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

As we are wrapping up, I would like to tell the Senator from Oklahoma he is correct.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates, probably the most respected Secretary of Defense we have had in many years, said, ``Health care costs are,'' in his words, ``eating us alive.''

None of us, I don't know a single Member of this body, no matter where they are, who doesn't want to make sure our veterans are cared for, the widows, the orphans, the veterans, as Abraham Lincoln described them. We are going to have to find ways to bring these costs under control and still, at the same time, provide our veterans with the benefits they have earned.

I know of no one who joined the military because of TRICARE--I hear from all the retirees and all that--they joined the military because of TRICARE. I have not yet met a single 18-year-old, including my own son, who joined the Marine Corps who said: Gee, I want to join the Marine Corps because of TRICARE. No, they joined the military because they want to serve their country.

They understand our obligation to them is not to hand them a bankrupt Defense Department, that all the costs are in things such as TRICARE and retirement benefits and other personnel costs so we can't provide them with what they need to fight.

I understand the positions of the veterans groups in this country. I respect them, I love them, and I appreciate them. But we are going to have to get serious about entitlements for the military just as we are going to have to get serious about entitlements for nonmilitary.

I admit our veterans are in a special category. No group of Americans has been willing to serve and sacrifice as our veterans have, although there are certainly other Americans who sacrifice and serve in many other ways.

I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I look forward, perhaps next year-- I hope the Reed amendment will not be proposed at this time. We need to sit down with the chairman, and we will have to have some hearings to find out what these future costs of health care will be. For example, I believe it has gone now from 11 percent--health care costs have gone from 11 percent now to 13 percent of the entire defense budget, and it will continue higher. We can't keep doing that.

We adopted an amendment by Senator Gillibrand on autism services. The way it is written will require an increase of $1.7 billion over the next 10 years and no way to pay for it. I appreciate the dedication of the Senator from New York, but her answer was: We would like to work with you on that.

We have to do more than work on it. We have to solve it. All I can say is while we are waiting, I hope we understand that here it is. The DOD health care costs represent nearly 11 percent of the total budget request for DOD, and it will continue to rise to more than 13 percent. Then it will go even higher and higher and higher.

There was an editorial in the Washington Post today that says, ``Time to Rein in TRICARE.'' It says, in part:

. . . the administration plans cuts, including shrinking

the Army and the Marine Corps. This is risky, given the

potential threats the United States faces.

Unfortunately, Congress is compounding the problem by protecting expensive items that inflate personnel costs without any corresponding payoff in defense readiness.''

So I would urge my colleagues to pay attention to the editorial in the Washington Post, ``Time To Rein In Tricare,'' because I think it is important for us to understand.

Let me quote from the article:

Tricare's costs have surged in recent years from $19

billion in fiscal year 2001 to $52.8 billion in fiscal 2011.

I repeat: In 2001 TRICARE costs were $19 billion. In 2011 it was $52.8 billion.

Much of the growth was driven by Congresses' 2001 decision

to add what is essentially a free Medigap plan for retirees

over 65. But the main issue is the ultra-low fees and

deductibles--which give retirees still of

working age little incentive to economize or choose employer

plans. President Obama's budget plan would save $12.8 billion

over five years by gradually increasing working-age retirees'

annual enrollment fees, with lower-income retirees paying the

least, and then adjusting them according to national health

spending growth thereafter.

We would not be doing any of that with this bill. We would not be doing any of that. But I would argue this is not the time now, as we finish with this bill, to add another additional cost that we have not found ways to pay for, which consumes a larger and larger part of the defense budget.

I would just ask my friend--I understand we have a managers' package--is it his preference we have the managers' package done at the same time as the UC; do that together?

Hopefully, we will do that shortly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

These amendments have all been cleared on this side.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3262, as modified.

Madam President, I believe the Senator from Kentucky is here to speak on the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be allowed 4 minutes, the Senator from Michigan be allowed 3 minutes, and I be allowed 2 minutes before the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 1 minute be added and that the Senator from Mississippi be recognized for that 1 minute.

Madam President, I would point out again that section (d)(e) of this amendment says:

No Authorization For Use Of Military Force.--Nothing in

this section shall be construed as a declaration of war or an

authorization for the use of force.

And it will be in ``classified form.''

Yesterday, this was the front-page headline of the Washington Post: Obama Sternly Warns Syria. There is no doubt that as this conflict has dragged on and on, the risk of a wider conflict and terrible consequences can ensue. It is well known that Bashar Assad has a very large inventory of chemical weapons, including sarin gas, which is a deadly nerve agent.

I am not predicting that the United States has to be involved, but there is very little doubt in anyone's mind that as this conflict escalates, the risk of spreading, the risk of greater jihadist involvement, the greater risk of problems on the borders of Lebanon, of Iraq, of Jordan increase.

