focus our attention and attention on this subject and to focus the way we spend money talking about not so much how much or how little is spent dispensing on he had quaition but how better to spend -- spent discussing education but how better to spend it. again, 50 million students are preparing to helped hed back to 100 -- head back to 100,000 elementary and secondary public schools across this country. what a great responsibility it is for us in congress and i want to underscore our partners at the state and local level to engage with parents and teachers to ensure that these 50 million students are well educated. and, mr. presiden -- and, mr. president, we're not meeting our marks. this should be a call to action, this recent report. when i travel back to louisiana this month, i will be visiting students, teachers, administrators throughout the

state from laugh yet to new orleans to bogalusa. i will be interested to learn more from them about the successes and challenges they're facing. our national center for education statistics estimates that we'll be spending collectively -- and this is a big number -- $544 billion will be spent on public education. that's a lot of tax dollars. it works out to be about $11,000 per student. in many communities, that's quite a high number. $11,000 per student. the question is, are we making the most of these tax dollars? are we leveraging them correctly? are we investing them properly? what are the results for these investments? and that is what i believe we owe to our taxpayers, to our parents, and, most importantly,

our chin. we -- our children. we debate about how much money to spend and how much or little, but i think we really need to focus on the question, how did we get better results? and i have a few suggestions. they're not just mine. they're of course the collective work of many of us, and particularly president obama and secretary duncan have spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to nudge us and encourage us through their budgets to really focus on the issue of getting better results for the $1 1,000 per student we're spending. we should not be having a dropout rate of 50%, as we don't in many communities across the nation. we should not be jeopardizing our national security because we don't have enough "qualified" high school graduates to enter into our armed services or intelligence forces that are important to keep our country secure. mayors and governors across the

country are increasingly using data and evidence to steer public dollars to more effectively address education needs, and the federal government needs to continue to push and to create helpful steps to change the way taxpayer dollars are invested. even if we didn't spend one more dollar in education -- and i think there are areas where we do need to invest a little bit more here or there -- but even if we didn't invest one more dollar, mr. president, and we're in tight budget constraints today, if we just focused on how we were spending the money and trying to measure better the results that we were getting, i think we could make some dramatic improvements. and i know that secretary duncan and president obama believe this as well. particularly secretary duncan who has put forth some very innovative program, investing in innovation, high-quality charter

school and reputation -- replication and expansion. these are funds carved out -- not added to -- carved out of the budget that really challenge our local and state officials to identify what's working and replicate it. i mean, what a radical idea. instead of just funding all schools equally or all districts equally what radical idea -- look out there, try to measure results and then spend your money on what's working, and we have examples -- exciting examples -- of traditional public schools that have reformed themselves from within. we have a tremendous model going on in the city of new orleans with high-quality public charter schools that are public in every way, most of them open-access, mo most of them reaching to the same group of students or

similar groups of students that were in the traditional public schools and having remarkable results, because we're finally focused on not how much money we're spending but how we're spending it and measuring and quantifying, and it's working. this funding model, the social innovation fund, requires all grantees and subgrantees to match dollar or dollar -- so we basically double our efforts -- and this initiative relies on outstanding existing grant-making intermediaries to select high-impact community organizations. in other words, instead of the federal government just doing it or state governments, we're looking out and finally getting smart and saying, you know, the united way in new orleans, or the united way in minneapolis or the united way in denver or the united way in new york that's familiar with the community groups that are doing the best work in that community, let's help them to help supplement the learning and the results in our

schools. in my home state of louisiana, the social innovation fund recently provided the capital area united way with a $2 million grant to replicate and expand effective early childhood development programs. we're excited about this -- what this might bring. new profit inc. received a social innovation fund of $15 million over three years to collaborate with innovative youth-focused nonprofit organizations. in -- i believe in -- this is also in louisiana -- working -- i am sorry, serving the communities of baltimore, miami, new york, providence, san francisco, seattle, and west virginia, just to name a few, this is exciting. we have private foundations because the private foundations are seeing such good results come from some of these targeted federal grant programs, they're stepping up and adding money to

the pots to help some of our struggling schools to achieve success and greatness. they gave out $30 million for social innovation grant over three years increase the scale and impact of schools around the country. i could go on. i will not because there are others on the floor that want to speak. i'll submit the rest of my speech to the record. but i would like to just end with a specific example, because i'm so proud of so many of our schools in new orleans and louisiana that have been trying new ways and having extraordinary results. yes, we're using the public charter model. but, mr. president, there are other models that can work. the harlem school initiative is one. it's not necessarily public charters, but a region or an area where dynamic leadership has come in and just remarkably changed the outcome for poor children.

there are examples around the country. what i'm saying is, we can't stop. we have to continue to do this, continue to replicate, and give every american child an opportunity. there's no guarantee. you can't make a child learn that doesn't want to. you can't make a parent participate if they don't want to. you can encourage them. you can make it easier. you can even make it very pleasant. but what we can do is provide an equal opportunity for an excellent education, and we are not doing that in america today. and reports like this that say that our nation is at risk, our national security is at risk, our economic global leadership is at risk should make us realize that these things that i'm speaking about today need to be expanded. again, not more money but the way we spend our money. we need do it better, more efficiently. let me just end with psi

academy. it is a high-performing charter high school that started four years ago. it was an entrepreneurial start-up, the old-fashioned american way, a young kid came out of one of our wonderful colleges, rolled up his sleeves and said, i believe that i can teach these children to read, to write, to go to harvard, to go to columbia, to go to l.s. you have, to go to tulane. and you know what? no one believed him. a few of us that believed him and started one of our charter schools, he hired a great cadre of teens. and guess what? this year the graduation i spoke at. and 96% of these children have graduated. our children have graduated from high school to go on to college. 96%. under normal circumstances, in just a normal school, mr. president, this would have probably been less than 15% and

