Floor Statements

Mr. President, 24 years ago, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I will never forget the day, July 26, 1990, the ADA was signed into law. It was one of the proudest days of my legislative career.

The ADA set forth four great goals for individuals with disabilities--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. In many ways, we have been successful in making progress toward these goals. We have increased the accessibility of our buildings, our streets, even our parks, beaches and recreation areas. We have made our books and TVs, phones, computers, and other technology more accessible. And for many Americans with disabilities, our workplaces have become increasingly more open and accessible.

America is far more inclusive, today, for individuals with disabilities. But our work is still far from complete.

According to new data released this week, almost 30 percent of people with disabilities are living in poverty, and fewer than one in three individuals with a disability participate in the workforce. This is further evidence that we are far from realizing the ADA's goal of economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities.

Today, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, released a report titled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.'' In our report, we detail many of the barriers that adversely impact the economic well-being of individuals with disabilities--including the lack of accessible transportation and the lack of accessible housing. These barriers don't only affect individuals with disabilities who are living in poverty; they also impact individuals with disabilities who are striving to reach the American dream as members of the middle class.

That is why, today, I am introducing three bills that I believe will begin to address these barriers to individuals with disabilities, S. 2887, S. 2888, and S. 2889. The first bill, the Universal Home Design Act, will increase the availability of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities. The second, the Accessible Transportation for All Act, will increase the availability of accessible passenger cars and taxis. The third, the Exercise and Fitness for All Act, will increase the availability of exercise and fitness equipment that is accessible to individuals with disabilities, which will help individuals with disabilities maintain and improve their health through appropriate physical activity.

I am confident that these three bills, along with the Community Integration Act, and the recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, will help provide the framework for a future of continued opportunities, inclusion and advancement for individuals with disabilities in America. I urge my Senate colleagues to support these important bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 24 years ago, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I will never forget the day, July 26, 1990, the ADA was signed into law. It was one of the proudest days of my legislative career.

The ADA set forth four great goals for individuals with disabilities--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. In many ways, we have been successful in making progress toward these goals. We have increased the accessibility of our buildings, our streets, even our parks, beaches and recreation areas. We have made our books and TVs, phones, computers, and other technology more accessible. And for many Americans with disabilities, our workplaces have become increasingly more open and accessible.

America is far more inclusive, today, for individuals with disabilities. But our work is still far from complete.

According to new data released this week, almost 30 percent of people with disabilities are living in poverty, and fewer than one in three individuals with a disability participate in the workforce. This is further evidence that we are far from realizing the ADA's goal of economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities.

Today, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, released a report titled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.'' In our report, we detail many of the barriers that adversely impact the economic well-being of individuals with disabilities--including the lack of accessible transportation and the lack of accessible housing. These barriers don't only affect individuals with disabilities who are living in poverty; they also impact individuals with disabilities who are striving to reach the American dream as members of the middle class.

That is why, today, I am introducing three bills that I believe will begin to address these barriers to individuals with disabilities, S. 2887, S. 2888, and S. 2889. The first bill, the Universal Home Design Act, will increase the availability of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities. The second, the Accessible Transportation for All Act, will increase the availability of accessible passenger cars and taxis. The third, the Exercise and Fitness for All Act, will increase the availability of exercise and fitness equipment that is accessible to individuals with disabilities, which will help individuals with disabilities maintain and improve their health through appropriate physical activity.

I am confident that these three bills, along with the Community Integration Act, and the recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, will help provide the framework for a future of continued opportunities, inclusion and advancement for individuals with disabilities in America. I urge my Senate colleagues to support these important bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I want to recognize a truly exceptional public servant, Dr. Story Landis, who is retiring in a few weeks from the directorship of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health. I have been fortunate to get to know Dr. Landis during her 11 years as Institute Director. She has testified several times before the committees I chair, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, always with the poise of a leader at a prestigious national institution, the rigor of a renowned scientist, and the insight of a truly extraordinary pioneer working on the frontiers of our knowledge of the human brain.

Certainly, Dr. Landis has an exemplary pedigree. A graduate of Wellesley College and Harvard University, Dr. Landis came to NIH in 1995 as NINDS Scientific Director, following a distinguished career as a neuroscience researcher and chair of the Neuroscience Department at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. As scientific director, she had the bold vision to stimulate collaborations in brain research across labs from different institutes on the NIH campus and led the planning for a unique national neuroscience research center at NIH. From the time Dr. Landis became NINDS Director in 2003, she worked with me, with the late Senator Spector, and with other NIH Institute Directors to make this center a reality. This spring I was fortunate to be at the NIH campus to help officially dedicate the John Edward Porter Neuroscience Research Center.

I will remember Dr. Landis best for her courage, her ability to bridge gaps, and her passion.

First, her courage. Not many people remember this, but in 2007, Dr. Landis was the first NIH Director to speak publicly in opposition to President Bush's ban on Federal funding of stem cell research. That may not sound like much to us now, but at the time it was a remarkable act of professional integrity and personal courage. The American public was very divided, the scientific community was not unified, and most importantly, she worked for the administration whose policies she was publicly criticizing. She risked her job and her reputation to alert this Senate to the reality that research was being stifled--research with enormous potential to reduce human suffering. Just last week, I read a press report about stem cells being used to decode schizophrenic brains. This Nation is indebted to Dr. Landis for having the courage to speak a hard truth at a critical juncture in our Nation's scientific policy debate.

Second, let me talk about Dr. Landis's ability to bridge gaps. In truth, she has bridged so many divides throughout her career: She reached across institutes in 2005 to establish and develop one of the most effective trans-NIH initiatives in producing the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research and more recently launching the NIH BRAIN Initiative, which will bring together engineers, aging experts, and neuroscientists to transform our understanding of the human brain. She reached across scientific gaps in chairing the NIH Stem Cell Task Force and helping to coordinate and lead pain research efforts across NIH, and she bridged generation gaps in her enthusiastic mentorship, her work on career development, and her support for early-stage investigators.

But the gap I remember best is the divide between scientists and policymakers. I might be telling tales out of school here, but it was Story Landis and Jim Battey who sat with me for

nearly an hour in Dirksen 116 and patiently walked me through the science and the potential for stem cell research. Concepts that are familiar to many of us now--ideas such as pluripotency and somatic cell transfer--were entirely new. Scientists and the public would all have to learn how to engage with one another about the legal, technical, and ethical issues raised by stem cell research, and Dr. Landis was there to bridge that divide with me.

Finally, let me speak about her passion. Dr. Landis and I have worked together for many years on many topics, but none is closer to her heart than spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA. When she and I began collaborating to address SMA, there was very little to offer families who had a child afflicted by this debilitating disease. Between 2003 and 2012, the NINDS piloted the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Project to expedite therapeutics development. If you listen to Dr. Collins talk about the Advanced Medicine Partnership today, you hear echoes of Dr. Landis's work on SMA. The project was designed to accelerate the research process by creating a virtual pharmaceutical company to identify drugs that could be used as potential leads for clinical testing. This was groundbreaking work well before ``translational research'' was commonly discussed. And it worked not just for the compounds it discovered but also by getting companies interested in creating more and better treatments. As a consequence, today when we talk about the SMA treatments in development, we talk about treatments in the plural. This would not be happening if Story Landis had not focused her passion on SMA.

