Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from New York for highlighting the critical employment and workforce needs in the areas impacted by Superstorm Sandy. Now more than ever, Congress must give our States and localities that have been hard hit by Sandy the tools and resources that help dislocated workers return to their jobs or, if necessary, find new, good-paying employment. The supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance bill's funding for dislocated workers is just one step in the recovery process, but an important one to help workers get back on their feet.

As New York, New Jersey, and the other impacted areas move forward with their recovery, I will continue to work with Senator Gillibrand so that the short- and long-term needs of impacted workers are addressed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, pursuant to Public Law 112-144, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, the following letters from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives be printed into the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senate--both as a legislative body and as a family--is in mourning today after the passing of its most senior and revered Member, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

In his final days, Senator Inouye was asked how he wanted to be remembered. He replied, with characteristic modesty:

I represented the people of Hawaii and this nation honestly

and to the best of my ability. I think I did OK.

With similar understatement, speaking about the extraordinary act of heroism in combat for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, he explained that it was ``a case of temporary insanity.''

Modesty and reserve were trademark qualities of our beloved Danny Inouye. But we can speak more forthrightly about this very extraordinary person.

Yes, Senator Inouye represented the people of Hawaii and this Nation honestly and to best of his ability. But he did not do just ``OK.'' Daniel Inouye was a truly great American, a public servant of extraordinary accomplishment. His qualities of character and conscience and steadfastness have set the standard in the Senate for over five decades.

Think about this. In 1973 and 1974, as a Senate Select Committee investigated the crimes of Watergate, which Senator did we count on to take charge with tough but fair questioning of those involved?

In 1976, after revelations of abuse of power by the CIA and the FBI, which Senator did we count on to oversee reforms as first chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence? Of course, we counted on Senator Inouye.

In 1987, as the Iran-Contra scandal rocked the Reagan administration, which Senator did we count on to lead a tough but fair inquiry as chairman of the select committee appointed to investigate the affair? Of course, we counted on Senator Inouye.

Time and again, over seven decades, the United States of America has counted on Daniel Inouye, and he always delivered. He always responded to

the call of duty with courage, selflessness, and excellence.

As we all know, during the Second World War, Dan served in the famed, all-Nisei 442nd Regimental Combat Team. After losing his right arm and sustaining other grave injuries in combat, he spent 2 years in Army hospitals. At one of those hospitals he met two other wounded veterans: a soldier from Kansas named Bob Dole and a Michigan boy named Philip Hart. All three would go on to become giants of Senate history.

It is difficult to imagine, but after returning from the war, LT Daniel Inouye was wearing an empty right sleeve pinned to his Army uniform and was denied service at a San Francisco barbershop. The barber dismissed him with the words, ``We don't serve Japs here.'' One of Daniel Inouye's great legacies in his successful fight to defeat that brand of racism and discrimination was his successful fight against any form of discrimination against anyone, especially people with disabilities. Throughout his political career, he fought for civil rights and social justice not only for Japanese Americans but for all Americans.

Mr. President, I have lost not only a friend of nearly four decades but also my chairman on the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Defense. Senator Inouye was well known as a stalwart advocate for national defense and for veterans. He also fought very passionately to advance education, the National Institutes of Health, and other programs in the jurisdiction of my Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

I will never forget what Senator Inouye said one time in a meeting in which my bill on labor, health and human services, education, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control--all of the things that are in that bill came forward. Remember, Senator Inouye was at that time the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and he said something I will never forget.

He said:

I chair the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. That is

the subcommittee that defends America.

He said:

Senator Harkin chairs the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, and Education. That is the subcommittee that

defines America.

So Senator Inouye was not a one-dimensional person. He was not just someone who fought for our veterans and fought for the strong defense of our country. I also remember him saying one time--repeating the famous words of President Truman--that the strength of America comes not just from the number of tanks, guns, and war planes we have but from the health, welfare, and education of our people.

In tributes on the floor yesterday and today, colleagues are remembering Dan Inouye as one of the greatest Senators of our time, and indeed he was. But knowing Dan and the values he held dear, he would want no greater tribute than to be remembered as a loyal friend, a man of honor, decency, and humility. Senator Inouye was that and much more.

Senator Inouye was the finest of men. For half a century, the Senate has been graced by his dignified and noble presence. It will not be the same without him. We will miss our friend Daniel Inouye very, very much.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor now to bid farewell to one of the Senate's most respected Members, Senator Olympia Snowe from the great State of Maine. She chose to retire this year after a distinguished career in public service spanning nearly four decades, first in the Maine Legislature, 6 years in the U.S. House, and the last 18 years here in the U.S. Senate.

Throughout this remarkable career, she has been respected for her independence, always putting her values and country ahead of party and partisanship. She can, of course, be a very persuasive advocate for the conservative causes she holds dear, but, as we all know and appreciate, she is willing to buck party loyalty when she believes it is in error or when she believes in what is better for our country. And our future depends on bipartisanship. I cite, for example, when she voted in favor of the Recovery Act and the Dodd-Frank reform of Wall Street.

I especially admire Senator Snowe's talent for reaching across the aisle and building bridges in order to get things done. On that score, she has represented the United States and her State of Maine at her very best, and that is just one of the many reasons why we are sad that she has chosen, voluntarily, to retire.

Olympia Snowe has been a wonderful colleague and friend, always congenial, always willing to listen, always willing to examine different sides of an issue. What more could we ask of any U.S. Senator? We have been fortunate to have had a Senator of her high caliber, intelligence, and character in this body for the last 18 years. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing her and John the very best in the years ahead.

Jeff Bingaman

Mr. President, in these closing days of the 112th Congress, the Senate is saying farewell to one of our most popular and respected Members, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

When Jeff came to this body 30 years ago, he had already led a life of accomplishment. Raised in smalltown New Mexico, Silver City, he was an Eagle Scout. He graduated from Harvard College and Stanford Law School, where he met his future wife Anne. While at Stanford, he worked on Senator Robert F. Kennedy's campaign for President. At the age of 35, he was elected New Mexico attorney general in 1978. Four years later, at the age of 39, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

During his three decades in this body, Jeff Bingaman has been a classic workhorse Senator as opposed to being a show horse Senator. He is truly remarkable and distinctive among Senators for his willingness to shun the limelight and share the credit in order to get important work done for his State and for his country.

Senator Bingaman has been a much-valued colleague of mine on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but he has really made his mark in the Senate--a lasting mark--in his role as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As chair and also at times ranking member of that committee, he has played a leading role in shaping energy policy for our Nation, authoring bipartisan legislation promoting a balanced energy portfolio encompassing all energy sources.

Senator Bingaman worked closely with his New Mexico colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, to pass the landmark 2005 Energy Policy Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush. This was signed, I might add, appropriately at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. That comprehensive law established groundbreaking policies on many fronts, including a renewable fuels standard for biofuels, support for alternative vehicles, loan guarantees for new energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, establishing policies to upgrade the electrical grid, plus a whole range of measures to promote energy efficiency.

In 2007 he again collaborated with Senator Domenici in securing passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act. This act included an ambitious increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020--as well as significantly greater commitments to the use of biofuels. These two provisions are largely responsible for the significant decrease in oil imports that we have seen over the past several years.

More broadly, Senator Bingaman has played a critical role in ensuring the vitality of America's energy research and development community, championing energy programs at all levels, including universities, national laboratories, and in private industry.