the rule or the average is that 3% would have graduated. okay? so from 15% that went to college and 3% graduated, these 96% are going to go to college and i promise you it looks like at least from what we think that all of them or 90% will graduate from a four-year college. this is unbelievable. and it was done in a short period of time. why? because we innovated. we're not just doing the same old thing. we're trying things that work. poor children can learn, middle-class students can learn, and wealthy students are learn. and it is not just poor families that have struggles. wealthy families have struggles as we will. there is a lost mental illness and stress in wealthy families today. schools can't solve every problem. but we can do better by concentrating oconcentrating noe spend but how we spend it and innovating. i'm going to come back here and hopefully we can get our cyber bill done when we come badge

we've a lost budget issues. i am going to commit myself and i hope others will join me in an effort as we put our budgets together for the next couple of years in education to really focus, mr. president, on how we're spending our money and to take our kind of old, tired way of formula distribution and focus it and leverage it and put it under these sort of competitive, innovative grant programs so that we are really, really funding success and not funding failure. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first i want to thank my great friend from north dakota, senator hoeven, for allowing me to take a few moments to be able to speak when he was waiting his turn. so i want to thank you very, very much and also say that

senator hoeven has been just a terrific member of our agriculture committee, coming n in his first term and that is really made a significant difference. he obviously and our powerhouse chairman of the committee, senator conrad, have just been really terrific and powerhouses and they never let me forget that 90% of the land in north dakota is farmland. so, i want to thank him for allowing me to take a moment. mr. president, i rise today to speak about what is happening -- i'm not sure they've quite completed the vote yet in the house on a partial disaster assistance program. but i'm rising today to urge colleagues in the house to join with us in passing the agricultural reform, jobs, and farm act commonly known as the farm bill. i want to commend the ranking

member in the house for working together on a bipartisan basis. they worked very hard with their committee, reported out a bill. we have some differences with that women of but they worked very hard to. i know we can come to agreement on something that is a compromise between the house and the senate. i commend them for doing that. i am very concerned and v disappointed that the speaker and the house leadership did not support their efforts to bring this to the floor. in july. when i was in the house on the agriculture committee, i -- this is my fourth farm bill. i've never heard situation where there was a bipartisan farm bill reported out of committee and not taken up on the floor. so it's very, very concerning, but nonetheless i support the chairman and rank member in the house and look forward to working with them to actually get this done. my colleagues, of course, remember the long and intense debate we had on this bill, both

in committee and on the floor with more than 70 amendments, and i want to again greatly thank our majority leader for understanding the significance of this bill to the economy and to rural america a and to jobs across america and for allowing the time for that. the republican leader and majority leader both allowed us to do that. i very much appreciate that. we passed the bill with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 64-356789 the senate came together and did what the senate is supposed to do and we worked very, very hard together to be able to get that done. now, especially given the drought and the disaster that farms are dealing with -- not just drought, i might add. it's critical that the house follow our lead and both pass a comprehensive disaster

assistance program but in the context of real reform a five-year farm bill. the house agricultural committee passed their bill. i'm anxious and frankly disappointed that they did not have the support they needed to be able to bring it up, bring it to the senate, put us in a situation where we are able to go to a formal conference committee, which i would like veryuc to do to resolve differences. press speaking together,that listening toach other, negotiating in the next f weeks see if we can't come together informally to be able to offer a compromise bill to the house and the senate for consideration. i want to remind my colleagues that the farm bill is a jobs bill. 16 million people work in our

country because of our agricultural economy and food industry. we have the safest most affordable food supply in the world. the bright spot is agriculture. our primary source of export trade surplus is in agriculture. we should be doing everything to spoub agriculture both in the short term for disaster assistance and looking downe-yer our nation is experiencing the worst drought in a generation. you turn on the news, and you erio wildfires in colorado and nebraska and utah okloma arizona au look in michr warmth t freeze. unties in the united states have been declared disaster we hav thanalf of the areas not because of just drought, which is what the house

has addressed partially, but because of disaster, whether disasters. that's 1,584 counties across the country, 82 of them ph -- in michigan. we have only one county in michigan that has not been declared a disaster area. 80% experiencing extreme drought. 22% facing extreme drought and so on and so on. as an emergency measure, usda opened up over 3 million acres of conservation land. but we know there's a lot more to be done. and that's what i want to speak about, because, mr. president, when we look at this, all the disasters -- and we understand we have to address drought and we have to address what's happening to livestock. i'm very proud of what we have done in the senate, what we passed, which is a stronger livestock disaster assistance program. it's permanent, not just for a

couple of months. it's permanent. but we also understood that there are other kinds of disasters. and for those fruit growers, cherry growers in michigan that have no access to crop insurance -- not available to them -- we made sure that there was support for them. for apple growers, for sweet cherries, for juice grapes, for others across the country, we have put in place things in the senate bill, and frankly, i believe we need to do more and can do more as we've looked at how this has developed. we need to have the next few weeks to fully look at all of what has happened, where there's livestock and the drought, whether it's wildfires, whether it's what's happened to fruit growers, put together a comprehensive effort. we need to do it in the context of passing a five-year farm bill. when we look at all of this, these are the disaster areas. most of michigan is not helped

by what the house is doing because it doesn't include the efforts to help those that don't currently have crop insurance, the fruit growers. michigan is not helped. northeast, again, with fruit, or florida with fruit, or out west, whether it's california or oregon or in this whole area, not helped by what the house is doing. i appreciate the first step, and i certainly understand that the agricultural leadership in the house is trying to do whatever they can to take a step. i commend them for that. but it does not cover -- it covers a good share, but it does not cover kwref kind of disaster -- does not cover every kind of disaster that we have before us and, frankly, doesn't cover disasters waiting to happen because of inaction on a five-year farm bill. and let me go through the