Dr. Landis's career has stimulated tremendous progress in the field of neuroscience and inspired legions of young scientists to follow in her path. She has been a true public servant. Indeed, I am always amazed at America's good fortune in attracting public servants of the world-class caliber of Dr. Landis. It has been my privilege to work with her and to learn from her over the years. Dr. Landis has many other admirers in the U.S. Senate. We honor Dr. Story Landis today for her invaluable leadership of NINDS and for her great service to the people of the United States.

Mr. President, 24 years ago, on July 26, 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush, in a glorious sun-filled day on the White House lawn, attended by more people than had ever attended a bill signing in the history of our country--President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, a bill broadly supported by Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate and in the House.

It was a momentous occasion. You see, most people thought of civil rights as pertaining to people of color, religion, national origin, sex--that type of thing. But up until July 26, 1990, people with disabilities had no civil rights. I remember when President Bush signed that law, he uttered these words. He said: ``Let the shameful walls of discrimination come tumbling down.'' It was a wonderful day.

Looking back over those 24 years, can anyone deny that our country has made great progress in expanding our concepts of the rights of people with disabilities: the right to be educated and well educated; the right of people with disabilities to have independent living, to live on their own, not to be institutionalized; the right of people with disabilities to associate freely with others; the right of people with disabilities, children with disabilities, to go to school with other kids who are not disabled; the right of people with disabilities to travel freely with barriers broken down, ramps not stairs, buses that are fully accessible now, trains, everything accessible, every building designed in America. Think about that. Every building designed and built in America today is fully accessible.

We have gone a great way in making older buildings--even some of our national monuments--totally accessible to people with disabilities. People with disabilities are finding more and more employment. They are working--not at some minimum-wage job--but working alongside others, showing that they too can contribute to our society and be fully functioning members of our society.

That is what the Americans with Disabilities Act did for our country. In 1991 the United Nations decided that what we had done in America could be an example for the world. So a commission was established to draw up a convention, a treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities. I might point out, it was negotiated under the George W. Bush administration. It took several years, but it was hammered out with the concurrence--get this--with the concurrence and the approval of the George W. Bush administration.

That U.N. treaty has been sent out to nations to be ratified. Over 150 nations have now ratified it. Think about that. Of 196 members of the United Nations, 150 have already ratified it. One country is singularly absent--the United States--from whence it all started. If you look at the treaty--if you just read it--it just echoes the Americans with Disabilities Act language in what it does.

So I will have more to say about this later. But I just want to give that background. We brought it up 2 years ago for a vote. Now, under our Constitution, a treaty requires a two-thirds vote--two-thirds of those present and voting. It was brought up 2 years ago in December of 2012. We did not get a two-thirds vote. It failed. Well, that Congress ended and a new Congress started, so the President had to resubmit it. It had to go back to the committee, now under the leadership of Senator Menendez.

As requested, the committee has reported out the bill again with new reservations, understandings, and declarations. Now it is incumbent upon the Senate to debate and vote again on this treaty.

I am hopeful we would have the votes this time--after due consideration over the past couple of years, that we would have the votes necessary.

The unanimous consent request I am about to proffer is the mirror image of the same one 2 years ago. I want everyone to understand that this unanimous consent request was not denied 2 years ago. We went ahead, debated, and we had a vote.

That is what this unanimous consent request would do, provide us with, again, 2 hours of debate, evenly divided in the usual form, and then an up-or-down vote. We have the time to do it.

I mean, what are we doing around here, one quorum call after another? People want to leave here tomorrow night. Two hours of debate, a vote, that is nothing to pass this momentous piece of legislation.

Unanimous Consent Request--Treaty

No. 112-7

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 12, the disabilities treaty document No. 112-7 (disability); that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that there be no amendments in order to the treaty or the resolution of ratification; that

there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on the resolution; that any statements be printed in the Record; that if the resolution of ratification is adopted, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that if the resolution is not adopted, the treaty be returned to the calendar, and that there be no motions or points of order in order other than a motion to reconsider; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, this is another sad, irresponsible day in the Senate. I say to my friend from Utah, he was here 2 years ago when we proposed the same exact unanimous consent request, and the Senator did not object.

It also did not allow for any amendments. That is usual when we have treaties and it comes through the committee. So why is the Senator from Utah objecting today to even doing what we did 2 years ago? Maybe he has the votes to defeat it. I don't know. We won't know until we vote on it. But 2 years ago, the Senator from Utah did not object to the very same unanimous consent request.

He says there has been a lot of controversy about it. Well, that is not so. The only controversy has been raised by the tea party and some whom I call the black helicopter crowd, people who just don't like the United Nations. I don't care if they like the United Nations; that is up to them. But it seems to me we ought to at least bring it up again, debate it, and see if anyone has changed their minds. We have new people in the Senate who were not here 2 years ago--new Senators who have not had the opportunity to express themselves on this treaty.

I disagree with my friend from Utah. There is no controversy over this, basically. Controversy? This is a treaty supported by former President George H.W. Bush. Former President George W. Bush, former President Carter, and former President Clinton all support it. All the veterans groups support it. The American Legion, VFW, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Vietnam war veterans all strongly support ratification of this treaty.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has supported it strongly--and I don't just mean leaning back. Tom Donohue, the head of the Chamber of Commerce, has written, has called people about how important it is to the business community that we ratify it.

Former Governor John Engler, who is now the head of the Business Roundtable, brought this up to the Business Roundtable and they unanimously supported our ratification of this treaty.

I spoke to the Business Roundtable group last evening, and they all-- the ones I talked to individually--couldn't understand why we would block this treaty because it is good for business, and they understand it.

It is supported by the Information Technology Industry Council--that is AT&T. I just spoke with the CEO of AT&T last evening who strongly supports it; Sprint, Adobe, Microsoft--all the high-tech people-- because they understand we need strong, accessible standards for their products and their software across the globe.

All disability groups, every single disability group in America supports the treaty. Faith-based groups across the spectrum support it.

Senator Bob Dole has worked his heart out on getting votes to ratify this treaty. He has been on the phone, he has made appearances, and we have Republicans on it. Senator McCain has been a strong supporter for this treaty from the very beginning. Senator Mark Kirk is a supporter. Mr. Kirk is a veteran himself.

We had a press conference with all the veterans groups here not too long ago and I thought Mr. Kirk said something very poignant. He said: A lot of disabled American veterans fought in places around the world to secure our freedom. They should have the right to travel freely in other parts of the world, even though they have a disability.

Think about that.

Senator Barrasso is a strong supporter, and Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, Senator Ayotte have all worked hard on this subject. But for a couple of people who have raised an objection, we can't bring up the treaty.

The Senator from Utah just objected to bringing it up for, what, 2 hours of debate and an up-or-down vote. I say: Hey, look around the Chamber. There is nobody here. There won't be anybody here all afternoon. We could have a little debate on this, 2 hours; they could make their case, we could make our case and have a vote for 15 minutes--and yet the Senator from Utah will not let it be brought up, even though he let it be brought up 2 years ago. He said: Well, we can't offer amendments. That was the same 2 years ago, but they didn't object to bringing it up.

When we see all of the support this has--and I might address an issue that has come up, and it seems to have its genesis in the tea party. They have raised objections on the basis that somehow, by ratifying this treaty, we give up our sovereignty as a nation, that it erodes our sovereignty. That is based upon the fact that there is a commission under this treaty. There is a U.N. commission set up, a 16-member commission of experts, to draft standards and advise countries on what they need to do to meet their obligations.

Again, if we are a signatory to the treaty, I have no doubt we would get a seat on that commission, and the high-tech industry council and the business groups know that. That is where we have our input to making sure that accessibility standards, software standards, and other things are adaptable for us, our business community, our software, and our hardware.