I can't close without mentioning a great living legacy of the Senator from

New Mexico: his 2009 public lands management bill that set aside more than 2 million acres in nine States as protected wilderness, including a 5,300-acre national monument to protect Paleozoic fossils located north of Los Cruces, NM. I can say that Senator Bingaman stands in line with those great heroes of America who set aside public lands for all future generations, people such as Theodore Roosevelt and others. Senator Bingaman takes his rightful place there.

For the last three decades in this body, Senator Bingaman has been a tireless advocate for the people of New Mexico and a determined champion of the future of clean and renewable energy for the United States. He has been an outstanding Senator and a wonderful friend. I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing Jeff and Anne the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, with the close of the 112th Congress, our good friend and colleague Senator Herb Kohl is retiring after four terms of dedicated service to this body, the people of Wisconsin and the United States. As a Senator, Herb Kohl has shown the same dedication and work ethic that previously allowed him to build his family-owned business into a nationally known brand name. Indeed, during his 24 years in this body, he has been a classic workhorse Senator, as opposed to a show horse Senator. Few Senators have been more willing to shun the limelight and share the credit in order to get important things done for the people of this country.

Senator Kohl is also a proud and principled progressive. His work in the Senate brings to mind the great words of the late Senator Hubert Humphrey:

The moral test of government is how its government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are

in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the

handicapped.

Senator Kohl has been respected as a leading advocate on children's issues. For instance, he authored legislation to expand the school breakfast program and has been a strong supporter of child nutrition programs. He also authored legislation requiring that handguns be sold with separate child safety locks.

Of course, as chair of the Special Committee on Aging, he has led the charge in the Senate on issues affecting older Americans, something especially important in my State of Iowa.

In particular, I salute Senator Kohl for authoring the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which was included in the Affordable Care Act. The Sunshine Act, which was the focus of a series of hearings chaired by Senator Kohl, will require transparency and disclosure on payments made to doctors and surgeons by drug and medical device companies.

Senator Kohl has been our leader in improving the safety and quality of nursing homes, ensuring criminal background checks for employees in nursing homes, and working with CMS to institute new and meaningful quality ratings for nursing homes.

Senator Kohl and I worked together, in my capacity as chair of the Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on legislative reform of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and its outside board.

Senator Kohl also deserves enormous credit for his committee's indepth hearings and reports identifying financial scams and abuses targeting seniors and the elderly.

Herb Kohl is a good friend, and he has been an outstanding Senator. He has accomplished many things during his four terms in the Senate. But I can think of no greater accolade than to say, simply, that Herb Kohl is a good, decent, honorable person with a passion for social and economic justice and a determination to make life better for ordinary Americans.

I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Herb the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I wish to rise to express my deep sadness about the events in Michigan. Denied the chance to participate in their own government, Michigan workers have been the victims of backroom political trickery, and they have lost much in a short period of time. It is also a sad day, however, for our entire country because Michigan is only the latest battleground in a much larger war on workers' rights. If we lose this great battle, the casualty will be the American middle class.

I have always said and believe that strong unions are the foundation of a strong middle class. When union membership was at its peak in this country, we all grew together. The middle class grew and prospered. Everyone, from the richest CEO to the minimum wage worker, benefited from our Nation's prosperity when labor union organization was at its peak.

Michigan's economy has always been a shining example of that shared prosperity, where an autoworker who put in a hard day's work could earn enough not only to buy one of the cars he made but to buy a house, send his kids to college, take a nice vacation, have a good retirement, and live the American dream.

As unions have declined in this country, the middle class has suffered. Those at the top earn more and more, while ordinary working people are seeing the American dream slip out of their reach.

It is not just union workers who are losing ground because unions don't only benefit their members. They benefit each and every American worker, regardless of whether one has ever held a union card. It is unions that fought for all the things we sort of take for granted. It is unions that fought for the 40-hour work week, a fair minimum wage, laws against discrimination, and laws that keep workers safe on the job. It is unions that are fighting today for Medicare, Social Security, job training, and other programs that help working families succeed.

I think it is important to go back to, truly the founding father, if you will, of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers. He was asked once, ``What does labor want?'' Here is what he said:

What does labor want?

We want more school houses and less jails; more books and

less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and

less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of

the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.

That was Samuel Gompers, and he went on to say:

Where trade unions are most firmly organized, these are the

rights of the people most respected.

Historically, we know that is true. Perhaps, most important now, America's labor unions are the last remaining voice strong enough to speak out for those who are not rich and not powerful. That is why they are under attack. Unions are under attack because they are one of the few remaining groups strong enough to stand up to the powerful, the very wealthy interests that want to run our country and ship our jobs overseas.

Last Thursday, Governor Snyder of Michigan called a press conference with the Republican leaders in the Michigan House and Senate and announced their plans to force through a change in Michigan laws for the so-called right-to-work law.

By the end of that same day, Republicans had introduced and passed right-to-work bills. There was no real debate. There were no hearings. To make matters worse, they manipulated the process to prevent the voters in Michigan from ever reviewing their actions. Why do I say that? Because Michigan law allows voter referendums on most laws but has an exception for appropriations bills. So the Republicans in the legislature attach their antilabor provisions to an appropriations bill to deny voters in Michigan the chance to even be heard on it.

But here is the key thing about the American people, when we are fighting for our families and our children's future, we will not be bullied, nor will we be silenced. This week's events in Michigan illustrate this so powerfully. Ordinary working people with bills to pay, kids to feed, and worries on their minds are taking time out of their busy lives to stand together, shoulder to shoulder, to say enough is enough.

This is not, again, just about organized labor. There are huge stakes for the middle class in the ongoing Republican assault on the right of American workers to organize and bargain collectively. There is a very direct connection between this war on unions and the harsh reality that American workers' incomes have effectively stagnated and even declined in recent decades, even as corporate profits have skyrocketed.

In an important column earlier this week, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, points out that even as the economy has struggled, corporate profits are at an alltime high. Moreover, as Professor Krugman points out, ``profits have surged as a share of national income, while wages and labor compensation are down. The pie isn't growing the way it should--but capital is doing fine by grabbing an ever-larger slice, at labor's expense.''

As this chart shows, corporate profits have been rising rapidly for a decade in dollar terms, but wages have been stagnant, barely keeping up with inflation over time. In dollar terms, total wages have been increasing slightly, but that is because of inflation and the size of the workforce. A growing number of workers are dividing up their share of the pie. But corporate profits have been skyrocketing, almost tripling over a decade. Therefore, the worker's share gets smaller and smaller.

This is what this second chart shows. It is kind of a little confusing, so I will explain it. If we look at a longer period of time in terms of the gross domestic product, what we see is that from the 1950s till 2000, wages and corporate profits moved back and forth relative to each other. But since the 1980s, we see a picture of corporate profits increasing and exploding over the last decade. At the same time, wages and salaries have been on a steady downward slope as the economy has grown. As I said, this pattern has accelerated dramatically over the past decade.

So let's take a look and try to make some sense out of this chart. Here are wages as a percent of the gross domestic product. If we look back at the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, up to about 1980, we will see that labor's share was right around 50 percent, give or take a little bit-- right around 50 percent of GDP--and corporate profits basically kept in line with its share. Beginning in 1980, wages--the red line--started going down and corporate profits started their huge climb. But for the recession, where they took a dip, we can see the huge increase now in corporate profits as a percent of GDP has more than doubled from its low point in the recession of a decade ago. It has reached its highest point in over 70 years. Wages have fallen down to below 44 percent of

Mr. President, with the close of the 112th Congress, the Senate will lose its most determined champion of fiscal prudence and balance, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Senator Conrad is best known nationally for his leadership as chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Again, that committee has limited legislative power, but that did not stop Senator Conrad from using that committee relentlessly for fiscal restraint, for honest budgeting. As we all know, he has spent countless hours on the floor educating, exhorting Senators on budget issues, driving home his points by displaying a seemingly endless array of charts and graphs.