And if military action has to be taken in order, for example, to prevent sarin gas to be used, the Congress of the United States has to be involved. We have a thing called the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act expressly calls that Congress make decisions. The Congress needs to be informed. I believe all this amendment does is informs, in a classified manner, the Defense committees so that we will have the information necessary to understand the various eventualities that could result in this terribly, terribly

escalating and deteriorating situation in Syria.

As my friend from Connecticut said, 40,000 people have already been slaughtered. I think the U.S. Congress needs to be made aware not of what we should do but what we can do in case of that eventuality. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I thank my colleagues. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Delaware, and, of course, the chairman of the committee.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to explain the scope of, and intent behind, my amendment on naval vessel naming. Amendment No. 3054, as modified, to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013 is a direct response to recent criticism that the Secretary of the Navy has, in some instances, politicized the ship naming process.

Since its establishment, the U.S. Navy has developed a rich tradition of vessel naming. Traditional sources for vessel names customarily encompassed categories such as geographic locations in the United States; historic sites, battles, and ships; naval and military heroes and leaders; and, other noted individuals who have made distinguished contributions to the Navy or our Nation's national security. The name the Navy selects for a vessel should reflect the very best of our Nation's and our Navy's great heritage. It should impart a sense of honor and serve as an inspiration for the vessel's crew. It should not, in any way, be tarnished by controversy. Unfortunately, controversy and criticism have surrounded some of the Secretary's recent vessel naming choices.

This amendment seeks to avoid similar controversy in the future. It sets forth necessary and appropriate standards, grounded in historical practice, to guide the Secretary of the Navy's decisions on vessel naming. It requires that the Secretary assure the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services that the proposed vessel name comports with those standards 30 days before announcing or assigning a vessel's name.

Under the procedure established by my amendment, I fully intend and expect that the Navy will not move forward with any vessel naming proposal, unless the Congressional defense committees approve. Much as the Department of Defense seeks prior approval for reprogramming requests, the Secretary of the Navy should secure the prior approval of the Congressional defense committees before announcing or implementing a vessel naming proposal.

I take no joy or pride in this amendment, but believe it is necessitated by the spate of controversies over the last few years. I sincerely hope the amendment helps the U.S. Navy preserve the high standards it has traditionally employed for vessel naming.

amendment no. 2943

Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman for his patience in allowing this legislation to be completed. I would note that there were 145 amendments and many recorded votes and good debate and discussion over very important issues.

I also wish to say thank you to the majority leader.

I wish to note the good work of the staff, showing again that work release programs can be successful.

Again, I thank the majority leader and my friend from Michigan.

I do want to thank our staff who worked many long hours, long after we had shut down regular business. They continued to work through a total of 392 amendments that were filed on this legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the cooperative spirit that enabled us not only to dispose of the amendments, but also I heard no complaint from any Member that their amendment did not get the consideration they felt it deserved. I think that is pretty remarkable, and I thank them.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank Senator Levin and also the majority leader for giving us this time. Also I am in agreement that the time has come for cloture to be invoked, unfortunately. The total time of debate for this bill up to now has been 27 hours of debate and 371 amendments have been filed. We have disposed of 94 amendments, some by voice vote, some by rollcall vote.

Of those amendments, many of them were offered by members of the committee, but a majority of them were offered by nonmembers of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So I think we have had a very inclusive and interesting debate and voting.

I tell my friend Senator Levin, I have just been informed that the Senator from Kentucky has objected, voiced an objection to taking up any further unanimous consent agreements or votes. That means that there will be many amendments which have been approved by both sides which will now not be allowed to be offered or acted upon. It also means that if cloture is invoked, and I anticipate that cloture will be invoked--I understand that will be the second vote we have today--a number of those amendments that are nongermane, which we have cleared and would have been passed, will now be put aside.

I will have a reading of a number of those amendments. There are 15 to 16 amendments that we would be ready shortly to approve. I am not exactly sure how many of them are nongermane in nature, which will fall when cloture is invoked.

All I can say to my friend the chairman is that, again, I find it disappointing that one Member of the Senate feels his particular agenda is so important that it affects the lives, the readiness, and the capabilities of the men and women who are serving in the military and our ability to defend this Nation. I think it is hard to answer to the men and women in the military with this kind of behavior, but I will leave that up to the Senator from Kentucky to do so.

In the meantime, I guess postcloture, we will continue with the legislation and try to get it completed. I have some guarded optimism that we may be able to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I again apologize for what seems to have happened. Much to my dismay, it lends some credence to the argument that maybe we ought not to do business the way we are doing here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

In the meantime, I would ask my friend if he agrees that colleagues with amendments they would like to debate or wish to come and talk about them--we are certainly open to that.

The amendments have been cleared by our side.

I move to lay the motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3124, as Further Modified

Mr. President, the previous hold objection has been lifted, which has allowed us now to continue with this process. We lost 3 hours or so due to that, but we are still pleased to be able to make this progress. We will be having further cleared amendments, and hopefully we will have the end in sight after the cloture vote around 5:30.