The tea party, some of these people, have objected to this commission, saying that the commission can issue findings and such that take away our sovereignty.

We have operated, at least for the past 20 years, under two other treaties that have the same kind of commission of experts, and it hasn't eroded our sovereignty. Do you know why? Because it is advisory. That commission has no authority to assess penalties or anything else on the United States or any other country. All they can say is: Well, you should do this, you should do that--but it is only advisory. How does that erode our sovereignty?

Yet the very same people who make the argument that somehow this erodes our sovereignty will rush to the front to vote on a trade agreement--a trade agreement such as NAFTA or other trade agreements we have, which do erode our sovereignty, because it turns over to the World Trade Organization the ability to fine America, to tell us what we have to do in order to make trade right. They have the ability to tell America what to do. Yet my friends who are objecting to this probably support those trade agreements.

Yet when it comes to people with disabilities, why is it they are so adamant that we cannot join 150 other nations of the world to advance the rights of people with disabilities globally? Why is it just people with disabilities they focused on?

They didn't focus on torture, they didn't focus on the worst forms of child labor, they haven't focused on any of

our trade agreements. Why people with disabilities? It makes us wonder, is this another blatant form of discrimination against people with disabilities?

Maybe some in that tea party would like to undo the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know. But we can't say honestly that, yes, the Americans with Disabilities Act is good, it has done a lot of good for our country, for our business community, for people with disabilities, everyone, and say but we don't want to be involved in helping other countries advance the cause of people with disabilities so people with disabilities in other countries have the same kind of rights, accessibilities, and standards we enjoy in this country for people with disabilities.

Some people may say we are the best in the world on disability law and policy--and that is true, we are--so why don't we shine our light around the world?

President Reagan always referred to America as the ``shining city on the hill.'' If we are a shining city on the hill and no one can get there and we are not willing to help other countries, what does it mean to be a shining city on the hill? Is that some kind of an idea that only we can have? We are a shining city on the hill when it comes to disability rights, and we ought to be involved in spreading it globally. This is our opportunity to do so.

Some people say: We can work with other countries. If they want our advice, we can go to other countries to help them with disability policy. Think about that for a second. We don't have the personnel or the wherewithal to go to 150 separate different countries to help them in terms of changing policy. It takes a kind of collective action where we can join with other countries that have done pretty darned well. There are a lot of other countries that have done very well in disability policy. To join with them, we are much better and much stronger that way than us just going to another country.

I was in China earlier this summer meeting with people about this treaty, which China has adopted. They have signed on. We talked about the United States working with China, not only in China but with other countries, to help advance the rights of people with disabilities.

China is doing some interesting things. They are starting to move ahead.

One person said to me: What is so important about America being a part of the treaty is that when we speak to one another, we speak in a common language of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. It seems to me that if the United States is not a part of it, they speak to us in a different manner. It is: The United States, here is what we do; here is what you ought to do. That doesn't get us very far in diplomacy.

But if we work with the Chinese and other countries to say: Here is what we ought to do, here is what other countries have done, here are the standards we ought to abide by, there is much more force and effect than if we try to go it alone.

I assume there are military analogies to this. Think about the present situation. Should we go it alone simply because we are the most powerful, we have the biggest military, the best weapons, and everything else? Should we just go it alone because we are the best militarily in the world? I don't think the American people would want that.

We have to join with other countries and sometimes ask other countries to take the lead and we will provide that strong backbone. That is how I see the disabilities treaty. We have to join with other countries.

How can we give up the moral leadership we have had on this issue, both here and abroad, the moral leadership we have had on advancing the rights of people with disabilities?

How can we abdicate that because a handful of people are afraid of giving up our sovereignty--which is a bogus argument because that committee is advisory only. It makes recommendations, but it has no enforcement authority whatsoever.

By not ratifying this treaty, we are left behind. Think about that. We, the United States, are left behind in a field in which we have carved out leadership, and we are just going to give it up: No, we don't want to lead the world.

Why wouldn't we want to lead the world in disability policies? To not join 150 other countries, to not provide the leadership, to not provide the expertise we have developed over 24 years or more relinquishes our responsibility to people with disabilities, both in America and around the world. Why on Earth would we want to do that?

In Ghana, a great young advocate named Emmanuel Ofosu Yeboah, a man born with no left leg but determined as a child to play soccer, turned his obsession for this sport into an obsession advocating for the rights of people with disabilities in Ghana.

Earlier this year in Malawi, 21 African nations met on this issue of changing their policies, advancing the rights of people with disabilities. I was asked to go and meet with them. I couldn't because we were in session in the Senate. But that is why they are reaching out to us. They want us to be involved with them to help move this issue forward.

In Nepal parents of children with autism banded together to start their own school to educate their children. They want their kids with disabilities to be fully included in society and have opportunities for work and for life. They want us to be joined together with them. It is conspicuous.

I was privileged to join Senator Cardin earlier this summer in Baku, Azerbaijan, for a meeting of the committee for security and economic development in Europe. I offered an amendment putting all the nations of Europe that are in that OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--OECD countries--that we supported ratification of this treaty. It was adopted unanimously. They want the United States to be a partner in this effort.

Talk to a disabled veteran who would like to travel overseas maybe with his or her spouse and their children.

I recently talked to a mother whose family immigrated from Italy. She wanted to go over for a big family reunion, but she has a child with a disability, and where they were going they had no accessibility. She could have gone and left her son at home, but she couldn't do that. So she missed that big family reunion because of the lack of accessibility in Italy.

It is a sad day that one individual on the Senate floor would object to bringing this up when it has such broad support.

I will say one last thing about the issue of sovereignty. I have heard a couple Senators on the Republican side talk about the fact that with this Commission, we give up our sovereignty, which I have said is a bogus argument.

Of my friends on the other side, the few who have objected to this on the grounds that we would lose our sovereignty, let me ask this question.

Former President George H.W. Bush supports this treaty wholeheartedly. Does he not understand about sovereignty or does he not care about sovereignty?

Former President George W. Bush, under whose administration this treaty was hammered out, supports it. Does former President George W. Bush not understand this or does he just not care about our sovereignty?

Bob Dole knows this treaty backward and forward--a World War II hero, Presidential candidate, Republican leader of the Senate, disabled American veteran.

Are those few people over there who say this would erode our sovereignty saying they know more than Senator Dole or are they saying Senator Dole doesn't care about our sovereignty--which is it--or those few who raise the issue of sovereignty, that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't care about our sovereignty? I don't think we would like to say that to Tom Donohue or to John Engler at the Business Roundtable. Of course they care about our sovereignty. Tell that to the American Legion. Tell the American Legion they don't care about our sovereignty or they don't understand this or they are too stupid to understand it. Is that what they are saying or are they saying they are the arbiters--those few, they are the arbiters of what is and is not our sovereignty. They rise above all former Presidents. They rise above Republican leaders. They rise above John McCain, a war hero. Believe me, I think John McCain understands about our sovereignty. He knows this treaty. He supports it wholeheartedly. Are

those few who raise this issue of sovereignty saying John McCain doesn't get it or he doesn't care about our sovereignty? Which is it? The fact is, John McCain does care about our sovereignty, he does get it, and he knows this doesn't erode our sovereignty one single iota.

But I wish to make that point because those few keep raising this issue of sovereignty as though they are the guardians, they alone know what distinguishes our sovereignty and what erodes it--not former Presidents, former Republican leaders. In fact, every former Republican leader of this Senate still alive supports this treaty.