Indeed, I would note in 2001, the Committee on Rules and Administration assigned Senator Conrad his own printing equipment because he was producing more charts than all his colleagues combined. The other day, we had this so-called Secret Santa that Senator Franken had established, where we draw names out of a hat and we exchange these little gifts. You never know who is going to give you a gift. You know to whom you are giving, but you do not know who is giving you a gift. It turned out my gift giver was Senator Conrad.

So I got a nice little book. But most importantly, I got three charts. They were charts from the 2008 farm bill we both worked on, and of which I was chairman at that time. I thought that was a great gift, both to get some of his charts but the charts pertaining to a major piece of legislation on which both he and I had worked very closely. We have been long-time colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. He joined that committee as a freshman Senator in 1987, just 2 years after I got here in 1985. We were in the midst of the worst economic crisis in the farm sector since the Great Depression.

Senator Conrad left a major imprint on the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, advocating strongly for measures to help farm families and rural committees persevere through circumstances beyond their control, to preserve a family farm system of agriculture as well as to preserve small towns, the fabric of rural America. Over the years Senator Conrad has been a key advocate in enacting major drought relief bills and other disaster assistance.

He has consistently fought for effective programs to protect and enhance farm income through the farm commodity programs and crop insurance. For many years we have been allies in advancing farm bill initiatives to promote renewable energy production on farms and in rural communities.

Let no one doubt that Senator Conrad has always been a relentless, fierce advocate for the interests of his constituents in North Dakota. I know Kent is very proud of a framed resolution presented to him by his State's Standing Rock Sioux tribe. It bears his honorary Sioux name, Namni Sni, which translates as ``never turns back.'' I think that describes Kent Conrad. He never turns back.

Kent Conrad and I are proud of our shared roots in the upper Midwest. He has been an outstanding Senator, a good friend for more than two and one-half decades in this body.

I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Kent and Lucy all the best in the years ahead.

Dick Lugar

In these closing weeks of the 112th Congress, the Senate is saying farewell to a number of retiring colleagues. One of our most poignant farewells is to a Member respected and esteemed on both sides of the aisle. I speak of Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana.

He is a friend, a fellow Midwesterner. But to all of us, he is much more. Dick Lugar is truly a Senator's Senator. He epitomizes the very best in this institution, and it is a sad commentary on the state of our Nation's politics that the main reason why Senator Lugar is leaving the Senate is because his primary opponent attacked him for the very qualities we admire and need here: his readiness to forge fair and honorable compromises, his insistence on putting country ahead of party or ideology, his enormous decency and civility.

As we all know, Senator Lugar has been the Senate's most passionate and effective advocate of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation. The program he created with former Senator Sam Nunn has assisted Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to secure and dispose of their weapons of mass destruction. What an amazing accomplishment by Senator Lugar. I also want to salute Senator Lugar's record of principled, conscientious leadership on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, including as chairman from 1995 to 2001.

He is a key author of landmark measures strengthening Federal agricultural conservation policies and programs, particularly in the 1985 farm bill and succeeding farm bills.

He has been instrumental in strengthening--and in fighting for at critical junctures--Federal nutrition assistance, including school lunch, breakfast, and other child nutrition programs through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and through support for food banks and other emergency food assistance. Dick Lugar has also been an outstanding leader in enacting Federal initiatives to research, develop, and market farm and forest commodities by converting them to energy and bio-based products.

For me, it has been a great honor to be Senator Lugar's friend and colleague for 36 years and to serve all of that time with him on the Agriculture Committee. Our friendship, of course, will continue, but I will miss, as we all will, Senator Lugar's calm, positive, always constructive influence on this body. Across 36 years of distinguished service, this Senator and statesman has faithfully served the people of Indiana and the United States. There is no doubt that he will pursue new avenues of public service in retirement.

So I will miss his day-to-day friendship and his counsel in the Senate. I wish Dick and his wonderful wife Char all the best in the years ahead.

Daniel Akaka

Mr. President, we are bidding farewell to one of our most respected and beloved Members, Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii or, as we all know him, ``Danny.''

With his retirement, our friend is bringing to a close a remarkable and distinguished career in public service spanning nearly seven decades. Having witnessed, as a 17-year-old boy, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he took a civilian job with the Army Corps of Engineers before joining the U.S. Army in 1945. We honor him, along with his senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and Senator Lautenberg, as the only veterans of World War II still serving in the Senate.

Not surprisingly, Senator Akaka has been a leader on veterans issues. He served as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 110th and 111th Congresses, and he remained active on that committee despite relinquishing his chairmanship in the current Congress in order to chair the Committee on Indian Affairs.

We will not soon forget Senator Akaka's retort when another Senator was holding up a package of veterans benefits, demanding that the costs of the veterans benefits be offset.

Senator Akaka calmly, very deliberately argued that the costs did not need to be offset, stating:

The price has already been paid, many times over, by the

service of the brave men and women who wore our Nation's

uniform.

Needless to say, Senator Akaka carried the day.

Senator Akaka has played a leading role in demanding improvements in the handling of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries sustained by service men and women. In 2009, he joined with Senator Inouye in securing compensation for Filipino veterans of World War II who fought for the United States.

Senator Akaka is the only ethnic, Native Hawaiian to serve in this body. Throughout his congressional career, including 4 years in the House and 22 years in the Senate, he has been a determined and impassioned advocate for the people of his State of Hawaii. He has fought for legislation that would grant Federal recognition to ethnic Native Hawaiians, the same recognition we have granted to American Indians and Native Alaskans.

In 1993, President Clinton signed a resolution sponsored by Senator Akaka officially apologizing on behalf of the U.S. Government for overthrowing Hawaii's last monarch a century earlier.

In so many ways, Senator Akaka represents the Senate at its very best--the Senate the way it used to be in less partisan times. He works tirelessly behind the scenes, and he shuns the media limelight. He prides himself on reaching across the aisle and forging honorable compromises. He is the ultimate gentleman, and his word is his bond.

Across these many years Danny Akaka has been a wonderful friend and colleague. Of course, that friendship will continue, and I will miss him in the Senate.

I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Danny and Millie all the best in the years ahead.

Jeff Bingaman

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give some perspective on the debate going on in Washington about the so-called fiscal cliff. The so-called fiscal cliff is a misnomer, but what it reflects is the concern that unless we act our economy is going to be hit by significant austerity in 2013. Not at 12:01 on January 1, but over the course of the year. So it is not a cliff, it is more like if we do not do something we are going to start on a slope. But we are not falling off any cliff at 12:01 on January 1.

Fortunately there is an easy way to address one of the major parts of this puzzle. The Senate earlier this year passed a tax relief bill for the middle class. It would extend for 1 full year all of the Bush-era tax cuts on middle-class families. That is sitting in front of the House of Representatives. President Obama has said, If they pick it up and pass it tomorrow I will put my pen to it immediately. That is one thing that could be done right now. But the House Republicans will not take it up. I say if they were to take it up today, pass it, the President signs it, I think you are going to see a lot of middle-class families maybe even do a little bit more Christmas shopping because they know their taxes are not going up next year and that will help spur our economy.

Again, I point out some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, here and in the House, have been talking about doing that very thing. So there are some Republicans who recognize that this would be one of the best things we can do, and that is pass the middle-class tax cut that we passed here in July.