differences right now between what the house and the senate have done. we passed a comprehensive five-year farm bill as well as a comprehensive disaster assistance bill. and i will underscore again that i believe after looking through the next few weeks and looking at everything that's happened that we ought to be looking at what else we can do. not less, as the house did. but potentially more. and so both the house and senate have done extends the livestock disaster program through 2012. we extend it permanently. tree assistance. if you lose the entire tree in an orchard, you're helped. not if you just lose the fruit like most of our growers, but the entire tree. these two things are the same. we have sort of disaster lite up here. in the senate bill, we increase payments for livestock producers facing severe drought. so we actually have a stronger

payment system and safety net for our livestock producers. we, as i said before, help fruit growers impacted by frost and freeze. we create new crop insurance options so that going forward we don't have to be back here every year because we strengthen crop insurance and create opportunities for fruit growers who don't have insurance now to be able to have crop insurance which by the way producers pay into and there is no payout unless you have a loss. we also address urgently needed dairy reforms to save dairies from bankruptcy. in 2009 under the current policy, dairy policy, we lost farms across the country, mr. president. and if we don't act on a five-year farm bill in the area of dairy, of milk producers is a disaster waiting to happen. so we need to have a

comprehensive farm bill that deals with dairy reforms, because that's part of avoiding the next disaster. permanent funding, as i said, for livestock disaster assistance. conservation efforts to prevent another dust bowl. one of the reasons we don't have a dust bowl in many areas where the drought has been horrible, just horrible is because of conservation efforts which we put in place and have worked, and we need to strengthen those. we give the forest service needed tools to protect forest health and deal with another kind of disaster not dealt with in the house, which is forest fires all across the country. improve crop insurance to protect against disasters going forward. and finally but certainly important, provide farmers and ranchers with long-term certainty. they want to know going forward not only what help they will receive this year -- and they need it, and we will make sure that happens, mr. president. but they want to make sure going

forward that they have long-term certainty. i appreciate in my own home state that the commodity growers are very concerned, strongly supportive of the senate bill, want to pass the senate disaster assistance efforts. then the michigan farm bureau came out today opposing what the house is doing because from a michigan perspective, it just doesn't cut it. it's just not enough. so we have gone through efforts that in fact will allow us to solve the problem long term and to also address the short term. what we need after hearing from farmers and ranchers across the country is a bipartisan farm bill that gives producers long-term certainty so they can make business decisions without worrying about risk management provisions that are going to expire on september 30 kh-rbgs,

by -- september 30, which is just 50 days away. i want my colleagues to know we have a dual strategy right now, knowing how important this issue is all across the country, to rural america and really to everybody, everybody who eats, which i think is everybody. we all have a stake in having a strong agricultural policy, nutrition policy, conservation policy that maintains our position as the world leaders and access to safe, affordable food. and with or without official conferees, so on, it is our intent to have conversations to see if we might come together on something that would bridge differences between house and senate agricultural

perspectives. we know that there are things that we need to work on together. we're proud of the fact that we passed a farm bill on a strong bipartisan basis, but we understand we need to work with our colleagues and listen. and it is our goal to do one of two things. to either have the opportunity to come together in september and offer something that would be a compromise with the house and the senate that we could offer and look for an opportunity to pass. that's the best thing. and include comprehensive disaster assistance as a part of that. that's far and away what we're hearing from farm country and what we're hearing from those across our country whose livelihood depends on agricultural production and the food economy. if for some reason we are not able to succeed, we will assess all of what needs to happen in the next four weeks and come back together to do what we need to do in september to pass a very strong comprehensive disaster assistance program not

just for livestock, as important as that is, but for all of our communities in every state, whether it has in fact been -- where there has in fact been a disaster. we will be working with colleagues. we will be offering a bipartisan effort. i am extremely hopeful that we can come together around what really needs to get done, which is a five-year farm bill. if not, we certainly will make sure that in september we have the opportunity to work together. and as i close, let me, mr. president, just indicate the reason for what happens if we don't do the whole farm bill, we lose deficit reduction. the only thing we voted on in a bipartisan way was deficit reduction, we passed here together. and i see colleagues of mine who played a tremendous role in this. the former head of the department of agriculture,

secretary of kwra*g, -- agriculture, distinguished senator from north dakota, south dakota. we repealed subsidies that we agree from a taxpayer perspective we should not be doing anymore. made some tough decisions on that. we want to make sure that we're supporting farmers for what they grow but not giving a payment for what they don't grow. the number of reforms that we did around payment limits and other things, including going through every part of this bill and doing what everybody says we ought to do, which is look for duplication, what doesn't work, what ought to be eliminated. and we actually eliminated more than 100 different programs and authorizations. if we don't do a real farm bill, all of this goes away. i suppose you could say the folks that don't want reform could be trying to stop us from passing a five-year farm bill. certainly the senate bill, people who don't want reform, people who would like to keep

status quo and would like to continue with a system that's not worked for many, many growers and ranchers. we in the senate have come together, and we think that's not the right way to go. and i'm committed working with my colleague, the ranking member from kansas, who i know cares deeply as well about what's happening to livestock, producers in his state. we have talked; i know how committed he is to make sure that we have the right help to be able to support them. we are committed to doing that. but let's not do half a disaster assistance bill. let's not do something short term that is less than what producers across the country are counting on us to do. they sent a loud message. they want us to get it done. there is no reason we can't. we did it here in the senate. i believe if we worked in good faith, we listen to each he other, we trust each other, that we can get the whole thing done in september and have really

something to celebrate and to offer to all of those in rural america, all of those who count on every one of the 16 million people who have a job because of agriculture and our food industry. so, mr. president, i yield the floor. my colleague from north dakota has been extremely patient and very much appreciative of his willingness to allow me to speak. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the senator from michigan. i'm going to yield to the good senator from south dakota. i know he has a commitment. he will be brief, so i yield to my colleague from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from from north dakota -- south dakota. mr. thune: thank you mr. president. i know it's confusing and i very much appreciate to the senator yielding to his colleague from