My, how far we have gotten off track since the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act that was strongly bipartisan and the Americans with Disabilities Act amendments we put through in 2008, strongly supported by both sides. I dare say, we have strong Republican support for this treaty but for a few on the Republican side who just want to adhere to that tea party nostrum that somehow this erodes our sovereignty and we can't join.

I will close where I started. The unanimous consent I offered today that was objected to by the Senator from Utah is the same as what we had 2 years ago and no one objected to it. The Senator from Utah was here 2 years ago, and he didn't object then to the same unanimous consent request. He did not object. So it goes back on the calendar. It goes back on the Executive Calendar and it will be there.

I guess I would say the action by a few on the Republican side blocking ratification of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities will not be the end. I may be retiring from the Senate, but I am not retiring from this fight. I will never retire in the fight for justice, fairness, and equality for people with disabilities both here and around the world. I will never retire from the fight to refute those absolutely unfounded and bogus objections to this crucial treaty.

I will continue to work with former Senator Bob Dole, with former Presidents, with veterans, with business leaders, with Republicans on the other side who support this treaty, with the national disabilities community, with our disabilities community. I will continue to work to advance this and to get it over the hurdle.

The false claims--the false claims--of those who object to this treaty will be overcome. We will succeed in ratifying this treaty. We will restore America's stature as the world leader on disability rights and we will continue to fight for justice and a fair shake for people with disabilities not just here in America but around the world.

It is a sad day, another sad and irresponsible day in the history of the United States Senate.

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

Mr. President, as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the pension community approached me with their concerns that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was interpreting section 4062(e) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 too broadly. That provision was intended to protect pension plan participants in the event of a cessation of operations at a facility. However, the pension community was able to provide substantial evidence that the corporation's enforcement efforts were out of line with congressional intent to such an extent that section 4062(e) had become a major impediment to businesses' efforts to restructure. After a thorough review of the situation and consultation with employers, employees, retirees, and the Obama administration, it became abundantly clear that enforcement efforts under section 4062(e) were failing to protect either pensions or the corporation.

Consequently, I worked with the ranking member, Senator Alexander, on a new approach that we introduced as S. 2511. That legislation, which passed out of committee on a unanimous vote, will restore the original intent of section 4062(e) by clarifying the types of cessations of operations that trigger downsizing liability. The legislation will give plan sponsors certainty with respect to their obligations, and it will also ensures that participants are protected when workforce reductions signal that the ongoing viability of a plan sponsor is in question.

Overall, S. 2511 represents a significant compromise between the needs of employers, employees, and retirees, and I think it will give everyone a lot more clarity with regard to their obligations under section 4062(e). However, there are a few points about the bill that I would like to clarify.

First, there may be questions as to how the terms ``facility'' and ``location'' should be interpreted. They are not explicitly defined in S. 2511 because we intend for them to be interpreted according to their natural usage. For example, if an employer maintains several buildings that are physically adjacent to each other, that would be a single facility at a single location. However, if the employer maintains a building in one part of a city and another building in another part of the city, those buildings would be separate facilities at separate locations.

Second, S. 2511 is intended to allow employers to make conditional elections. The legislation allows employers that have a substantial cessation under section 4062(e) to elect a new, alternative means of satisfying their liability. The election must be made not later than 30 days after the earlier of the date that the employer notifies the corporation of a substantial cessation of operations or the date that the corporation makes a final administrative determination both that a substantial cessation of operations has occurred and of the amount of the alternative liability. Of course, there may be instances in which it is uncertain as to whether such a cessation has occurred or the amount of the alternative liability, if any, even after a final administrative determination has been made by the corporation. In those cases, the employer would certainly not be required to make a binding election to pay amounts that may later be determined not to be due. Thus, in all cases, an election by the employer would become inapplicable to the extent that a court subsequently rules or the corporation later agrees that a cessation has not occurred or that the alternative liability amount is lower than the amount determined by the corporation.

To the extent that an election becomes inapplicable, any contributions previously made by the employer to satisfy such inapplicable liability amount should be treated as additional funding contributions that are not subject to the provisions of the bill. Consequently, such additional funding contributions could be treated as increasing the employer's prefunding balance. In addition, we fully intend for the corporation and the courts to have the power to stay, in whole or in part, an employer's obligation to make alternative liability payments until the court has determined whether there has been a substantial cessation and/or the alternative liability amount.

In other cases, a substantial cessation may have occurred, but there is no liability of any kind due to the corporation's enforcement policy. We expect that some employers may want to make an election of the alternative liability amount in case the employer's financial condition changes and the corporation asserts a liability under section 4062(e). In such cases, the annual amount due under the alternative liability method would be zero until the corporation makes a final administrative determination that the corporation's enforcement policy no longer applies to such employer. To ensure that a substantial cessation in one year cannot cause liabilities 10 or 20 years later, for example, the 7-year payment period for the alternative liability amount would include years in which the amount due is zero.

In order to ensure that any reporting requirement that may later be determined to apply is satisfied, an employer may notify the corporation of

an event that the employer does not believe constitutes a substantial cessation of operations. If the employer informs the corporation in writing, the notification will not trigger the 30-day period for making an election, and the 30-day period will begin when the employer agrees that the event constitutes a substantial cessation of operations or when the corporation makes a final administrative determination to that effect and similarly determines the amount of the alternative liability.

Third, S. 2511 is intended to prevent employers from being subject to retroactive liability and to other unreasonable payment deadlines. The legislation generally requires the first contribution under the alternative liability method to be paid not later than the earlier of (1) the due date for the minimum required contribution for the year in which the substantial cessation occurred and (2) in the case of the first contribution, the date that is 1 year after the later of (a) the date that the employer notifies the corporation of the substantial cessation or (b) the date that the corporation makes a final administrative determination that a substantial cessation has occurred and of the amount of the alternative liability, with subsequent contributions due on the same date in the following years. The intent is to ensure that in all cases the employer has at least 1 year's advance notice of the need to make the first contribution.

Thus, clause (2) controls where otherwise an employer could have less than a year's advance notice of the liability. That is especially important where there is uncertainty as to whether a substantial cessation has occurred or regarding the alternative liability amount because the corporation's final determination might not even be made until after the due date for contributions for the year of the substantial cessation. Similarly, the substantial cessation could occur in a year when the employer is not subject to section 4062(e) liability pursuant to the corporation's enforcement policy, but in a later year, the employer becomes subject to section 4062(e) liability with respect to that earlier cessation. To prevent retroactive liability and other problems, clause (2) is controlling regarding the timing of the first contribution in all cases where the employer would otherwise have less than a year's advance notice of the liability. Where clause (2) is controlling, the seven annual payments would start with the first one required by clause (2).

In some cases, an employer may have notified the corporation of a substantial cessation and elected the alternative liability method in a specific amount. We intend for the same timing rules to apply in determining the due date of the first payment of such amount. However, the corporation may later challenge the amount of the alternative liability and seek a higher amount. In such cases, the higher amount would become due pursuant to the timing rules so that there may be separate 7-year periods, one for the originally elected amount and one for the higher amount determined by the corporation.

Fourth, if an employer fails to pay the amount due for any year by the due date, the employer will be liable for the balance of all amounts due for subsequent years under the alternative liability method, though the corporation may waive or settle such accelerated liability in its discretion. Of course, any such acceleration should be stayed during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding to determine whether there has been a substantial cessation and/or the amount of the alternative liability amount. In addition, if the corporation or a court finds that the employer had a reasonable basis to contest any material portion of the corporation's determination, then the acceleration provision shall not apply, but the employer would owe past due payments plus interest.