Nonetheless, I keep hearing what we really need to do to address the so-called fiscal cliff is to enact significant entitlement reform. What does that mean, entitlement reform? Let's be upfront with the American people. When you hear our friends the Republicans

and others talk about entitlement reform, they are talking about three things: cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, and cutting Medicaid. That is it. That is what they are talking about.

For example, let's take a look at Social Security. It has become an article of faith, almost, among a lot of people around this city that one of the ways to reduce the national debt is to ``reform Social Security.''

That is really fishy because Social Security can pay full benefits, 100 percent, until 2033, and by law it is not allowed to add to the deficit or debt. So, therefore, it is not driving our long-term debt.

What is really going on here? I think one of the ways to figure it out is a close look at the proposals under consideration. If you look closely you will find almost all of these serious proposals to save Social Security purport to do so by cutting it.

For instance, one proposal is to raise the retirement age so that hard-working Americans, including nurses, cashiers, carpenters, mechanics, truckdrivers, have to work even longer before they can retire with full benefits.

I remind people we already raised the retirement age. We did that in the 1980s, from 65 to 67. That is being phased in right now. The Bowles-Simpson Commission, what did they want to do? They wanted to raise it to 69. I remind people that life expectancy at age 65--that is the amount of time you are going to live after you reach 65--has not grown equally among all Americans. Not surprisingly, higher income Americans have seen much larger gains in life expectancy after 65 than low- and moderate-income families. So you raise the retirement age for Social Security, you help those who have money and you hurt those who do not. That is exactly what it is. You hurt low- and moderate-income Americans who work at some of the most physically demanding jobs in our economy. It hits them the hardest. So we can dismiss that.

I was looking at the list of people proposing that we raise the retirement age--Bowles-Simpson; the Third Way; Lloyd Blankfein--CEO of Goldman Sachs, how about that--Senator Coburn, the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Republican Study Committee. Oh, yes, the Ryan budget, by the way. We know what the voters of America thought about that Ryan budget.

Anyway, there is a whole list of people there who are saying we have to raise the retirement age. Let's see what kinds of jobs they have, what kind of work they do during their lifetime.

Another proposal we have heard about to kind of ``fix'' Social Security is to base future cost-of-living adjustments, the COLAs, on the so-called chained CPI. That is a phrase you are hearing more and more of. What it does is basically it reduces annual cost-of-living adjustments. It is nothing more than a benefit cut by using a measurement of inflation that reflects the costs faced by seniors even more poorly than the current measurement. In terms of take-home benefits for an individual beneficiary, the chained CPI will result in a benefit cut of $136 per year for a 65-year-old. However, because of the compounding, the benefit cut would increase to an average of $560 per year less for a 75-year-old retiree. That is a severe benefit cut, particularly for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to have gone through all their own retirement savings and must rely totally on Social Security. Furthermore, the chained CPI is simply not a more accurate way to measure inflation. Rather, it more accurately measures the degree to which people are reducing their costs and as a result it can mask big changes in the quality of life for Americans.

I have talked to people in town meetings about chained CPI. If an elderly person is on Social Security and due to heating costs or perhaps some medical bills that person's budget is pretty tight, instead of buying beef for dinner, he decides to buy chicken. This decreases his costs a little bit. Chained CPI would look at that and say that since his costs have gone down, we should reduce his COLA. Now that his COLA is reduced, he is sort of locked in there. Now his budget is a little tighter so he decides to go to beans. In this scenario, he has gone from beef to chicken and is now eating beans. The chained CPI said his costs went down further so we will reduce his COLA even more. Pretty soon he is reduced to drinking warm water for soup and the COLA keeps going down even more. That is what the chained CPI does to an elderly person.

Don't be fooled by a fancy CPI. Chained CPI is akin to being on a boat and you have to swim to shore and someone puts a big log chain around your ankle and tells you to swim. It is going to drag you to the bottom. Chained CPI chains you and drags you down.

There are long-term challenges confronting the Social Security system, and we know that. The baby boomers are retiring and we have fewer workers contributing to the system. Fortunately, we knew this has been coming for decades, and that is why we have the trust fund in the first place. The trust fund pays 100 percent of the benefits until 2033. What happens in 2033? A lot of people say Social Security is going to go belly-up. No, it doesn't. Unless changes are made, the Social Security trust fund will pay out 75 percent of anticipated benefits in 2033. What happens if we reduce unemployment? What if we reduce unemployment from its present 7.7 percent down to 4 percent? Guess what. That 2033 now goes up because there are more working people paying into the system.

So one of the best ways to fix Social Security is to get jobs back for people in this country. That is why those of us who are committed to honestly strengthening Social Security will resist any effort to cut Social Security and are saying, no, don't make it any part of a grand bargain. It should have no part of it whatsoever. There are approaches that can strengthen Social Security. To do so, I introduced legislation earlier this year that would provide seniors with greater economic security.

My proposal does it three ways. First, we actually raise the amount of Social Security that people get by $65 a month. Some might ask how can that save money. I thought we were supposed to cut benefits not increase them. I say there is a way. We can increase it by $65 a month. Others might say that to an upper income person, $65 is not much. To some who have paid in the minimum amount to Social Security, they have had minimum-wage-type jobs most of their lives, so $65 a month over 1 year can be quite a bit.

Secondly, my proposal ensures that COLAs better reflect the cost of living for seniors than what we presently do right now, and we certainly don't do chain CPI.

Finally, how do we do this? By applying the payroll tax to every dollar of eligible earnings by removing the so-called wage cap. We don't do it over 1 year; we phase it in over 10 years. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand why it is equitable for someone who is making $50,000 a year to pay their payroll taxes on every $1 they earn, but for someone who is making $500,000 a year, they only pay payroll taxes on the first 20 cents of every $1 they earn. The rest of the 80 cents they pay no payroll taxes on.

We talked about this for a long time and we have never done it. It is time to remove the wage cap which will allow us to pay $65 more per month per person. According to the actuaries of Social Security, the 100-percent benefit that would expire in 2033 goes to 75 percent and would be extended beyond 2050. Just by doing that, we will extend the life past 2050, pay $65 more a month per person, and make it fair for everyone by ensuring that everyone pays into the trust fund on every $1 they earn. These are the kind of changes we should consider as part of any effort to reform Social Security. Regrettably, I don't hear from those who want to put Social Security on the table as part of a debt reduction package calling for these type of reforms. They want to just cut benefits, that is all.

As we work to resolve the fiscal cliff on our long-term deficits, our core principle should be that we need a resolution that is good for the middle class, and that starts with strengthening and protecting programs such as Social Security. It also means we should take this opportunity to continue to support hard-working families and create jobs, particularly through programs such as infrastructure investment. We should also continue to provide help, such as

the middle-class tax cut, to working Americans by giving them more money to put in their pocket to spend and drive the economy forward.

However, we must not continue the payroll tax cut of the last 2 years because of the threat it poses to the integrity of Social Security. Two years ago, to help middle-class families through tough times, we reduced the amount they paid into Social Security by 2 percent, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. In order to make up for that, we put money from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund. It is the first time we have ever done that. I said it was wrong, and I still say it is wrong. We then extended it for 1 year until the end of this year. I thought that would be the end of it. Now I am hearing voices say we ought to extend this payroll tax cut.

Two of the critical strengths of Social Security are that it is universal and it is self-funded. No dollar paid in benefits comes from any source other than the payroll tax. As such, Social Security does not add one dime to our deficit. Again, that fact alone is a strong argument for those of us defending Social Security from misguided attempts to cut the system in the name of deficit reduction.