the south. i hoped to come down here to ask unanimous consent to call up senate bill 1956 with a committee-reported amendment. my understanding is there is an objection on the other side. i'm disappointed about that. i had hoped we would be able to get unanimous consent today to pass what is a very bipartisan bill. it's the european union admission trading scheme prohibition act. it's a bill that passed by voice vote just last week -- this week, i should say, earlier this week from the commerce committee, and a similar measure was passed earlier this year in the house of representatives by a voice vote. the aviation industry, the administration, consumers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, just about everyone believes that the e.u. must be reined in and it must happen quickly. in fact, just this week at the commerce committee markup, senator boxer, who is the chair of the environment and public works committee, also a member of the commerce committee, said and i quote -- i think removing it, referring to my bill, is critical and moving it fast is critical because i think it will send a message to the international organization we

are trying to nudge forward to know that this is the way that this is going to be dealt with, end quote. i could not agree more, mr. president. in 2005, the european union began their emissions trading scheme which attempts to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources within the european union. starting in 2012, january of this year, civil aviation operators departing from or landing in europe began to be included in this emissions scheme. now, under this program, any airline, including non-european airlines flying into and out of europe would be required to pay for e.u. emission allowances. allowances will be collected for the entirety of the flight, including portions in u.s. and international airspace. now, just as a great example of this unfair application is happening right now, as we got olympic athletes that are flying to and from the london games by air. one such olympian is from my home state of south dakota,

paige mcpherson. she is participating in tae kwon do next week. the final leg of her flight took her from newark airport to heathrow airport. during this flight, approximately 555 miles of the 3,500 miles flown or 16% were actually in e.u. airspace, but her flight was taxed as if 100% of it was in e.u. airspace. now, obviously, this unilateral imposition of the e.u.-e.t.s. on aviation operators is arbitrary, unfair and is a clear violation of international law. plus it is being done without any guarantee for environmental improvements and at a huge cost to the aviation industry and constituents that we serve. now, let me be clear that no one in congress is against the e.u. implementing this european trading scheme within their boundaries. that's obviously their prerogative, that's their jurisdiction. however, mr. president, i believe that any system that

includes international and other non-e.u. airspace must be addressed through the international civil aviation organization otherwise known as icao of which the united states and 190 countries including all of the e.u. member states are members. that's why i introduced this simple bipartisan bill. it gives the secretary of transportation the authority to take the necessary steps to ensure america's aviation operators are not penalized by any system unilaterally imposed by the european union. the bill also requires the secretary of transportation, the administrator of the f.a.a. and other senior u.s. officials to use their authority to conduct international negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that u.s. operators are held harmless from the actions of the european union. it is time for the united states senate to join the house of representatives and the administration in voicing our strong opposition to application of the european union's emission

trading scheme system to american operators. i'm sorry that it couldn't be done today, mr. president, because as i said this was unanimously reported out of the commerce committee earlier this week. we had broad bipartisan support, democrats and republicans agree this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and frankly it's one that i think could be addressed in a very timely way. the longer we wait, the longer that we have american air carriers and therefore american travelers paying into a system that there is no guarantee is going to be used for any kind of environmental improvements in europe. it's in effect a tax on american travelers that would fund european governments, and if you want to put it in a very crass, plain way, you can say that the american public is being taxed to bail out european union nations. that's as simply as i can put this. it was a violation of international law. it is a violation of american sovereignty. it is an unfair, unjust and illegal tax. it needs to be stopped. this legislation would allow that to happen. it's unfortunate that we got an objection on the other side that

would prevent that from happening here tonight, but i intend to work with my colleagues to try to get a vote on this as soon as we return in september. i want to thank again my colleague from north dakota for his graciousness in allowing me to make that statement. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president? a senator: does the gentleman from north dakota have the floor? mr. hoeven: mr. president, i do. i rise on another issue, but i would yield at least temporarily to see what the good senator from missouri has to say. mr. blunt: i am just concerned that we are going to go home without an ag disaster bill that farm families can rely on. i have got some remarks here that i'd like to insert into the record, but i'd also say that this disaster is real, the disaster programs for livestock ran out a year ago, september 30 of last year. we have a chance to do

something -- i'm fine -- we have a chance to do something about that, and i'd like to see us do something about that. the idea that we would decide that we could put this off another month, that we can put those families in jeopardy for another month, not knowing what their solution is just seems to me to be totally unacceptable, mr. president, and i would yield the floor back to my friend from north dakota, but i'm going to -- i have some remarks for the record and continue to -- intend to continue to do everything i can to see that we solve this problem with a real solution, not just another washington excuse as to why we can't do what needs to be done, and i would yield back. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank my esteemed colleague, the senator from missouri. i have worked with him on many issues, including agriculture. i share his concern and have been on the floor of the senate this weekend and past weeks expressing my desire to pass a farm bill, including assistance.

i believe we can do that. we have passed a farm bill here in the senate. the ag committee has come forward with a product. we absolutely need to come together, house and senate, on the farm bill for the good of our farmers and ranchers, including drought assistance and for the good of the country. i rise today to introduce legislation on another matter, important energy legislation for our country. i am today introducing the hoeven-conrad-baucus coal ash recycling and oversight act of 2012. in my home state of north dakota, there is a large power plant just north of the state capital in bismarck. it's the coal creek power station. this power station generates 1100 megawatts of electricity every year. there are two 550-megawatt

plants. it has the latest and greatest technology. emission controls, clean coal technology. they do things like they capture the steam that was formerly exhausted from the plant, they capture that steam and they actually use it to run an ethanol plant, so they produce transportation fuel with steam, byproduct of the electric generation process. one of the other things they do is they also, instead of landfilling the coal ash or fly ash, the coal residuals, instead of just landfilling that coal ash, they recycle. so in essence, they take that coal ash, they work with a natural resources company, headwaters, which is based out of utah, and they turn the coal ash into a concrete product that's called flex crete, a stronger concrete product, and they use it to make roads and buildings and also products like shingles, so building materials. so where as they used to take