I thank my friend from Michigan.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3292

Senator Reed's amendment, amendment No. 3292, to the National Defense Authorization Act, seeks to further address the problem of predatory lenders taking advantage of members of our Armed Forces. Predatory lending practices are a serious problem for members of the Armed Services throughout the country, and I know it has impacted Vermonters serving in our Nation's military.

This amendment further strengthens the Military Lending Act by extending enforcement authority to certain Federal Agencies. Senator Reed's amendment seeks to expand the universe of parties who can bring enforcement actions against predatory lenders, and therefore provide additional protections to the members of our Armed Services. Allowing additional Federal Agencies to bring enforcement actions helps ensure that fewer instances of predatory lending in the Armed Services community go unprosecuted. It is important to me, as it is to Senator Reed, that members of our Armed Services be free from harmful and deceptive lending practices.

I am glad Senator Reed reached out to me on this amendment regarding the expansion of enforcement authority, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

I move to lay the motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

They have been cleared by our side.

Madam President, we continue, after a few hours' pause today because of the objection of one Senator by long distance. But I am very confident, with the cooperation of our colleagues, we can finish this amendment process tomorrow, and I hope we can have the cooperation of all our colleagues.

We have tried very hard to make sure every amendment gets consideration and is brought up. We have now approved well over 100 amendments, and I think most Members have had at least one amendment approved so far. So I hope we can continue the cooperation and we can finish this bill tomorrow.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Tomorrow, a vote is scheduled on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the upcoming vote.

The first thing I think we ought to understand is this is not anybody's treaty. It is not President Obama's treaty. It is not John Kerry's treaty. It is not even Bob Dole's treaty, although he certainly is the person who has been deeply involved.

The vote on the treaty is the right thing to do on its merits. It is important to note a list of veterans groups in support.

I have not forgotten that 36 Republicans signed a letter opposing consideration of any treaty during the lameduck, but there is no reason we shouldn't have a vote. The letter says they would oppose consideration, but we did have the motion to proceed. Some may be worried about passing a treaty in the lameduck session. The argument has no basis in the Constitution or Senate practice. Since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved treaties during lameduck sessions a total of 19 times. There is nothing special or different about lameduck sessions. So I would like to address a few of the misconceptions about the treaty that I keep hearing.

It is true that the treaty establishes a committee, but that committee has exceedingly limited powers. It can review reports submitted by countries on the steps they have taken to implement the convention, and it can make nonbinding recommendations for additional steps, and that is it, nothing else. It can't require our Federal or State governments or courts to take any action. There is no threat to the United States or our sovereignty from the committee.

With respect to abortion, this is a disabilities treaty. It has nothing to do with abortion and doesn't change our law on abortion in any way. Trying to turn this into an abortion debate is wrong on substance and bad politics.

I have heard people say that ratifying the disabilities convention would take decisions out of parents' hands and let the U.N. or the Federal Government decide what is best for our children. That is just wrong. The treaty doesn't give the Federal Government or any State government new powers with regard to children with disabilities. The treaty cannot be used as a basis for a lawsuit in State or Federal court.

Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh made this crystal clear in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in every conversation that I have had with him. I wouldn't support the treaty if it were any other way.

So let's take a step back and look at how this looks if America rejects this treaty. China has joined. Russia has joined. We are the country that set the standards on rights of the disabled. We want everybody to play by international rules. We lose credibility if we turn around and refuse to participate

in a treaty that merely asks other nations to live up to our standards and our rules.

We received a letter from the blind Chinese dissident Chen Cuangcheng talking about the plight of the disabled around the world and what a strong message it would send if the United States ratified this treaty. There is no reason we can't say we lived up to our obligations. We need to step up and do the right thing--for Bob Dole and our veterans throughout the world.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter from the internationally known blind Chinese dissident who, thank God, miraculously recently left China through the efforts of our State Department and our government.

I will read from his letter:

When the United States enacted the Americans with

Disabilities Act over twenty years ago, the idea of true

equality for people with disabilities became a reality. Many

nations have followed in America's footsteps and now are

coming together under shared principles of equality, respect,

and dignity for people with disabilities as entailed in the

CRPD. The U.S.--which was instrumental in negotiating the

CRPD--can continue to advance both its principles and issues

of practical accessibility for its citizens and all people

around the world, and by ratifying the treaty, so take its

rightful place of leadership in the arena of human rights.

And he concludes:

As I continue my studies in the United States, it is a

great pleasure to now learn firsthand how the U.S. developed

such a comprehensive and strong system of protection for its

citizens with disabilities. I am so hopeful that you will

support ratification and allow others to benefit from these

triumphs. Thank you for your leadership.

I couldn't say it with any more passion nor any more authority.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.