I have often argued that Social Security doesn't add one dime to the deficit. It never has. However, if we are taking money out of the general fund, which we know is borrowed money, and we are putting that into the trust fund, then the trust fund is now taking money that is borrowed. No longer can we say every dime paid out of that is from the payroll tax since it is coming from the general fund. I think we made a mistake 1 year ago by extending it. Now it is the time to end it. It must not be extended. I, for one, will do whatever I can as a Senator to stop the extension of the payroll tax cut in order to help solve the deficit and in order to help middle-class families.

How can we help middle-class families? It is very easy. First of all, pass the tax cut extension that we have sitting before the House. Secondly, rather than cutting payroll taxes by 2 percent, we should put in place a modified version of the Making Work Pay tax credit that we did under the American Recovery Reinvestment Act. That credit provided working Americans with $400 per person, $800 per couple in 2009 and in 2010. We can adjust that credit and double it to $1,600 per couple to replace the payroll tax cut. So as we put the 2 percent back to where everyone pays back in at 6.2 percent, what we do on the other side is provide for a Making Work Pay tax credit that goes to people who are working. Obviously, no one gets the 2-percent payroll tax cut if they are not working. The Making Work Pay tax credit would also go to those who are working and make it a similar amount of money as they had on the Social Security payroll tax fund. This would have a greater bang for the buck because it would better target working Americans of modest means who tend to spend more of what they get back.

I will clarify what I mean by that. Under the Social Security payroll tax cut--the 2-percent cut--the maximum amount of money someone would get would be at the highest level they paid into Social Security, which is approximately $110,000 on a payroll of $110,000. So that person would get $2,200 back. That is for someone making at least $110,000 a year. If someone is making $20,000 a year, they would only get $400 back. So the higher your income, the more they get back; the lower the income, the less they get back. It is just topsy-turvy. It should be the other way around. There should be more benefits to lower income and less benefits to higher income.

With this tax credit, that is what we do. More would go to people who are making $40,000, $50,000 $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year than to those higher income people. That is why the Making Work Pay tax credit is much better than extending the Social Security payroll tax.

We are at a turning point in our economy. We can either move forward with an agenda that will strengthen the middle class or be dragged backward by misguided policies that consign us to additional decades of unequal growth and stagnant wages for working families.

I stand ready to work with my Senate colleagues to reduce the deficit and debt but not at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families who make this country the great country it is.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, as my colleagues know, I was the lead Senate author of the Americans with Disabilities Act the ADA. The ADA stands for a simple proposition--that disability is a natural part of the human experience and that all people with disabilities have a right to make choices and participate fully in all aspects of society. Thanks to the ADA, our country has become a more welcoming place not just for people with a variety of disabilities but for everyone.

In that context, I want to raise an issue in H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012. Under current law, there is a provision that requires that no survival craft allow a person to be submerged in water. H.R. 2838 requires a study and report on this requirement to be completed within 6 months. While I have no objection to the Coast Guard doing another report on the issue, I want to be sure that this study will appropriately take into account the specific needs of people with a diverse variety of disabilities who may need to utilize these survival craft. For example, my expectation is that the study would not recommend that all individuals be required to hold on to the outside of the survival craft or other items, since an individual with a significant disability may not be able to do so, as a result of their disability. In addition, it is important that not only the means of egress, but also the avenues for evacuation and rescue should be accessible for people with disabilities.

I would also want to be sure that the study will be completed within the 6 month designated period.

Mr President, I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to assure that individuals with disabilities have access to survival craft that will properly protect them from injury.

Mr. President, in the last few years, a number of colleagues and I have grown increasingly worried about the fees that consumers face when using an automated teller machine, ATM. According to Bankrate.com 2010 Checking Survey, the average surcharge a consumer pays to use an ATM has increased to $2.33. Over 99 percent of ATM operators charge this fee. Some ATM operators also charge balance inquiry fees.

In addition, consumers are also increasingly likely to face a fee from their own financial institution for using an ATM not owned by their institution. According to the same Bankrate study, 75 percent of checking accounts charge this fee, which is now up to $1.41 on average. Therefore, frequently, consumers may face fees of almost $4.00 for accessing their own cash.

Consumers who use prepaid cards are especially likely to pay a variety of fees for using an ATM. They can face ATM withdrawal fees, balance inquiry fees, and denied transaction fees. They may get no notice at the ATM of fees charged by the prepaid card.

Mr. President, first I thank Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and Senator McCain for their great leadership and their dogged persistence in making sure we can get this treaty through the committee and to the floor. It has been inspirational to

watch them work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring us to this point. I hope we don't lose that in terms of the vote.

I just came over from the Dirksen building where we had a wonderful ceremony honoring former Senator Bob Dole. Some time ago I went back and I read Senator Dole's maiden speech on the Senate floor, dated April 14, 1969.

Mr. President, I commend these remarks to my colleagues.

Senator Dole spoke of the future of people with disabilities in America and what we need to do to change our society. That was in 1969. It was 21 years later when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The country has changed so much for the better because of that.

We are sitting here now with a convention by the U.N. which basically says to the rest of the world: You have to do what America did. In establishing this convention, the U.N. was informed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a lot of it is based upon what we did here.

As the committee showed, not one of our laws or anything has to be changed. Not one. We are the best in the world at this. Yet what this convention gives us is a seat at the table. When other countries have signed on to the treaty, it gives us a seat at the table to be able to work with other countries and to help them upgrade their laws so that people with disabilities have more opportunities in other countries. Why would we deny ourselves a seat at the table when we have been a leader in this effort for so long?

I listened to the speeches by both Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma and Senator Lee from Utah. These are unfounded fears. I repeat, there is nothing in there that is going to allow anyone from the United Nations to take a child away from a family or tell a family they cannot homeschool a kid or anything such as that. There is nothing in there. These are totally unfounded fears. We should not be driven by unfounded fears. We should be driven by what we know of our experience, what we have done, what the wording of the convention is, and the fact that none of our laws has to be changed because of it.

The Senator from Utah made the point that we all know people with disabilities. We have family members or friends, and we value them. We truly do value people with disabilities in our society. Well, if we truly value them, why don't we listen to them?

There are over 300 disability rights groups that support this. Not one said they won't support it. So if we value them, why don't we listen to them? Do we want to keep patronizing people with disabilities and say, you are all right, but we won't listen to you because we know what is best for you? We don't know what is best for people with disabilities. We know who knows what is best for people with disabilities: It is people with disabilities. They all said this is important.

There are 300 disability organizations that asked us to support this ratification. I think we should listen to them and get their advice. Think about what the disabilities community here in America could do with that seat at the table and how we can work with other countries to help them upgrade their laws. I have a hard time understanding why people would be driven by unfounded fears to vote against this with all of the evidence from 22 years of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the hearings held by Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar which brought out all the information and pointed out that not one of our laws has to be changed at all. In the face of all of that evidence, someone will vote on the basis of an unfounded fear.

I remember when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. It took a long time. There were a lot of fears out there. There were fears of: Oh, my gosh, we are going to have to do this and that. Buses have to have lifts on them, and we have to build those curb cuts. What, kids with disabilities get to go to school?

They were unfounded fears. We became a stronger and better society because of it. This treaty will make us a better world in which to live for all people and not just those who have disabilities.

I urge all of my colleagues, don't give in to unfounded fears. Take the good advice of Senator Bob Dole, President Bush, former Congressman Steve Bartlett, John McCain, John Kerry, and Dick Lugar, people who have been in the trenches on this, and take the advice of the disability community here and abroad. If you will do that, we will win a resounding victory today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First of all, I commend and compliment my friend from Connecticut for sponsoring this bill and pushing it through. Animal fighting is a despicable thing to be engaged in. To think people take their kids there, and families. It is something we should not be doing and I thank the Senator for his leadership on that issue, getting the bill passed.

Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

I want to take the floor for a few moments. I know others want to speak. They were kind enough to let me get in front of them. I want to comment for a couple of minutes on the vote today on the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. I said off the floor that this was a shameful day for the Senate, and I meant it. Today was a shameful day for the Senate. To turn our backs on a convention, a treaty which was based upon the Americans With Disabilities Act in our own country that is now 22 years old and has done so much to enhance opportunities for people with disabilities and their families, to turn our backs on that for no real reason is something I have a hard time comprehending, and I have been in the Senate a long time now.

There are reasons people can come up with a vote this way or that on certain things and most times they are very legitimate. People might have some legitimate concerns about a bill or an amendment. I could find no legitimate concerns about the Convention on the Rights of People With Disabilities--legitimate concerns. We heard all this talk about home schoolers, people who are homeschooling their kids, the U.N. was going to come in and take them away--nonsense, utter, sheer nonsense.

What happened today was the triumph on the Senate floor of fear. Unfounded, unreasonable fear triumphed over experience--the experience we have had with the Americans With Disabilities Act, reasoned, rational thought--unfounded fears that somehow, someplace, somebody is going to do something. Out of the U.N. they are going to come in and take over or something. But we proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that none of our laws had to be changed. This gave the U.N. no authority over our country or our laws or anything. Yet this unfounded fear took hold to the point where people who were sponsors of the bill voted against it. Sponsors of it now turned around and voted against it. Again, for what reason? Unfounded fear.

What message did we send today to the rest of the world? A message that, OK, we are pretty good. We did a lot of good stuff in terms of passing legislation to uphold the rights of people with disabilities, to break down barriers, give people with disabilities opportunities the same as everyone else. We have become a better country for it, a better Nation.

Other countries have come to us over the intervening last 22 years to find out how we did it, what they could do. So here the United Nations said we would come up with a convention, a treaty for all countries, and put it up for them to sign it, encouraging them to emulate what we did. This would be giving us a seat at the table helping other countries to bring their laws more up to what ours are in terms of the rights of people with disabilities.

But we turned our backs on that. There are a lot of things that make America a shining city on a hill, but there is one thing that no one can dispute that does put America as a shining city on a hill and that is the Americans With Disabilities Act and what it has done to our society, like our Civil Rights Act, what it has done to break down the barriers and to show that people with disabilities can contribute to society if only given the chance and the opportunity.

You would think we would want to then say, yes, we will be a part of a worldwide effort to break down those barriers against people with disabilities. We want to be part of a worldwide effort to say it is not all right, it is not OK to leave a baby on the side of the road to die simply because that baby has Down Syndrome. You would think we would want to be part of a global effort that says it is not all right to keep kids out of school and away from education because they have a physical disability--they use a wheelchair--or have an intellectual disability. You would think we would want to be part of an effort such as that, that says it is not OK to put people in cells, chained in cells, people whose only crime is that they are disabled. You would think we would want to be part of that effort.

We have done that in this country. We have done wonderful things. Yet there is some fear, some unfounded fear that the United Nations is going to come in with a black helicopter or something, I don't know what, and say you cannot homeschool your kids.

The Americans With Disabilities Act, we had it for 20 years. Did it stop home schooling? Of course not. Did it lead to more abortions? Of course not.

After this vote, after it was defeated, I walked out into the reception room, the Senate reception room. There was a throng, a number of people in the disability community. They were crushed, just crushed. They could not understand this. How could it be? Every disability community in America, every disability organization supported this. We had 21 veterans organizations, everything from the American Legion to the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Disabled Veterans of America--21. Every veterans group supported this.

I ask, were these veterans groups so dumb, so blind, so misled to support something that is going to give the U.N. the right to come in and take kids out of your home? That is what people were saying. They do not get it, veterans groups? Is that what they were saying, that they do not understand this?

Of course they understood it. They know those were unfounded fears. Walk out and see Yoshiko Dart out there, holding Justin Dart's hat; Justin Dart, God love him. A man in a wheelchair, used it almost every day in his life; a man who traveled throughout this country day after day to get people organized to support the Americans With Disabilities Act, Justin Dart. He has since passed on, but his widow carries his hat around. She had his hat there and they were just crushed by this vote. How could we turn our backs on something so important to our country and the world? Pat Wright--others.

Before we had the vote we had a wonderful ceremony honoring Bob Dole. Yesterday was the International Disability Rights Day, so they wanted to honor Bob Dole for all he had done, Senator Dole. It was a wonderful event. I saw people over there honoring Bob Dole for all the work he had done on disability rights who voted against the bill today.

I said, wait a minute, they are there to honor all the work Bob Dole had done on disability and Bob Dole was one of the strongest supporters of the CRPD, as it is called. He came over here today in his wheelchair with his wife, former Senator Elizabeth Dole. Yet people voted against it. I do not get it.

Veterans? There was a young veteran sitting in the gallery today. I met him yesterday for the first time. Senator Kerry spoke at length about him. His name is Dan Berschinski. I ask unanimous consent to have his op-ed printed in the Record at the conclusion of my speech.

I met him yesterday, a young man 25 years old. He said for the first 25 years of my life I was an able-bodied American and played football and soccer, even ran a few marathons.

He graduated from West Point and went to Afghanistan and had both of his legs blown off. He walks on prosthetic legs now and talks about going to South Africa on a trip and the fear gripped him because of the fact he couldn't get around. In the hotel they had curbs. He had the kind of problems he doesn't have here.

I saw him out here in the reception room after the vote. He had been sitting in the gallery. He came down. I went up to him and I said: Dan, what can I say? I am sorry. I am sorry. But, I said, we will come back again. We are going to come back at this thing. But, I said, I am sorry.

You know what he said to me? He said: You know, Senator, watching this

and seeing this makes me want to get just about as far away from politics as I can.

Is that the message we send to young veterans, young heroes like this?

I don't want to take any more time. Others want to speak. As I said, it is a shameful day. I do say we will be back. Senator Kerry will be back, Senator McCain. Again, I give them the highest plaudits for what they did. Senator McCain and Senator Kerry did a magnificent job, and Senator Lugar, in carrying this bill forward. I know they do not want to give up either. I was hoping we would pass it before Senator Lugar leaves the Senate. It would have been wonderful that Senator Lugar did this during his time here in the Senate. But I guess that is not to be.

We will be back in January or February. Senator Kerry is committed to doing that, bringing it back to the committee, so we will be back again. I hope over the Christmas break and New Year's those who did not vote to support this will search their conscience, search their soul, think more about our being involved in this and having a seat at the table, helping the rest of the world change their laws. I hope when we come back we will have some reconsiderations and people recognize that maybe the first vote was not the right vote and change their vote and maybe we can get it passed then. That is my hope. I hope we can get to that when we come back after the first of the year.

Exhibit 1

[Dec. 4, 2012]

Leading on Disability Beyond Our Borders

(By Dan Berschinski)

For the first 25 years of my life I was as an able-bodied

American. I played football and soccer and even ran a few

marathons. All of that changed three years ago. Having

graduated from West Point, I was serving my country as an

Army infantry officer in Afghanistan when I was seriously

wounded: I stepped on the unseen trigger of an improvised

explosive device, and both my legs were instantly torn from

my body. From that moment on, my life has, been drastically

different.

Today, after three year's of hard effort, I'm proud, to be

able to walk using prosthetic legs. Yet obstacles that might

seem inconsequential to the fully able-bodied, like sidewalk

curbs and stairs, take on a whole new meaning for people like

me who struggle to walk, or who use a wheelchair.