S. 2511 is a commonsense solution to the concerns of the pension community, and I appreciate the work of Senator Alexander, the members of the HELP Committee and the Obama administration in getting this important legislation across the finish line.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Robertson, a fellow with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session, and that Brent Becker and Ben Strube, interns with the committee also be granted floor privileges for today's session.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will to meet on September 16, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ebola in West Africa: A Global Challenge and Public Health Threat.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Emily Schlichting of the committee staff on (202) 224-6840.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up S. 2141, The Sunscreen Innovation Act; H.R. 4366, The Strengthening Education through Research Act; S. 2154, Emergency Medical Services for Children Reauthorization Act of 2014; and Sharon Block, of the District of Columbia, to serve as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board; as well as any additional nominations cleared for action.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet on September 18, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Zoe Gross of the committee staff on (202) 224-5484.

permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have focused on ensuring that each and every child with a disability is ensured the right to a good education. To this end, I have fought tirelessly to safeguard the rights of children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, landmark legislation that has been improving the educational outcomes of millions of students across the nation since 1975 on the bedrock principles of inclusion and equality.

When Congress passed IDEA, we understood that our commitment to provide high-quality educational opportunities and serve the needs of students with disabilities in our classrooms entailed excess costs compared to others students, which would have a significant financial impact on States and school districts. That is why Congress committed to covering up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. However, we have failed to deliver on that promise, and the law has been consistently and grossly underfunded.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Full Funding Act, which will allow us to make good on the full federal commitment. Given the current financial difficulties that many state and local governments are facing, this legislation is more essential than ever for ensuring that students with disabilities get the high-quality education and services they need in order to fulfill their potential.

Since enactment of IDEA, students with disabilities across the United States have made tremendous progress. Today, nearly 6.6 million students receive special education services designed to meet their individual needs. Ninety-five percent of students with disabilities attend a neighborhood school, and almost two-thirds of those students spend at least 80 percent of their day in the regular school environment. Nearly 350,000 infants and toddlers receive early intervention services. More than 6 out of 10 students with disabilities graduate high school with a regular diploma--twice the percentage of 25 years ago. Moreover, approximately half of students with disabilities enroll in postsecondary education. We must do our best to continue this progress and make good on our 39-year-old promise because there is still a long way to go. For instance, students with disabilities who graduate from high school have an employment rate that is less than half the employment rate of the general population.

Today, the Federal Government provides about 16 percent of the additional cost of educating a student with a disability, less than half the 40 percent that Congress committed to when we passed IDEA. In the current fiscal year, this means Federal funding for IDEA is almost $24 billion short, which forces states and school districts to make up the federal shortfall at a time when they are cash strapped.

The IDEA Full Funding Act will fully fund the federal commitment to IDEA by gradually increasing the federal government's share of the excess costs of educating students with disabilities to its committed level over 10 years. Specifically, this legislation will increase the Federal dollars appropriated from $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2014 to $35.6 billion in fiscal year 2023.

This bill is supported by 34 organizations including: ACCSES, the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs, the Autism National Committee, the Autism Society of America, the Council of Parent Attorneys

and Advocates, the Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Epilepsy Foundation, Easter Seals, the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Division, the Jonathan Foundation for Children with Learning Disabilities, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Disability Rights Network, Perkins School for the Blind, TASH, the School Superintendents Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Speech Language Hearing Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, the Council of Great City Schools, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, and the National Rural Education Association.

By making good on our 39-year-old promise, we will supply schools with the necessary funding to enhance the quality and range of services available to students with disabilities. The funding increase will help to raise salaries for teachers and related services personnel, thereby allowing districts to enhance recruitment and retention high-quality staff. It will support school districts in increasing graduation rates and postsecondary enrollment rates of students with disabilities.

In these difficult times, it is essential for Congress to provide these revenues without increasing the deficit. The IDEA Full Funding Act is fully paid for by increasing income taxes for those with an adjusted gross income greater than $1,000,000 per year. This increase in funding for schools will have a powerful impact on the lives of children with disabilities by improving their educational and future employment outcomes.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this long- overdue legislation.

Mr. President: Ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, have access to an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face when they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment.

When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. Usually, this partnership serves students well. There are, however, times when parents believe schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education to their children. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. The educational needs of children with disabilities can be quite complex and when there is a disagreement between the family and the school it may be necessary for experts to lend their help in determining what interventions and supports are best for the child. For families asking for mediation or a due process hearing, the use of expert services can be costly, ranging on average from $100 to $300 per hour. In one case, a single mother whose son struggled with dyslexia and written expression disorders had to borrow $1,400 to pay an independent evaluator to testify at a hearing. She also had to pay for the expert's time spent being cross- examined by the school district for two days. Without access to expert witnesses, families may be unable to make an argument for the educational needs of their children.

When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly put at a disadvantage by this ruling.

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs.

This bill is supported by 18 advocacy organizations including: ACCSES, the Autism National Committee, the Autism Society of America, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Epilepsy Foundation, Easter Seals, the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Division, the Jonathan Foundation for Children with Learning Disabilities, Our Children Left Behind, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Disability Rights Network, and TASH.

This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process, consistent with Congressional intent and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I have focused on ensuring that each and every child with a disability is ensured the right to a good education. To this end, I have fought tirelessly to safeguard the rights of children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, landmark legislation that has been improving the educational outcomes of millions of students across the nation since 1975 on the bedrock principles of inclusion and equality.

When Congress passed IDEA, we understood that our commitment to provide high-quality educational opportunities and serve the needs of students with disabilities in our classrooms entailed excess costs compared to others students, which would have a significant financial impact on States and school districts. That is why Congress committed to covering up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. However, we have failed to deliver on that promise, and the law has been consistently and grossly underfunded.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the IDEA Full Funding Act, which will allow us to make good on the full federal commitment. Given the current financial difficulties that many state and local governments are facing, this legislation is more essential than ever for ensuring that students with disabilities get the high-quality education and services they need in order to fulfill their potential.

Since enactment of IDEA, students with disabilities across the United States have made tremendous progress. Today, nearly 6.6 million students receive special education services designed to meet their individual needs. Ninety-five percent of students with disabilities attend a neighborhood school, and almost two-thirds of those students spend at least 80 percent of their day in the regular school environment. Nearly 350,000 infants and toddlers receive early intervention services. More than 6 out of 10 students with disabilities graduate high school with a regular diploma--twice the percentage of 25 years ago. Moreover, approximately half of students with disabilities enroll in postsecondary education. We must do our best to continue this progress and make good on our 39-year-old promise because there is still a long way to go. For instance, students with disabilities who graduate from high school have an employment rate that is less than half the employment rate of the general population.

Today, the Federal Government provides about 16 percent of the additional cost of educating a student with a disability, less than half the 40 percent that Congress committed to when we passed IDEA. In the current fiscal year, this means Federal funding for IDEA is almost $24 billion short, which forces states and school districts to make up the federal shortfall at a time when they are cash strapped.

The IDEA Full Funding Act will fully fund the federal commitment to IDEA by gradually increasing the federal government's share of the excess costs of educating students with disabilities to its committed level over 10 years. Specifically, this legislation will increase the Federal dollars appropriated from $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2014 to $35.6 billion in fiscal year 2023.