about 600,000 tons a year of coal residuals and coal ash, fly ash and just landfill it and it cost, i don't know, $6 a ton or so to landfill it, now they take that 600,000 tons a year of fly ash and residuals, turn it into building products. so the difference instead of paying to dispose of something and now being paid to recycle something is about a $16 million a year revenue item for that plant. that means lower cost for electricity in businesses like the great state of north dakota, in fact the great state of minnesota and other states as well. so it truly benefits our consumers, our families, it benefits our economy, it benefits small business throughout the upper midwest. so it's truly a great example of

american ingenuity and innovation. in fact, i have got a picture right here. this is the north dakota heritage center. right now, there is a $50 million expansion being constructed in that heritage center which is located on the capitol grounds in bismarck, $50 million expansion. they are using building materials made of coal ash for this facility. and that's what it's going to look like after they do this $50 million expansion. let me give you another example. this is the national energy center of excellence at bismarck state college, a two-year college that trains people for the energy industry. it's located right above the missouri river. this beautiful window overlooks the missouri river. again, a building constructed with building materials made of fly ash. so you can see how this product is used and how effective it is at being used. as a matter of fact, if you look

nationwide, by recycling coal ash, we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion b.t.u.'s every year. now, that's the amount of energy that you would use to power 1.7 million homes in a year. pretty substantial energy savings. or measure it in terms of water use. we reduce water use by recycling coal ash, we reduce water usage by 32 billion gallons annually. that's about one-third of the total amount of water that the state of california uses in a year. so why do i tell this story? because right now e.p.a. is looking at changing the regulation of coal ash. they are looking at changing the regulation of coal ash to doing it under subtitle c, subtitle c of the resource conservation and

recovery act. the problem is that's the hazardous waste section. right now, coal ash is regulated under subtitle d of the resource conservation and recovery act, which is the nonhazardous waste section. and e.p.a. is looking at making that change in spite of the fact that the department of energy, the federal highway administration, state regulatory agencies and the e.p.a. itself have done studies, and those studies have shown that it is not a toxic waste. so now the e.p.a. first proposed this new regulation in june of 2010. this regulation would truly undermine the industry, drive up costs and eliminate jobs when our economy can least afford it. in fact, according to industry estimates, it would increase electricity costs by up to

almost $50 billion annually and eliminate 300,000 american jobs. let me elaborate. meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the e.p.a.'s subtitle c proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system which would translate into $47 billion in terms of burden on electric electric -- electricity generators that use coal and of course most importantly their customers who would see their bills increased. and as i said, overall it would cost about 300,000 american jobs for our economy. that is why i am introducing the hoeven-conrad-baucus coal ash recycling and oversight act which is senate 1751, and it has

very strong bipartisan support. it is truly a bipartisan bill, including 12 republican sponsors and 12 democrat sponsors. the republican sponsors include myself, senator mcconnell, senator portman, senator boozman, senator blunt, senator ron johnson, senator moran, senator alexander, senator toomey, senator graham, senator thune and senator hatch. the democrat cosponsors include senator conrad, senator baucus, senator kohl, senator landrieu, senator manchin, senator warner, senator pryor, senator mccaskill, senator ben nelson, senator bill nelson, senator casey and senator webb. and i want to thank them for their willingness to join together in a bipartisan way, 12 republicans, 12 democrats come together to provide the kind of energy legislation that's going

to truly help move this country forward, empower not only more energy development but better environmental stewardship. this legislation which is similar to h.r. 2273, which was sponsored by david mccinl, representative david mccinl in -- mckinley in the house, passed the house with strong bipartisan support. we've made some enhanments but it's very similar. the bill not only preserves coal ash recycling but preventing these by-products from being treated as hazardous, it all establishes -- this is important because this is about good environmental stewardship. it also establishes comprehensive federal standards for coal ash disposal. under this legislation, states can set up their own permitting program for the managementnd the disposal of coal ash. these programs would be required to be based on existing e.p.a.

regulations to protect human health and the environment. if a state does not implement an acceptable permitting program, then e.p.a. regulates the program for the state. as a result, states and industry will know where they stand under the bill since the benchmarks for what constitutes a successful state program will be set in statute. e.p.a. can say yes, the state does meet those standards. or no, it does not. but the e.p.a. cannot move the goalposts. this is a states-first approach that provides regulatory certainty. i want to repeat that. this is a states-first approach that provides regulatory certainty and it's that regulatory certainty we need stimulate private investment that will deploy the new technologies, that will not only produce more energy but will produce better environmental stewardship.

what is certain is under this bill coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. those standards include groundwater detection and monitoring, lines are, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and the financial assurance and recordkeeping needed to protect the public. mr. president, this is legislation that is needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of homes, roads, and to reduce electric bills. i want thank both the republicans and the democrats who have taken a leadership role in this effort as original sponsors of the legislation. i especially want to express thanks to my fellow senator from north dakota, senator conrad, also senator baucus of montana and their staffs for the hard work that has gone into this legislation and urge our colleagues to join us in this important energy legislation. thank you, mr. president, and i