Fortunately, the United States leads the world in

accessibility and equality of opportunity for the disabled.

Unfortunately, the advantages we take for granted here at

home--the policies that allow people like me to live

fulfilling, independent lives--don't exist in much of the

rest of the world.

Eight months after being wounded in combat, and while still

a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I joined a few

friends in a trip to South Africa to watch the World Cup.

There I found myself in a different country, with no legs, a

brand-new wheelchair and a lot of apprehension. While I

should have been enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime trip, I was

constantly worried about my ability to get around. South

Africa had done a fairly good job on accessibility, but there

were still plenty of curbs that had to be jumped, ditches

that had to be crossed, and flights of stairs that had to be,

well, hobbled up. As a disabled Anierican at home, I can

depend on accessible accommodations; as a disabled tourist

abroad, I had to hope for the best while preparing for the

worst.

Today, the United States has an opportunity to show

leadership and reduce the challenges that millions of

disabled people around the world face every day: The Senate

can vote to join the U.N. treaty on rights for people with

disabilities. By encouraging other nations to strengthen

their own accessibility laws, we can improve the lives of our

56.7 million disabled U.S. citizens, including 5.5 million

disabled veterans like me, when we travel and work abroad.

Many of those opposing this treaty claim to support military

veterans, but a vote against ratifying this treaty undercuts

that support.

I am honored to join fellow veterans, Republicans and

Democrats, including Sens. John Kerry and John McCain and

former Sen. Robert J. Dole, to say that the case is clear-

cut: Only by voting in favor of the Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities can the Senate truly honor the

sacrifice of those disabled while answering this nation's

call. I am proud to have served my country; I am proud of how

my country has taken care of me. And I will be proud when we

extend our leadership on disability issues beyond our

borders.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and former chairman with whom I have served all of these years in the Senate for his very kind remarks and kind words. More than that, I thank my friend for his many kindnesses that he has shown me and for upholding the finest traditions of the Senate.

I say to Pat Leahy, through the Chair, when we think about a Senator and what a Senator should do and how a Senator should conduct himself or herself, we have to think about Pat Leahy. He has just been a stalwart. He is always willing to work with people, always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, always willing to help move legislation through the Senate. That is the way the Senate used to be. It used to be that way. Thank God, we still have people here like Pat Leahy.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to support the ratification of the U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities or, as it is known, the CRPD.

First, I wish to thank Chairman Kerry of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his diligence and for his leadership on this issue. He has carried it through the committee; he has brought it to the floor. In fact, I was reminded earlier today, we were both on the committee back in the 1980s when we first started working on the Americans with Disabilities Act under the tutelage, really, of Senator Lowell Weicker, who remains a great friend to this day and is still a great leader on the issues of people with disabilities. So we go back that far working together on these issues.

I thank Senator Kerry for his great leadership in bringing us to this point and, hopefully, the point being that we are going to ratify this wonderful treaty.

I thank Senator Lugar again for all of his efforts through so many years on so many different issues, and on this issue especially, going back to the beginning of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If I might divert from this just for one brief moment to thank Senator Lugar for his leadership in making the world safer by getting rid of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union. What a singular effort that has been. Senator Lugar has done much to make the world a better place for us and for our kids and grandkids. So I salute him for his wonderful leadership in that area.

Senator McCain, of course, was here and worked with us on the Americans with Disabilities Act back in 1989 and 1990. He was very much involved in it; Senator Durbin, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, Senator Udall, and

Senator Coons, I guess all of whom worked very hard to secure the ratification of this important convention.

As the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and as the lead Senate author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I want the United States to become a party to this convention so we can apply the expertise we have developed under the ADA and help the rest of the world remove barriers to full participation and to honor the human rights of citizens with disabilities. One of my greatest joys in the Senate has been my work with so many Senators on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The ADA stands for a simple proposition: that disability is a natural part of the human experience and that all people with disabilities have an inherent right to make choices to pursue meaningful careers and to participate fully in all aspects of society. So thanks to the ADA, our country is a more welcoming place not just for people with a variety of disabilities but for everyone.

Twenty-two years ago, on July 26, 1990, President Bush gathered hundreds of Americans with disabilities on the White House lawn for the ADA signing ceremony, and here is what he said. It is wonderful.

This historic act is the world's first comprehensive

declaration of equality for people with disabilities--the

first. Its passage has made the United States the

international leader on this human rights issue.

Well, thanks to the ADA and other U.S. laws, America is showing the rest of the world how to honor the basic human rights of children and adults with disabilities, how to integrate them into society, how to remove barriers to their full participation in activities that most Americans just take for granted.

Our support for disability rights inspired a global movement that led the United Nations to adopt the CRPD. In fact, I might just add parenthetically that after the Americans with Disabilities Act was adopted, we had people from many countries come here. I can think of, first, Russia. Then it was Greece, Ireland, Great Britain, as well as a number of people from other countries who came here to learn what we had done and then to pick it up and move forward in their own countries. Our legal framework influenced the substance of the convention and is informing its implementation in the 125 countries, I think, that have ratified it along with the European Union.

My staff was involved in 2002 when the U.N. first broached this subject of coming up with a convention and, in turn, provided to them the substance of the Americans with Disabilities Act, its history, its provisions, and what had been done from its adoption in 1990 until 2002 and the changes that it had brought about in our own country. So, really, I think the Americans with Disabilities Act informed and laid the basis for what the U.N. began to do in 2002 and completed in 2006.

So, again, I am very grateful for the leadership of Senator Kerry, Senator McCain, as well as Senator Dole, who I know is not able to be with us right now, but I thank them for all of their support for the ratification of the CRPD. I also appreciate that former President George H.W. Bush, his White House Counsel Boyden Gray, Attorney General Dick Thornburg, former Congressman Steve Bartlett, and Tony Coelho have all been actively supporting this ratification.

I am also grateful for the support from the U.S. business community, including, clearly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Industry Council for ratification of this treaty. Because of their experience with the ADA, American businesses have developed expertise they can apply in the global marketplace in a way that gives them a competitive advantage. If we are a party to the convention, the U.S.-based companies with this expertise will be on much more solid footing when they are seeking to help other countries write and implement domestic legislation consistent with the convention and consistent with U.S. standards for accessibility and equal opportunity.

Like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the CRPD enjoys widespread support in the disability, civil rights, business, veterans, and faith- based communities. I could be off a little bit, but as of the writing of this statement we have letters of support from more than 250 American disability organizations, 21 veterans service organizations-- and I caught some of the comments made by our distinguished chairman, Senator Kerry, in talking about veterans and our wounded warriors as they travel around the world and being able to access in other parts of the world what they can access here in America; a very good point--and 26 faith organizations also in support of the CRPD. These entities all realize the critical importance of America's position as a global leader on disability rights. They want our country to have a seat at the table and to share that expertise as the States Parties to the Convention work to implement it around the world.

I might add here, under the convention a committee will be established to assist and to help other countries in implementing and changing their laws and conforming. If we are a party to this, we get a seat at the table. If we are not a party to it, we will not have a seat at the table. Why shouldn't we have a seat at the table? We have been the world leaders. So by ratifying this convention, the United States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. Americans with disabilities should be able to live and travel, study and work abroad with the same freedoms and access they enjoy here in this country. Again, as other countries that have been signatories to this treaty grapple with how to change their systems and to make their systems more accessible, we can be at the table helping them to implement this treaty and to learn from our experience.

The administration has submitted reservations, understandings, and declarations that make clear that U.S. ratification will not require any change in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has modified these reservations, understandings, and declarations to address concerns that were raised in the committee markup.