This bill is supported by 34 organizations including: ACCSES, the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs, the Autism National Committee, the Autism Society of America, the Council of Parent Attorneys

and Advocates, the Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Epilepsy Foundation, Easter Seals, the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Division, the Jonathan Foundation for Children with Learning Disabilities, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Disability Rights Network, Perkins School for the Blind, TASH, the School Superintendents Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Speech Language Hearing Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, the Council of Great City Schools, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, and the National Rural Education Association.

By making good on our 39-year-old promise, we will supply schools with the necessary funding to enhance the quality and range of services available to students with disabilities. The funding increase will help to raise salaries for teachers and related services personnel, thereby allowing districts to enhance recruitment and retention high-quality staff. It will support school districts in increasing graduation rates and postsecondary enrollment rates of students with disabilities.

In these difficult times, it is essential for Congress to provide these revenues without increasing the deficit. The IDEA Full Funding Act is fully paid for by increasing income taxes for those with an adjusted gross income greater than $1,000,000 per year. This increase in funding for schools will have a powerful impact on the lives of children with disabilities by improving their educational and future employment outcomes.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this long- overdue legislation.

Mr. President: Ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, have access to an education that gives them the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I have fought hard for students with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum and the services and supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that families, especially low- and middle-income families, face when they pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment.

When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with disabilities. Usually, this partnership serves students well. There are, however, times when parents believe schools have not fulfilled their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education to their children. In these cases, IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through mediation and due process. The educational needs of children with disabilities can be quite complex and when there is a disagreement between the family and the school it may be necessary for experts to lend their help in determining what interventions and supports are best for the child. For families asking for mediation or a due process hearing, the use of expert services can be costly, ranging on average from $100 to $300 per hour. In one case, a single mother whose son struggled with dyslexia and written expression disorders had to borrow $1,400 to pay an independent evaluator to testify at a hearing. She also had to pay for the expert's time spent being cross- examined by the school district for two days. Without access to expert witnesses, families may be unable to make an argument for the educational needs of their children.

When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly put at a disadvantage by this ruling.

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle- income parents to be effective advocates for their children's educational needs.

This bill is supported by 18 advocacy organizations including: ACCSES, the Autism National Committee, the Autism Society of America, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Epilepsy Foundation, Easter Seals, the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Division, the Jonathan Foundation for Children with Learning Disabilities, Our Children Left Behind, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Disability Rights Network, and TASH.

This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their children's rights through due process, consistent with Congressional intent and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, from August 7 through August 10 the Meskwaki will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of their tribal powwow, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on this occasion. This is a unique event held annually on the only Indian settlement in the State of Iowa. During this celebration the tribe members celebrate and perform dances that have been handed down for generations. It is a time of reaffirmation and hope and a time of friendship.

The Annual Meskwaki Powwow originated from the traditional religious and social beliefs of the Meskwaki Tribe. This annual event is derived from the ``Green Corn Dance'' which originally took place during the harvesting of the crops. From 1902 to 1912, the tribe held the ``Field Days'' which would last for the week, with dancing, games, and horse racing. And then in 1912, the tribe made the decision to change the name from ``Field Days'' to ``Powwow''. This historic celebration continues to be held at the original location.

I would like to congratulate the Meskwaki on this joyous occasion and hope they will continue to celebrate their powwow for many more years to come.

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

Mr. President, I come before the Senate to call again for the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I would like to give a little history. We passed the Americans with Disabilities Act here in 1990. It was signed into law by President George Herbert Walker Bush on July 26, 1990--24 years ago last Saturday. That changed the face of America. Anywhere you go, you can see ramps and curb cuts and automatic door openers and accessible bathrooms and in education kids being integrated fully into schools under the IDEA and ADA. It really did change accessibility and also opportunity in the workplace, for example, for people with disabilities.

Some years after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, the United Nations set up a committee to study whether there should be a treaty, an international convention on the rights of people with disabilities. That committee drafted it after consultation with us here in the Senate. In looking at the ADA, in fact--I was told by one of the persons instrumental in this that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which we refer to as ADA, informed them on what they needed to put into the convention. That convention was sent out to member states for ratification in 2008. Since that time, 148 nations have ratified it, with one exception--well, there has been more than one exception, but one glaring exception is the United States.

Under our constitutional system, this treaty was sent to the President. The President sent it to all of his Departments to find out what laws we had that needed to be changed. So it goes to the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture perhaps, and everywhere else to see what laws we would have to change to comply with this treaty. Well, it came back after about a year, and because the Americans with Disabilities Act was so good, we didn't have to change any of our laws--none--because we are the best in the world on it. It was sent to OMB to see if there would be any budget implications, and OMB said there were no budget implications either.

After that, the President sent it to the Senate for ratification under our Constitution. It was sent to the Committee On Foreign Relations. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was then the chairman of the committee. They had hearings. In fact, the first two witnesses at the hearings were Senator John McCain and I. There were a lot of other people who testified, both Republicans and Democrats, disabilities leaders, disability rights advocates, and others. This was in 2011.

Then it was brought to the floor in December of 2012, and that was a lameduck session. It turned out that 38 Senators--all on the Republican side--had signed a letter that we should not vote on a treaty in a lameduck session. There were some other issues raised, but that was the big one. So we brought it up for a vote. In the Constitution, a treaty requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, and so we fell five votes short.

That Congress ended, so the treaty had to be resubmitted from the administration to the Senate. It went through another hearing process. I spoke with the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee about what we could do to advance it, and they wanted more hearings. So we did that. Senator Menendez from New Jersey is now the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he had more hearings on it.

Thanks to the leadership of Senator Menendez, the bill was reported out of the committee last week and it was put on the Executive Calendar yesterday. There has to be 3 days before they can send it to the floor. They sent it to the floor on Monday, 24-hour layover, and it is now on the Executive Calendar ready to be brought up.

I understand we have a busy week this week and there are a lot of things happening. I suppose people could look around and say: What? There is not much happening around here today.

But we are in postcloture, and under the rules there is 30 hours of postcloture time unless time is yielded back, and evidently--I don't know if that is going to happen. I am hopeful that sometime today or late today maybe or tomorrow, we will have a unanimous consent request in terms of bringing up this treaty, this convention on the rights of people with disabilities.

So that is what I wanted to talk about today, but I wanted to give a brief history of where we are and why we are at this point.

During the past week we have seen extraordinary efforts to move forward with this treaty. As I said, Senator Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has marked up the treaty and brought it out with a 12-to-6 bipartisan vote. The committee added new reservations, understandings, and declarations that thoughtfully addressed the concerns that have been raised, including the matter of a parent's right to decide how their children are schooled as well as issues related to federalism and sovereignty.

This week we are hearing from disability advocates from across the country. Yesterday afternoon there was a big rally on the Mall calling for passage of the treaty. Many of our offices have been flooded with calls and visits from people with disabilities, veterans groups, and business leaders asking us to vote on and pass this treaty. Businesses such as Walmart, AT&T, Sprint, and Coca-Cola have urged passage of this treaty. In the days ahead we will hear from many more calling for its passage.

Now let me talk about a few of the issues that have been raised. First, I will talk about the issue of sovereignty. Some of our colleagues continue to express concern about some aspects, particularly with regard to sovereignty and reproductive health. Let me talk about sovereignty first, but I want to say this first of all: It is important to address these issues thoughtfully and respectfully. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan fashion did so last week when it approved a series of new reservations, understandings, and declarations.