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: it was reported today that iraq has denied the united states' request to ex extradite a senior hezbollah field commander ordered released by the iraqi court after our government turned him over to iraqi custody when our troops left the country. the administration had years to transfer him to our detention facility at guantanamo bay but because the president seemed to lack the political will, i think because of campaign promises he improvidently made, one of our most dangerous, reprehensible terrorists in our custody will likely be allowed to go free. we should never be in this position. i and others saw this coming and we pleaded with the

administration not to allow it to happen. sadly, our warnings fell on deaf ears and sadly, we were proven correct. duc is responsible for the torture of five american service men in iraq, including private jonathan mulligan of locust fork, alabama who was posthumously awarded the silver star for gallantry in action as he attempted to defend his comrades in this attack. this was outside the rules of war, they were wearing american uniforms, an action that he directed. they are against the laws of war and he's not only to be held and can be held not only as a prisoner of war but a violator of the rules of war could be tried and should have been tried in american military commission. when u.s. forces captured daqduq, then the most senior

hezbollah figure in u.s. custody, he pride prouded detailed testimony about the support and training provided by iran to iraqi insurgents, and he admitted violating the rules of war. he is not a criminal defendant, he's not a member of an organized crime syndicate or some drug dealer. he is a confessed terrorist who committed atrocities against american soldiers during a war duly authorized by congress. and that makes him an enemy unlawful combatant who may be detained until the conclusion of the war, or subjected to trial by military commission. and he could be imprisoned for up to life or he could be executed. once the military determined he was no longer of use for intelligence purposes, when he was in iraq, he should have been brought to guantanamo bay. that was a perfect place for him to be detained. this should have been an open

and shut case. but president obama and attorney general holder have obstinately clung to the failed law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. they just have. it's been a dispute all the way through the campaign and since they've taken office. they believe in treating foreign enemy combatants as normal criminal defendants entitled to u.s. constitutional protections and civilian trials. this is contrary to history, contrary to the laws of war. contrary to our treaty obligations. other nations don't do this. the problem began when upon taking office the president decided to ban any new additions to the prison population at guantanamo bay. you remember that. he didn't like guantanamo bay. he thought that was some bad place. so if he transferred daquduq or

anybody else for that matter to gitmo, we anger his supporters and violate some of his improve dent campaign promises one which was to the effect gitmo was a cause of terrorism, not a way to prevent terrorism and prevent people from murdering people. so when the report surfaced that the administration planned to transfer daqduq to the united states for a civilian trial -- that was the first report, he would be brought to civilian trial, my colleagues and i wrote the attorney general in urging him to reconsider and try him through military commission. and for a time, the attorney general appeared to have relented. but a few months later, it was reported that instead of transferring him to gitmo, the administration decided to release daqd uq to iraqi custody. this time we wrote to the secretary of defense, secretary

panetta, asking him to reconsider that decision. we warned that the iraqi government previously had released terrorists who later returned to the battlefield to kill american service men. yet as the deadline for the united states withdrawal from iraq approached, it became clear that the president had no intention of removing daqduq from iraq. the president then struck a deal with prime minister almalachy to charge him before an iraqi criminal court for his acts of terrorism, forgery and illegal ent he entry and other offenses. now that the iraqi court has had the hearing and trial, they've ordered him released. in spite of the volume of evidence turned over by the united states to be used in the trial, including his uncoerced

confessions detailing his role in training the insurgents and his role in the karbala massacre i've referred to. it appears it is only a matter of time before he will now be set free. recent press reports indicate that the iraqi authorities are trying to find a way to release daqduq without angering the white house or embarrassing the president ahead of the elections. well, no one should be surprised that iraq will not turn him over. this was our concern from the beginning, this kind of thing would happen. the administration knew well before it handed over daqduq that his decision -- that its decision was an abdication of its responsibility to prosecute a terrorist for war crimes against american soldiers. the murder of american soldiers. the administration knew that if the iraqi courts failed to bring him to justice, we may never get

a second chance. that was known. and they knew that iraq would not agree to an extradition request. that's been their policy. so the fact that the -- so the fact of the matter is we wouldn't be in this position if we just prosecuted daqduq when we had the opportunity. but now not only is justice perverted but he could be returned to the battlefield to kill further americans, iraqis and others. unfortunately, daqduq was not the first nor will he be the last example of this administration's unwillingness to confront dangerous terrorists effectively and to process them effectively. in july of 2009, senator jon kyl and i wrote president obama urging him to adhere to this

nation's long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not to release the kazhili brothers, two of the top iraqi terrorists trained by daqduq who were complicit in the karbala massacre. 2009. but they weren't forward in exchange for the british hostages held by the terrorist organization called the league of the righteous. president obama authorized the khazalis release as part of what the iraqi government called its reconciliation efforts with insurgent groups. but in reality, this release was a thinly veiled ploy to use iraq as a middleman in a terrorist-for-hostage exchange in direct violation of president reagan's policy not to negotiate

with terrorists. in fact, the executive order he issued to that effect. when iraq released the khazalis to the league of the righteous, the tear rust ground responded by releasing five british hostages, but, sadly, four of them had already been executed. and keis s khazali immediately upon his release resumed his position as leader of the terrorist group and orchestrated the kidnapping of the u.s. civilian contractor in baghdad. less than a month after his release. and abdul rizza shali, an iranian quds force officer -- an iranian quds force officer now in iraq -- you know the quds force is one of the most loyal and vicious parts of the iranian regime -- this quds officer had

helped the khazali and daqduq plan the karbal karbala massacrd helped coordinate the attempt to assassinate the saudia arabian ambassador on united states soil. do you remember that? that's the same guy. despite this alarming track record and the obvious lessons to be learned from its previous mistakes, the administration recently insisted on engaging in negotiations with the taliban to release five terrorist detainees from guantanamo bay, detainees who were categorized as -- previously as too dangerous to transfer by the administration's own committee, the guantanamo review task force. and they were to be released in exchange for the taliban's promise in afghanistan to -- quote -- "begin talks with the afghan government."