Although U.S. ratification of the CRPD will not require changes in U.S. law and will not have a fiscal impact, I think it is very clear that U.S. ratification will have a clear moral impact. It will send a signal to the rest of the world that it is not OK to leave a baby with Down Syndrome on the side of the road to die, it is not OK to warehouse adults with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities in institutions, chained to the bars of a cell, when their only ``crime'' is having a disability, it is not OK to refuse to educate children because they are blind, deaf, or use a wheelchair, it is not OK to prevent disabled people from voting, getting married, owning property, or having children, it is not OK to rebuild infrastructures in Iraq or Afghanistan or Haiti or other war-torn or disaster-stricken areas without improving the accessibility of the infrastructure at the same time.

Former President Reagan frequently talked about America as a city on a hill, a shining example for the world of a nation that ensures opportunity and freedom for all its people. Thanks to our country's success in implementing the ADA, advancing that law's great goals of full inclusion and full participation, America, indeed, has become a shining city on a hill for people with disabilities around the globe. By ratifying the CRPD, we can affirm our leadership in this field. We can give renewed impetus to those striving to emulate us. We can give them that renewed impetus by our example and by sitting down with them and working with them only if we are a signatory to this treaty.

Again, you think about American exceptionalism. We are a pretty exceptional country, when you think about it, in many ways. We are not just exceptional because we have the most tanks and guns and bombs and things such as that, but we are exceptional in what we have done in terms of civil rights and human rights and to include all in our family--our family being our citizenship. We took great strides. America has always been evolving as a country to expand civil rights and human rights, and one of the latest, of course, was to extend those rights to people with disabilities in our society, making sure people with disabilities had all the rights and opportunities that anyone enjoys in our society.

It seems to me that this is the kind of exceptionalism we ought to be promoting around the globe. We ought to be proud. We should be proud of what we have done as a country in this regard. We should not be afraid--not be afraid--to join in a convention to extend to the rest of the world what we have done here, basically, and to be helpful in making sure that other countries can also attain that kind of a standard that does not exclude anyone because of a disability from their society.

I know there were some who were not part of the bipartisan vote to support ratification in the committee. I understand that. But my hope is that in the intervening time, in the course of Senate debate, we will have addressed any remaining concerns, move forward with a strong bipartisan vote to provide our advice and consent, and pass the resolution supporting U.S. ratification of the CRPD with overwhelming bipartisan support.

When we voted on the ADA in 1990, it was a vote where only 6 people in the Senate voted against it--91 to 6. It was a historic law. My hope is we can achieve the same kind of strong bipartisan statement of support for the human rights of 1 billion people with disabilities around the world.

As to those of us who travel a lot around the world--maybe I see it more because of my involvement in this issue--I cannot begin to describe how often it is people come up and ask us how we can help, help them change so that people with disabilities can have more access, be more involved. Many times I have been to countries where someone comes up and may not know of my involvement in this issue, but through the course of conversation--maybe it is someone in business, maybe it is someone in government, in education--they mention this: They mention accessibility because they have a brother, a sister, a friend, someone who has a disability, and they talk about how easy it is for them in America to get around, to move around, to go to school, to do business, and they would hope that maybe their country could do the same. It happens a lot. Here we are, we have the opportunity to be a key player in this global effort.

It was important for us as a country for the first 10 to 20 years to focus on our own internal problems in terms of advancing the cause of people with disabilities, when you think about all the changes that have come about in the last 22 years. And now we take a lot of it for granted in terms of accessibility, mobility, education, health care, job accessibility. It is just not unusual any longer to walk into a business and see someone with a physical disability or an intellectual disability working there. We kind of do not even think about it much anymore. We do not think about kids with disabilities mainstreamed in schools.

I remember when our oldest daughter was in grade school and IDEA was just coming into force and effect, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and a child with a disability was integrated into the classroom. There was this big hue and cry from a lot of the parents about: Oh, this kid was going to be disruptive. And how are the other kids going to learn?

Well, we got through that. Now we have a whole generation, what I call the ADA generation, kids who were mainstreamed in school, and kids without disabilities do not think anything about being their friends, going to a ball game with them, going to the theater with them, working alongside them. So we have this whole new generation where you do not think about it any longer. It is a normal aspect of life.

That is not so in other countries. In other countries, it is still, quite frankly, a sign of disgrace when a family has a child with a disability. Well, it is time to get over that. By being a country signing on to this, we can help them in so many ways. It is not just kids or young people with physical disabilities; it is people with intellectual disabilities. For how long have we looked down on people with Down Syndrome, for example, and said: Well, they cannot do anything? We segregate them in society. We send them to special schools. We give them occupations that do not challenge them. Now we have broken that down. Now so many people with intellectual disabilities, we find, can do a lot of things, and they can be challenged. And, yes, they can do competitive employment. They do not need sheltered workshops. They can be in competitive employment, with just a little support and a little training.

So many things have changed for the better in this country. It would be a shame--be a shame--if all this good we have done through all sectors of society--the business community, government, transportation, education; all these things we have done to make sure people with disabilities are not discriminated against and they have full opportunities, all the opportunities that anyone else has in our society--it would be a shame to say that somehow we are not going to support a convention, an international convention that basically takes what we have done and says: Here, world, this is what we should be doing globally.

To have 125 countries already signed up to it, and here we are--those who took the leadership in this area, everyone from the White House to, as I say, the Chamber of Commerce, that was supportive of the ADA, the business community that worked so hard on this--it would be a shame if we did not ratify this and become players in this and have a seat at the table to help the rest of the world attain what we have attained in this country.

Again, I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, and so many others, Senator McCain and others--I am probably forgetting to mention someone--but so many people who have worked so hard to bring this issue to this point.

I have to believe--yes, I know there are some Senators who have some problems, and I do not question anyone's motives or anything like that. I think some people do have, maybe, some concerns about this. Hopefully, through the amending process, we can allay those concerns. I hope we get resounding--resounding--support for the ratification of this treaty and show the world that we are proud of what we have done, and we want to join with the rest of the world in making sure they too can advance and progress and have the same kind of support and accessibility and opportunity for people with disabilities as we have had in America.

Again, I thank my colleague and my classmate and my longtime friend Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue, and I hope we have a resounding, overwhelming vote, just as we did for the Americans with Disabilities Act 22 years ago.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 27, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Update on Arms Control Matters''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 27, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I listened to the speeches of the majority

leader and the Republican leader. I would like to add my statement of congratulations to my longtime friend Senator Grassley for reaching this milestone of 11,000 votes in the U.S. Senate and to our State of Iowa and to our Nation.

Senator Grassley and I were elected the same year, sworn in the same day of January 1975, although he preceded me to come to the Senate by 4 years, but I can say without any fear of contradiction that Senator Grassley and I have had a wonderful working relationship. Obviously, anyone who knows our records knows we don't always agree on things all the time, and that is the way it ought to be around here; we have good debates, but we have always been friends.

The one thing I also know is that we have always worked together for the betterment of our State of Iowa. I think politics tends to end at that doorstep, and when it comes to Iowa, what is good for our State, we have always worked very closely. We have always had a great camaraderie, and our staffs have worked together very closely over the years. So, again, I wish to commend the senior Senator from the State of Iowa.

I now have the distinction of being the most senior junior Senator in the Senate. It used to be Fritz Hollings for years. Now I am the most senior junior Senator, and I couldn't ask for a better colleague and a better friend on that side of the aisle from the State of Iowa than Senator Chuck Grassley. I congratulate him on reaching this milestone.