For those who don't know what that means, every treaty we adopt has what are called RUDs--reservations, understandings, and declarations. What are those? Those inform other free nations on how we will adopt this treaty, how under our laws and the Constitution we will comport with that treaty. Just about every treaty we have has some reservation or understanding or declaration.

So the Foreign Relations Committee adopted new reservations, declarations, and understandings, but concerns remain.

Last week my good friend the senior Senator from Utah spoke eloquently about his genuine concerns about the loss of or possible loss of U.S. sovereignty. In answering my question as to why this convention is different from the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor treaty, he expressed his fear that the disabilities convention would ``threaten American sovereignty and self-government.'' The Senator from Utah stated that the child labor convention we passed in 1999 is the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. The Senate adopted it in 1999. So the Senator from Utah says that convention gives authority to ratifying countries to determine whether they are in compliance with the convention while under the disabilities convention--the CRPD, as it is known--the U.N. determines whether ratifying countries are in compliance with their treaty obligations. On the Senate floor, my good friend from Utah stated that ``the Disability Treaty gives the last word on whether a nation is in compliance to the UN, the child labor treaty leaves that entirely up to each nation.''

Well, the fact is that the review process of compliance is essentially identical in both the Worst Forms of Child Labor treaty that we adopted in 1999 and the CRPD that we are discussing right now.

Let me further explain that. When an ILO member--that is the International Labor Organization, under which that treaty was signed-- when an ILO member state ratifies this convention, it is required to submit regular reports. Those reports are reviewed by the ILO's independent committee of experts. Keep that phrase in mind--``committee of experts.'' It is reviewed by them on the application of conventions and recommendations, and they are known as the committee of experts. The task of the committee of experts is to assess the extent to which the ratifying member's legislation and practices are in conformity with the ratified treaty. This is an external review committee, and the United States has always supported this type of review. The process guarantees fairness and openness in the implementation of treaty obligations.

While it has been suggested that the United States should conduct its own compliance with treaty obligations, I ask my colleagues, would we be comfortable with all countries assessing their own compliance with important international standards? I don't think so.

For example, take any treaty--take the START treaty, the arms control reduction treaty. Would we be content to say to Russia ``Tell us how you are in compliance with that'' and just accept their word for it? We wouldn't do that. We wouldn't do that with any country with which we have a treaty. That is why there is always an external review process to see whether country A, B, C or D that has signed on to any treaty is in fact in compliance with it. You wouldn't make a treaty and say: OK, Country X, tell us whether you are in compliance and we will just accept that. No one would do that. It goes back to Ronald Reagan's phrase: Trust but verify. We will trust, but we want verification.

The Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty, the one we adopted here in 1999, has the same conclusions and recommendations as this committee of experts as far as external reviews. It is the same in the CRPD, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and sets up a ``committee of experts,'' just as it is under the Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty, to review whether a country is basically in compliance. Are they really implementing the treaty as they said in the treaty?

Again, we have the two committees of experts--the one in the CRPD and in the Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty, which was adopted here unanimously in 1999. The Senator from Utah supported that. The recommendations and conclusions of that committee of experts under the Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty that was set up in 1999 are not legally binding on the United States or any other country. Although these recommendations often have great moral weight and persuasive value, the findings cannot be imposed on any government. It is up to each ratifying member to determine whether and to what extent it will act upon those recommendations. That is the same as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This committee of experts will certainly go in and do external reviews of whether a country is in compliance or working to be in compliance. They may issue findings and conclusions and recommendations, but they are not binding on any country. They are not binding on the United States. Let me repeat: It is up to each ratifying member to determine whether and to what extent it will act upon those recommendations.

A review of practices is common whenever a nation undertakes an international obligation, whether it is by treaty or any other international agreement. This does not equate to forfeiture by the American people of our right to govern or of our sovereignty. It does not relate to any abandonment of our cultural and social values in America.

In terms of this external review of compliance, there is no substantive difference between the child labor convention we passed in 1999 and the U.N. disabilities convention that we hope to bring up. Both treaties have much the same reporting requirements, oversight mechanisms, recommendation process, and ``committee of experts.'' And just as in 1999 with that earlier treaty, the United States is in no danger of losing any of its sovereignty with the disability treaty-- none whatsoever. If we weren't before, we aren't now. These are recommendations.

Why should we be afraid of an external review by a committee of experts to see whether we are in compliance with this treaty on the rights of people with disabilities? It was modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act, for crying out loud, and we were already in compliance. We are far ahead, quite frankly, of any other country. Why should we be afraid of any review of our laws and practices in terms of people with disabilities? We should not be. We ought to be proud of it. In fact, we ought to be proud of exporting the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Given these facts, I ask my colleagues: Why is it acceptable to have sufficient reservations to protect our sovereignty for a treaty about the worst forms of child labor and a treaty on torture and a treaty on degrading punishment and not be able to have sufficient reservations that protect our sovereignty when it comes to a treaty regarding people with disabilities? What is the difference? From my review of this issue, and the review of legal experts, there is no substantive difference to the threat to our sovereignty. As I have stated previously here, scores of Republican policymakers agree with me.

I have heard that some of my fellow Republicans are concerned about losing our sovereignty under this treaty. I will point out that former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, is in strong support of this treaty. Are you telling me he doesn't care about our sovereignty? I don't think so. Former President Bush was a strong supporter. I kind of think he cares about our sovereignty. Since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, every former Republican leader of this Senate--I am talking about Senator Dole, Senator Lott, and Senator Frist--supported this treaty. I kind of think they care about our sovereignty a lot too. I know every one of them.

Dick Thornburgh, former Attorney General of the United States under George Herbert Walker Bush, is in strong support of this treaty. Don't tell me he doesn't know what is in the treaty. He knows every legal part of it. He cares deeply about our sovereignty, and he says this is no threat to our sovereignty whatsoever.

The American Legion is a big supporter. Are you telling me the American Legion commander and all of those veterans are not concerned about our sovereignty? You bet they are. They know this treaty and have read the treaty, and they said it doesn't affect our sovereignty. Every veterans group supports this bill, and they do care about our sovereignty.

I hope we can lay that issue aside. This does not impinge or threaten our

sovereignty any more than other treaties. Every treaty we have signed has a reservation that basically says a treaty shall be applied in the United States in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted by the United States. That is in every treaty we sign, and it says, basically, we are sovereign and our Constitution is sovereign.

There was a court case called the Bond case which was recently decided, I think in May, by the Supreme Court. A lot of people wondered whether that would affect this treaty. It was a case that was brought up by the United States against a woman for violating the chemical weapons ban treaty because she had been trying to poison one of her husband's lovers or something like that. The Supreme Court said: That is nonsense. Get out of here. Those laws are covered by the State of Pennsylvania, not by a treaty. So that kind of put to rest any idea that somehow this treaty overrode our Constitution--our federalism--and the fact that these criminal laws are State laws. That just happened in May.

The other issue that has come up is reproductive health. Some of our colleagues have also voiced concern regarding the provision on sexual and reproductive health of women with disabilities as it was mentioned in article 25 of the treaty. For those not familiar with this provision, the treaty simply says ``persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability.''

The article goes further and says that those countries ratifying the treaty shall ``provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health . . . ''

Critics of the treaty say this phrase ``creates and expands rights to abortion.'' That is not correct. This phrase has nothing to do with abortion. What it is about is equality and access.

Historically, people with disabilities have been disproportionately discriminated against when it comes to health care--especially women with disabilities around the world--because they are blind or have cerebral palsy or autism or any number of physical or mental impairments. They were often viewed as not being able to be mothers or wives or partners in a family.

In fact, because of this prejudiced attitude--which still exists in so many places around the world, and probably some places here in America too--women with disabilities were, and in many cases still are, denied such vital services as Pap smears, gynecological exams, breast cancer screenings, and cervical cancer screenings simply because they are disabled. Denying women with disabilities the same health prevention, screening, and intervention services that are provided to women without disabilities is blatant discrimination, prejudicial, and unethical.

The entire purpose of article 25 of the U.N. convention is to address this prejudiced view of the world that has led to thousands of unnecessary deaths of women because they have not been afforded the same access to reproductive health care as women without disabilities. That is why that was put in there. It has nothing to do with abortion. Article 25 simply reflects the underlying principles of the treaty: equality and access for all. These same principles are the bedrock of our own Americans with Disabilities Act. It has nothing to do with abortion, but some people have whipped it up and said it does.

In some countries women with disabilities have been the most preyed upon. It is women with disabilities--physical and intellectual disabilities--who are the subject of maltreatment, mistreatment, and sexual abuse. All we are saying is they have to be treated the same as any other woman without a disability under the laws of that country. So if a country banned all abortions, that is their right to do so. They cannot then say: Oh, you may have an abortion if your unborn child is disabled. They can't do that. They can't make exceptions.

If they provide any kind of services, they can't say to one woman: Because you are not disabled, you get this service, but if you are disabled, you don't get it. No, no. Equality of access.

There are 71 countries that have absolute prohibitions, or significant restrictions on abortion, that have signed the treaty without reservations about reproductive health. Imagine that--71. They felt no harm would come from a reservation because they correctly determined that the treaty is no threat whatsoever to their sovereignty and their national laws limiting access to abortion.

Poland, a country with strict abortion limitations, was not going to sign this treaty because they were concerned about article 25. I will read the exact language of the reservation put in by the Nation of Poland:

The Republic of Poland understands that Article 23.1(b) and

Article 25(a) shall not be interpreted in a way conferring an

individual right to abortion or mandating state party to

provide access thereto, unless that right is guaranteed by

the national law.

Well, when they adopted that reservation, Poland signed it on the treaty. Poland's reservation states exactly what this treaty is about, a guarantee that women with disabilities will have access to the same health care services guaranteed to all other citizens by their national law. To say the treaty is about creating and expanding abortion rights is just plain wrong, and to make such a claim is utterly unfounded and unfair. It is unfair to women with disabilities around the globe. It is creating a false claim out of thin air with no other purpose but to prevent ratification of this important treaty.

Most of the concerns raised by my colleagues are serious concerns. They are also concerns that can be addressed by thoughtful reservations, understandings, and declarations to the treaty. Indeed, they have been addressed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have acted, and now it is time for the full Senate to act.

Let us bring the treaty to the floor of the Senate. Listen to Senators' concerns, address those concerns, and then vote on the treaty. We owe this to millions of Americans with disabilities--our veterans and others who want the same rights and access afforded by our own Americans with Disabilities Act. They want it to apply to the globe. We owe this to our veterans who want to be able to travel and pursue opportunities in other countries, knowing they can enjoy the same rights and access they have here in America.

Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois said it very eloquently in a press conference we had with the veterans groups last week. He said: ``Our veterans fought for freedom around the globe. They ought to be able to move freely around the globe.''

We owe this to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and countless companies that know that not only is this the right thing to do for veterans, it is the right thing to do for business. There are all kinds of markets opening all around the world for people with disabilities--new software, new kinds of equipment, new devices that are helping people with disabilities live more full and meaningful lives. A lot of that was developed here in America. I know our businesses would like to be involved with this treaty, to be able to be involved in raising the level of accessibility and opportunity for people with disabilities around the globe. Scores of religious groups want to see this treaty ratified.

In closing, it is time to bring this to the floor. As I say, I know Members have serious concerns and those concerns should be addressed. I believe the Foreign Relations Committee has addressed them. If not, then let's have a discussion about how we meet those reservations. We shouldn't just say I don't like the U.N., so therefore we shouldn't adopt it.

I think there are some people who maybe don't like the U.N. OK, fine. I remember when we passed the convention on the worst forms of child labor. I was in Geneva with President Clinton when he signed it. We came back, resubmitted it to the Senate, and I went to see Senator Jesse Helms to ask him to move this. There was probably no one in my 30 years of history in the Senate who disliked the United Nations more than Jesse Helms of North Carolina. So he went on to tell me just how bad the United Nations was but he would bring the treaty to the committee and have hearings and a markup. He called me as the first witness. I always appreciated that.

So Senator Helms, the chairman of the committee--the Republicans were

in charge of the Senate at the time--brought the convention to the committee and reported it out. I remember him saying one time he didn't like the United Nations, but if this makes them do something good for a change, he would be all right with it, and it passed the floor unanimously.

I say to those who maybe don't like the United Nations: Fine, that is their right; perhaps they have good and sufficient reasons not to like the United Nations. I have some problems with the United Nations myself at certain times with some of the things they do or don't do. But I see this in the same light as the convention on the worst forms of child labor. This makes countries change for the better through persuasion, not through mandate. No country has to change their laws because of what the committee on experts says, but through moral weight, through persuasion, through working with other countries under this umbrella on the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. If this causes countries to change their policies and make life better for people with disabilities around the globe, shouldn't we do it, even though we may not like the United Nations? As Jesse Helms said, if this makes them do something good for a change, we ought to be for it.

So I hope colleagues will listen to the veterans groups who are for it. All business groups I have met with support it strongly. Religious groups and disability groups are united behind this. Listen to our former Republican leaders, including former President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Bush; former Senator Bob Dole, the majority leader of the Senate, worked his heart out on this. He cares about sovereignty. He knows this is not going to take away our sovereignty. Every former Republican leader of the Senate--Senator John McCain-- colleagues tell me Senator John McCain doesn't care about our sovereignty? I happen to think he cares a lot about our sovereignty. He gave a lot of his life protecting our sovereignty. Mark Kirk, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator John Barrasso, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Collins are all strong supporters of this.

I have been involved in disability policy since I first got here in 1975, starting in the House. Everything I have ever worked on, including Education of All Handicapped Children Act, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA Act Amendments later on in 2008--these were all nonpartisan. They didn't devolve into any kind of partisan issue. Now, that didn't mean that everybody voted for it, but it passed overwhelmingly with both Republican and Democrat support. That ought to be the case with this too. Yes, we should address the legitimate and honest concerns people have about home schooling, abortion, and sovereignty. I believe we can do that with reservations, but I want every Senator to know that nothing this committee on experts will ever do under the CRPD takes precedence over our Constitution or over our laws. It does nothing to take away our sovereignty, and we can spell that out just as we have in every other treaty we have signed in the past.

So I hope we can bring this to the floor, and I hope we can have a discussion. I hope we can work these areas out and have strong support from both sides to pass this treaty and help change the face of the globe as we have changed the face of America for people with disabilities.

I see the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor. I was listing all the people who support the treaty, and one of the strongest supporters of this treaty from the very beginning has been Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming. I inadvertently, going through the names, left it off, but I see him here, and I apologize because he has been such a strong advocate for people with disabilities in this country and a strong advocate for people with disabilities in the world. I personally want to publicly thank Senator Barrasso for his great leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Wolff, a fellow with the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session and that Aly Boyce and Kate Kollars, interns with the committee, also be granted floor privileges for today's session.