negotiating, i suggest, with terrorists is not a profitable enterprise. and that's what that in effect was. the three of these of the five have ties to al qaeda. another met with iranian officials on behalf of the taliban immediately following 9/11 to discuss iran's offer of weapons and support to attack u.s. forces in afghanistan. another detainee then under consideration, mohammed fasal, is a close friend of the supreme taliban commander, mullaomar, accused of killing thousands of afghan shiites and who was responsible for the prison revolt and claimed the life of c.i.a. officer johnny michael spann, the first american killed in afghanistan and, incidentally, another brave alabaman. as time has passed, it has

become clear that the policy of not negotiating with terrorists is sound and essential and that the administration's actions, in violation of that policy, have failed and they're dangerous. indeed, the administration's failed detention terrorist policies appear to have led to a policy that favors killing rather than capture and interrogation of enemy combatants. it's an odd event but it does appear to be -- to have some truth to it. so today we face a situation in afghanistan that is similar to that that we faced in iraq in 2009. parjan prison currently houses roughly 2,000 to 3,000 individuals, including high-value detainees. in august 2011, the -- "the

washington post," last august, reported that -- quote -- "u.s. officials say that giving afghans control over the fates of the suspected insurgents would allow dangerous taliban fighters to slip through the cracks of an undeveloped legal system. -- system." i'll tell you what that means. it means they won't be able to keep them in those jails. history shows that they will get their way out of there through violence, through bribery, through threats or some other mechanism. and that's what's continuing to happen. it's a big concern of the military, and as a federal prosecutor who observed this particular issue over the years in iraq and afghanistan, it's been a source of concern to me. in march of this year, the administration agreed to a gradual transfer of control of the prison to the afghan

government over a period of six months, with the united states holding veto power over the release of certain prisoners. however, "the washington post" reported in may -- just may this year -- that the administration has been secretly releasing high-value detainees held in afghanistan in exchange for certain promises of support from leaders of insurgent groups. now, how long do you think that will last? can you -- once you release the prisoners, they're out. but the promises by some taliban or some terrorists are not going to be honored. not only do some of these prisoners have ties to iran or al qaeda and other terrorist organizations that continue to attack our troops, but their release is not even conditioned on them severing their contacts with the insurgent groups. according to the "washington

post," the administration has approved these releases in part because they do not require congressional approval. that's what they report. it also has been reported that the administration is attempting to repatriate some of the 50 most dangerous militants over which the united states currently retains custody, to release them to pakistan and other arab countries. this in the face of reports from the director of national intelligence that nearly 28% of the former gitmo detainees are either confirmed or suspected to have returned to the battlefield to attack america and our allies. that's 28%. how many are doing so and that we haven't yet proven that have been in the game? i suspect many more than that

28%. so the question inevitably arises when american detention operations in afghanistan come to an end, where will the administration take those 50 or so dangerous prisoners? assuming it hasn't already negotiated with other insurgent groups for their release. if they're not going to release them, what are they going to do with them? once again, the administration has kicked the can down the road, just as it did in iraq, which eventually culminated in the daqduq mess. the country cannot afford to continue down this dangerous path, especially in light of the impending withdrawal of our troops from afghanistan and the administration's agreement to transfer detainees in united states custody to the kabul government. the same unacceptable result will surely occur.

the president is the commander in chief. he has serious responsibilities and one is to defend the honor, the dignity, the credibility of the united states. i don't believe we're doing so when we're dealing with terrorists who've double-crossed us at every hand. he has a duty to those magnificent troops who have answered the -- his call to go into harm's way to execute united states policy. part of that duty is not to give away what they've fought and bled for, not to give it away after they've fow fought and bld for it and captured these people. that includes not giving up prisoners. they have -- these soldiers have at great risk and effort captured. terrorists who seek to destroy what we have, terrorists who we have worked so hard to capture.

terrorists who may return to kill more americans and more afghanis. these policy cannot be defended. it's got to end. so i urge the president and his team to act forcefully now. it may not be too late. with a strong action, it may be able to ensure that dock tal das not released, that he is able to be tried for the murders that he committed and the american soldiers that he killed. mr. chairman, i -- mr. president, i thank the cha chair, would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i'd ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: and i ask consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the georgia peanut commission. in 1961 georgia's peanut farmers came together to form a commission that would promote their industry, perform resear research, educate the community, and conduct outreach around the state. thus, the george peanut commission was born. we've come a long way since 1961. as we celebrate this 50th

anniversary, it is important to note that georgia peanut farmers in 1961 harvested 475,000 acres of peanuts with an average yield of 1,200 pounds per acre. but thanks to the evolution of technology and techniques and the hard work and the innovation of georgia's peanut farmers, farmers in 2011 in georgia harvested the same amount of land with a yield of more than 3,500 pounds per acre. agriculture producers face a combination of challenges including unpredictable weather and market volatility that determine profit or loss in any given year. through the georgia peanut commission, farmers persevered through the hardships. now georgia leads the nation in peanut production producing nearly 50% of our nation's annual crop. anybody who stopped by a georgia

congressional office on capitol hill and taste tested the complimentary peanuts we offer can thank the georgia peanut commission. those little red bags are recognized by hungry constituents and staffers as a symbol of georgia agriculture. annually the commission distributes two million of those little red bags. the peanut industry is vital to georgia's economy, contributing some $2 billion annually and creating nearly 50,000 jobs across the sector. in the past 50 years peanut farmers with the help of the commission reduced production costs through research and worked to stimulate and increase consumption. last year the georgia peanut commission broke ground at the site for its new headquarters in tifton, georgia, which will be the first net zero energy building affiliated with state government in georgia. there are many changes happening in rural america and the facade

of these rural towns may look different year after year, but the challenges confronting our small towns and communities haven't changed. the georgia peanut commission has been critical to the foundation of not just rural georgia, but our entire state's economy. i'm proud to recognize the work that the georgia peanut commission has done for our state and congratulations to them on their 50th anniversary. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: earlier this week the majority leader and a number of his colleagues took to the floor to defend the president's health care law and tout the provisions they believe to be popular with the public. what they didn't do was allow a vote on the entirety of the bill, which proves to be even more of a disaster with each passing day. and which a majority of americans continue to vigorously oppose. put another way, senate democrats spent nearly an entire day talking about parts -- parts of obamacare, that poll well but refused to spent 15 -- spend 15 minutes being caught on camera voting to downhold the

entire law. what are they afraid of? why won't they allow a vote? when the health care bill was working its way through congress, you will recall that former speaker of the house pelosi famously said we need to pass the bill to find out what was in it. well, now that we've had some time to study its consequences, i can't think of any reason why senators wouldn't want to stand up and be counted with a vote on the floor either for or against repeal. does obamacare get a passing grade or not? that's all i asked for on tuesday, a vote to either reaffirm or repudiate the votes we took on obamacare based on everything we know about it now that we didn't know back th -- back then. it's been clear, in my view, that the democrat health care law is making things worse and should be repealed in full. a week doesn't seem to pass that we don't learn about some

problem this law creates or doesn't solve. there's this headline in the "wall street journal" today -- "small firms see pain in health law." and just yesterday, we learned that it will increase federal spending and subsidies on health care by $580 billion. $580 billion. which means that even after you count the more than $700 billion that it takes out of medicare, it still increases federal health spending and subsidies by more than one-half of a trillion dollars. so let's have a vote. let's have a vote. is obamacare making things better or worse? let's show the american people where we stand. it's what the american people want. it's a vote they deserve.

now, when my friends on the other side are represented on the floor, i'm going to defer asking consent for a vote that would follow the completion of cybersecurity and so i will defer on asking that consent until the majority leader or one of his representatives comes to the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mc: i would say to my friend, the majority leader, i've already made some comments about why i will be propounding the consent agreement i will now propound with him here on the floor. i ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition o of the pending cybersecurity bill but no later than september the 28th, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 451, h.r. 6079, an act to repeal the president's health care bill, or the so-called obamacare. further, that there be one hour of debate on the bill, no amendments be in order to the measure, and follow that debate, the bill be -- and following that debate, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object.

mr. president, there's no other way to say this than my republican friends are hopelessly stuck in the past. they continually want to fight battle as that are already over. at the beginning of this congress when we were trying pass an air transportation bill, the republican leader offered an amendment to repeal the affordable care act. on february 2 of last year, the senate voted that amendment down. it was defeated. in march of this year when we considered the highway jobs bill, republicans insisted on voting on stopping women from getting contraceptive coverage, part of the affordable care act. on march 1 the senate voted that amendment down. just this week, when we were considering a bill to protect our country from cyber attack, the republican leader gave notice he wanted once again to offer an amendment to repeal the affordable care act. now, remember, under this -- with this setting, the house has already voted 34 times to repeal

the affordable care act. i repeat, they're hopelessly stuck in the past. they're stuck in the past before the affordable care act when insurance companies didn't have to pay for preventive care. they're stuck in the past, before the affordable care act, when there was a gap in coverage for seniors' prescription drugs. that's the doughnut hole that we're filling. republicans are stuck in the past, before the affordable care act passed, when insurance companies didn't have to allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents' health insurance. i've spoken here at least a half a dozen times about my friend from searchlight, nevada, who went -- he was 22 years old, went off his insurance -- the that's what the -- the time ran out -- within weeks he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. about broke his parents. had no insurance. two surgeries.

that will never -- that -- that will not happen in the future. this young man, who was in college, that's what this is to protect. they're stuck in the past before, this act passed, when insurance companies could deny coverage to people because of preexisting condition. and, by the way, one o those conditions was being a woman. or diabetes. or if a woman had been abused, domestic abusement -- domestic abuse. they're stuck in the past, when insurance companies could charge women more than men. the republicans are stuck in the past, when women didn't have access to the services they need. they're stuck in the past, when insurance companies could drop your coverage when you get sick or set some arbitrary limit on how much the insurance would pay. i've talked here about a man in las vegas who was badly injured, living a pretty decent life even though he was paralyzed, and

suddenly he finds he has no insurance, which led him into an awful situation. they're stuck in the past, the republicans, when insurance companies could use premium dollars for bonuses for the bosses rather than for health care. all around america this month -- this month -- there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will be getting a rebate because insurance companies weren't spending enough money on them but, rather, on their own salaries. we set a limit. 80% you have to spent of a premium to help people get well. they're stuck in the past, when they want to return -- when insurance companies were king. they're hopelessly stuck in the past. but there was a vote that we should all focus on on the affordable care act. it was a 5-4 vote, it upheld that bill, the supreme court of the united states did that. but i guess they didn't get the news. the supreme court ruled the act is constitutional, it's the law

of the land now. we need to move on. they need to catch up on the fact that people want us to create jobs, work to create jo jobs, whether it's in alaska, nevada, kentucky, any of the states. but they want us to vote on repealing the affordable care act. on july 19, they blocked us from voting on a bill to prevent outsourcing of jobs. outsourcing of jobs, which, by the way, their presidential nominee is very good at doing. now, mr. president, they want us to vote on repealing at fordable care act -- repealing the affordable care act. on july 12, they blocked us on passage of the small business jobs bill that would have helped small businesses all over this country. they wanted to vote on repealing the affordable care act, but on march 29, they blocked a bill to promote renewable energy. on march 13, they blocked senator stabenow's amendment to extend expiring energy tax

credits. they wanted to vote on affordable care act but -- and they stopped us from proceeding to put workers back on the job while building and modernizing america. and that was done on november 3. on october 20, they blocked the motion to proceed to a bill to keep teachers and first responders on the job. they -- they so badly want to go back and fight these old battle as that they blocked a motion to proceed to the american jobs a act. they -- they blocked us on a bill to reauthorize the economic development administration, something that had been done as a matter of fact in the past, creating thousands of jobs across america. they wanted us to vote on repealing the affordable care act, but one day last year they -- after weeks of debate, they blocked the bill to improve small business innovation. by the way, one of the programs has done so many interesting things, including inventing the electric toothbrush. republicans are hopelessly,

mr. president, stuck in the pa past. they need to stop trying to repeal a law enacted three years ago -- three years ago. the supreme court has declared is unconstitutional. let's move on to try to get some jobs for people. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. o roll quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: