[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17366-17379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2012

  Mr. REID. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume 
consideration of H.R. 2354, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.


      Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been authorized by the chairman of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee to withdraw the committee-reported 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 956

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 956.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendment.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to raise concerns about this 
amendment that would constitute a significant change to U.S. foreign 
and banking policies that should be carefully considered by the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Banking Committee.
  These provisions have far-reaching foreign policy implications which 
make their inclusion in this bill unsupportable.
  According to the State Department, ``Cuba has one of the world's most 
secretive and non-transparent national banking systems. Cuba has no 
financial intelligence unit.''
  Moreover, according to an October 28 statement by the Financial 
Action Task Force, FATF, ``Cuba has not committed to the anti-money 
laundering and combating the financing of terrorism international 
standards. Cuba has also not constructively engaged with the Task 
Force, which has identified Cuba as having strategic deficiencies that 
pose a risk to the international financial system.''
  This amendment would allow Cuba--the Banco Nacional de Cuba--to 
become the only country on the State Department's State-Sponsors of 
Terrorism list to have direct access to U.S.-based financial 
institutions.
  We do not have similar exceptions for Iran, Syria, and Sudan.
  It is important to understand that under Cuban law the Castro regime 
has a monopoly on all banking, commerce, and trade.
  Therefore, this amendment would allow Cuba's totalitarian regime to 
directly open corresponding accounts in U.S.-based financial 
institutions.
  It would allow a country that does not subscribe to basic principles 
of antimoney laundering and counterterrorism to make direct transfers 
to U.S. financial institutions!
  Currently, the Castro regime is required to use a third country 
European bank to settle its payment for U.S. agricultural products.
  If there are clearance problems, the U.S. settlement is entitled to 
protection under the terms of contract with Euroclear--the European 
clearance and settlement agency.
  If direct bank transfers are allowed, these transactions would be 
provided protections from operational risk by the Cuban originator of 
payment.
  Also consider the timing of these provisions, these concessions, 
these gifts to the regime.
  As American commercial interests buy their way into the Cuban market, 
an American--Alan Gross--remains a hostage in Cuban prison.
  His crime? Working with U.S. democracy programs to enhance the 
ability of the island's small Jewish community to communicate with the 
world.
  December 3 will mark 2 years of his unjust imprisonment--2 years that 
Alan Gross has been a hostage of the Cuban regime.
  Recent months have also seen a notable crackdown on peaceful 
democracy activists, like Las Damas de Blanca--the ladies in White who 
take to walking in the streets every Sunday to protest the political 
imprisonment of their husbands, brothers, and sons.
  Last month, the founder of Las Damas de Blanca, Laura Pollan Toledo 
died, not ever knowing a free Cuba.
  In March 2003 the he regime arrested her husband, Hector Maseda, an 
independent journalist, along with 74 others in a protest known as the 
Black Spring. After a 1-day trial, Hector Maseda was sentenced to 20 
years in prison.
  Laura Pollan Toledo's life, rallying the wives of Cuban dissidents 
jailed under the iron fist of the repressive Castro regime, gave Cuba 
hope and she became one of Cuba's most public and most powerful 
dissidents.
  She continued her work, as do those who follow in her footsteps, 
despite intense harassment, beatings and detentions.
  In one case, in the city of Santiago de Cuba, these ladies were 
stripped to their waist and dragged through the streets.
  In another instance they were bitten.
  Just last week, on November 8, over a dozen Cuban prodemocracy 
activists were violently arrested for participating in a peaceful 
public sit-in demanding the release of all political prisoners and an 
end to the Castro regime's violence against the opposition.
  Among those arrested were Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' Pastor 
Alexei Gomez, Rene Quiroga, Jose Angel Abreu, Oscar Veranes Martinez, 
Maria del Carmen Martinez, Donaida Perez Paseiro, Xiomara Martin 
Jimenez, Jorge Vazquez Chaviano, Orlando Alfonso Martinez, Enrique 
Martinez Marin Mayra Conlledo Garcia and Victor Castillo Ortega.
  The Cuban people, like those struggling for democratic reforms in the 
Middle East, yearn for the opportunity to control their destinies and 
provide a vibrant future for their children.
  The message we should send to such regimes--whether in Cuba or Syria, 
North Korea or Iran, is that they are pariahs--that their blood money 
has no place in our economy--that the currency of freedom prevails over 
the currency of repression.
  The United States will continue in its mission to support the Cuban 
people and to promote democracy until the Castro brothers relinquish 
power and restore the rights and liberties deserved by the Cuban people 
and by all people.
  But these provisions don't move us or the Cuban people closer to that 
goal--and must be rejected.
  Therefore, along with my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio 
of Florida, I raise a rule XVI point of order against the pending 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the 
amendment falls.

[[Page 17367]]

  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield 3 minutes to 
the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the majority leader. I will not take 
the 3 minutes but just to say my objection is the same as the Senator 
from New Jersey and my colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio.
  The fact is, the provision in the bill would allow direct payments 
between U.S. sellers and Cuban buyers of agricultural goods. Under the 
existing restrictions, U.S. exports to Cuba have fallen dramatically in 
the last few years, largely due to the regime's shortage of hard 
currency. In other words, the sanctions are working. Now is not the 
time to relax U.S. economic sanctions, particularly while we see on 
this planet Earth in 2011 a repressive regime such as the one in Cuba 
and the one that continues to hold Alan Gross.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Without losing the floor, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator 
from Florida, Senator Rubio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for 
that. I will be brief. I think my colleagues touched upon it and the 
public policy behind this.
  Lost in all the things happening around the world that are very 
important, I think we need to remind ourselves that a few miles off the 
coast of the United States the most repressive government in the 
Western Hemisphere conducts its business and is able to fund it through 
a lot of this interaction going on as we speak between commercial 
interests in the United States and in Cuba.
  By the way, I know these are folks in business and are not doing 
anything with bad intentions, but the practical intention of this 
agreed interaction with the Castro regime is hard currency--money they 
take and use to pay for this repressive arm. This is happening at a 
time when we have seen this year more repression than we have in recent 
years as the Castro government continues to fear it is losing its grip 
on power and on influence over its own society.
  I would say I am supportive of what Senator Menendez is trying to do, 
and I urge our colleagues to keep a watchful eye on what happens in 
Cuba.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me take a moment to explain what has 
happened.
  I offered the substitute amendment to include versions of the Energy 
and Water, Financial Services, and State/Foreign Ops appropriations 
bills that the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, 
had reported. Senator Menendez then raised a point of order against 
that substitute amendment. He had a right to do that. Senator Menendez 
has explained he objects to provisions of the committee-reported 
Financial Services bill that were linked to Cuba. That has been 
underscored by my friend Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and my friend 
Marco Rubio from Florida.
  The amendment I just offered is exactly the same as my last 
substitute amendment in the last minibus, except that it does not 
include the Cuba-related provisions to which Senator Menendez objected. 
It deletes sections 620 and 624 of the Financial Services bill reported 
to the Senate. I hope this amendment can give us the basis to move 
forward on this bill.


                           Amendment No. 957

  Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 957.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 957, which 
consists of the text of the withdrawn committee-reported amendment as 
division A, the text of S. 1573 with the exception of sections 620 and 
624, to which I have just referred, Calendar No. 171, as division B and 
the text of S. 1601, Calendar No. 179, as division C; provided further 
that H.R. 2434, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee and 
division C of amendment No. 957, be deemed House-passed text in H.R. 
2354 for purposes of rule XVI; finally, that amendment No. 957 for the 
purposes of paragraph 1 of Rule XVI be considered a committee 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, and a member--in fact, the 
ranking minority member--of the Financial Services and General 
Government Subcommittee. The amendment the majority leader offered, 
that excluded the provisions related to Cuba, was an amendment that was 
adopted by the full Appropriations Committee in a very bipartisan way. 
In fact, the vote was two-thirds to one-third--20 votes in favor, 10 
votes against.
  The provisions that have been struck by the procedure that has 
occurred today are the final implementation of legislation that was 
passed by this Congress in 2001 in which we provided for the first time 
the sale for cash upfront of agricultural commodities, food, and 
medicine. It has always been my view, when we fail to sell agricultural 
commodities to Cuba, we only harm ourselves. Again, the amendment that 
has been eliminated from consideration today, through this process, 
would implement the ability for money to be transferred to the United 
States by a Cuban bank for purposes of paying for that sale upfront.
  We have worked closely with the administration, with the Treasury 
Department, to make certain that nothing contained or nothing that 
would be contained in this provision would be objectionable to the 
security or the financial safety and soundness of our country. So with 
the process that has occurred, while there could have been many rule 
XVI points of order made today, one was made that defeats the will of 
the majority of our committee, and I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a full statement that I want to give 
as to why I am going to move through the next process, but I understand 
my friend from Louisiana is here. Before going to him, I ask for the 
yeas and nays on the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I 
yield to my friend from Louisiana for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader, and I also rise to object to 
the motion for completely different reasons than my colleague from 
Kansas. I rise to object, and several join me in this view, because I 
believe these additional appropriations bills, which we are trying to 
bring to the floor, simply spend too much money.
  Our greatest challenge as a nation right now is our economy. A big 
part of that challenge is the fact that we have completely 
unsustainable Federal spending and deficit and debt. Yet in the midst 
of all that, these appropriations bills spend more money than we are 
spending already, not less.
  Every American with any common sense knows when they are in a deep 
hole, the first step one takes is to stop digging. We as a country are 
in a deep fiscal hole, but these bills have us continuing to dig 
further. The three bills the majority leader wants to bring to the 
floor together spend $6 billion more than we are spending now.
  We are spending more, not less, even though we are $15 trillion in 
debt. That is simply continuing to dig when we are in a deep fiscal 
hole.
  Also, when you look at some of the details of this spending, it makes 
it even more offensive to millions upon millions of Americans--allowing 
funds for overseas groups that perform abortion, allowing taxpayer-
funded abortion in the District of Columbia, allowing elective 
abortions in the Federal

[[Page 17368]]

Employee Health Benefits Program, allowing funding of abortion by the 
Peace Corps, and $40 million for the U.N. Population Fund, which is 
deeply involved in China's proabortion population control program.
  I think it is a deadly combination in more ways than one. We are 
continuing to dig when we are already in a deep hole, and then, when 
you look at the details of the spending, so many parts of that in and 
of themselves are deeply offensive to tens of millions of Americans. 
Based on that and joined by many conservative colleagues of the Senate, 
I also object.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bills we brought before the Senate--
Energy and Water, Financial Services, Foreign Operations--are all 
within the agreement we made in July, the deficit reduction package, 
debt ceiling package we passed. It passed the Senate, passed the House, 
was signed by the President. So my friend from Louisiana is trying to 
renegotiate something that was passed after we did 3 months' work on 
it.
  I regret that there has been objection to my request, but what I just 
sought was the same understanding we had in the last appropriations 
measure, which worked pretty well. We passed those three bills. The 
conference should be completed momentarily. We will have to vote on 
that this coming week. Included in that is the CR to fund the 
government until sometime in the middle of December. But there has been 
an objection to proceeding along those same lines.
  Everything that was raised by my friend from Louisiana--is what the 
amendment process is all about. But we wanted it to be the way we have 
done it in the past--that on these appropriations matters, the 
amendments would have to be germane. But he was unwilling to live by 
that standard and offered amendments that had nothing to do with the 
underlying bill. That is what the American people can't stand.
  The Senate has rules that govern appropriations measures. These 
Senate rules are necessary because appropriations matters are must-pass 
bills, and we need some rules to prevent them from becoming Christmas 
trees. The Senate rules thus prevent nongermane amendments, and the 
Senate rules prevent legislating on appropriations bills. So those two 
things have the protection only on appropriations bills. If we didn't 
have these rules, these appropriations measures would become 
unmanageable.
  So what I sought with my unanimous consent request was to create an 
environment where the regular rules of the Senate for appropriations 
measures could be in effect. Regrettably, we didn't get that agreement. 
If we did those bills individually, that would be automatic.
  Without such an agreement, though, we have another thing about which 
we have to worry: Funding for the government runs out at the end of 
this week. So before we leave this week, the Senate needs to pass the 
continuing resolution contained in the conference report on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill, which also included other 
appropriations matters. We can't allow the Senate to get tied up in 
knots in a way that would prevent us from getting that work done.
  As I said this morning, I have made a commitment to Senators Levin 
and McCain that we are going to move to the authorization bill as soon 
as we finish this appropriations package, and I intend to do that. So 
we will engage in further discussions about how we can move forward 
with these important measures. In the meantime, we need to take steps 
to at least temporarily hold matters where they are. So, as I 
indicated, I have the yeas and nays pending on the substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 958 to Amendment No. 957

  Mr. REID. I have a first-degree amendment which is perfecting in 
nature at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 958 to amendment No. 957.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:
       Sec __.
       This Act shall become effective 7 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 959 to Amendment No. 958

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendment 
     numbered 959 to amendment No. 958.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``7 days'' and insert ``6 days''.


                 Amendment No. 960 to Amendment No. 957

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to 
be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendment 
     numbered 960 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 957.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:
       Sec. ___.
       This Act shall become effective 5 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 961 to Amendment No. 960

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 961 to amendment No. 960.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``4 days''.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 962

  Mr. REID. I have a motion to recommit the bill with instructions. 
That is also at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to recommit the 
     bill (H.R. 2354) to the Committee on Appropriations, with the 
     instructions to report back forthwith, with amendment 
     numbered 962.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:
       Sec. _.
       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 963 to Amendment No. 962

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instruction at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendment 
     numbered 963 to the instructions of 962 of the motion to 
     recommit H.R. 2354.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.


                 Amendment No. 964 to Amendment No. 963

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 964 to amendment No. 963.


[[Page 17369]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I indicated during the last week that I did 
not want to have to fill the tree. It is unfortunate that an objection 
was raised. We were able to move forward, as I indicated, in the last 
so-called minibus with three appropriations bills made into one. So we 
are now in a situation where we have no way to move forward unless we 
have an agreement on the underlying bill, which is the Energy and Water 
bill.
  I have some knowledge of that bill. I was on the Appropriations 
Committee from the day I came to the Senate, and I worked on that 
subcommittee for many years--several decades--and I was chairman of 
that subcommittee quite a few times. I worked with Senator Domenici 
when we would go back and forth as to who was the Chair, and we worked 
extremely well together. We were able to get the bill done quickly and 
satisfy the needs of the Members of this body.
  If I can have the efforts of my friends, Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Alexander, to move forward on this in a way that we can have 
some view of how we can end this legislation fairly quickly, with the 
ability to have amendments, I would have no problem because, as I have 
indicated, we have a lot of things to do before we leave here.
  We cannot come back here in December with a lot of unfinished 
business. I talked to my caucus today about the Defense authorization 
bill. I think we have to finish that bill before we leave here for 
Thanksgiving. So we have the minibus conference report, we now have 
this Energy and Water appropriations bill, which I believe is so 
important, and we have, of course, the Defense authorization bill. So I 
say to everyone here, if we can work something out, good. I hope we 
can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might respond through the 
Chair to the majority leader.
  I have been consulting with the chairman of our committee, and on the 
Republican side, we understand what the majority leader is saying. What 
I hear him saying is that we have some important work we have to do 
this week. He wants to move to the Defense authorization bill before 
the end of the week. We have a conference report that includes a 
continuing resolution. He wants that acted on before the end of the 
week.
  Our hope is that we can deal with the Energy and Water bill today and 
tomorrow. I am beginning to ask our Republican Senators--and Senator 
Feinstein can speak for herself, but she is doing the same with 
Democratic members--I am asking them to get their proposed amendments 
to the floor this afternoon, if at all possible, so we can give the 
majority leader some idea of how many amendments there might be so he 
can evaluate how to proceed. So we appreciate the opportunity to do 
that. We believe that doing the appropriations bill is the basic work 
of the Senate. This is important both from a defense and a nondefense 
point of view. It had broad support in our committee, and so far, I 
have not found anyone on our side who isn't agreeable to moving quickly 
on it. I will know more at the end of the afternoon, and I will report 
to the majority leader about the Republican side.
  I ask my colleagues who are listening to please bring their 
amendments to the floor this afternoon as soon as possible.
  Mr. REID. I have absolute confidence in the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee. They are two of our finest. They have a 
reputation here of working to get things done on a bipartisan basis, 
and that is certainly necessary on this most important piece of 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I understand this correctly, it is, 
as Senator Alexander has stated, that the effort is to, under a germane 
rule, have the Energy and Water appropriations bill brought to the 
floor. If that is achieved, then all Members, including Democratic 
Members, should get their amendments to the floor as soon as possible.
  We know what this week is like. We know the Defense authorization 
bill has to come to the floor. We know there are other items that have 
to come to the floor this week. Therefore, I hope that this effort is 
successful and that we will be able to begin to work on our bills.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, that is exactly right. Just so Senators know, Senator 
Reid has filled the tree, but what we hope to persuade him is that we 
know the number of amendments we have and that he doesn't need to do 
that. He is perfectly able to withdraw that. And I know several of our 
Republican colleagues are discussing this afternoon how many amendments 
they want to offer, and it is my hope that we will soon be able to 
start voting on those amendments, vote on them tomorrow, and finish the 
bill sometime tomorrow.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Evelyn H. Lauder

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to remember the life and to 
honor the legacy of a remarkable woman--an advocate for breast cancer 
research and awareness, a philanthropist, a savvy businesswoman, an 
accomplished photographer and author, a wife, a mother, a grandmother, 
and a dear friend, Evelyn Lauder.
  Evelyn lost her courageous battle with ovarian cancer on Saturday. 
She is survived by her husband of 52 years, Leonard Lauder; her sons, 
William and Gary; and five grandchildren.
  In many ways, her life parallels the familiar immigrant story of 
20th-century America. It is the story of a woman who escaped Nazi 
Europe, voyaged to the United States of America, and proceeded to 
enrich this country in countless ways.
  Evelyn Hausner was born on August 12, 1936, in Vienna. She was the 
only child of Ernest and Mimi Hausner. When Hitler annexed Austria in 
1938, the family fled to Belgium with just a few sentimental 
belongings. Later, the family relocated to England during the Blitz.
  In England, Evelyn's mother was sent to an internment camp on the 
Isle of Man. Evelyn was sent to live in a nursery. Eventually the 
family was reunited, and in 1940 they set sail for New York City.
  Evelyn often told a story about arriving in New York Harbor at the 
dawn of the Second World War. She said:

       My mother woke me up really early in the morning to see the 
     Statue of Liberty. That's a sight I will remember all my 
     life.

  She fell in love with New York that morning and would give back to 
her adopted city for the next seven decades.
  She was a proud product of the New York City public school system. As 
a freshman at Hunter College, she met her future husband on a blind 
date. Leonard Lauder was the son of Estee and Joseph Lauder, the owners 
of what then was just a small, family cosmetics business.
  Evelyn was a public school teacher for several years, and in 1959 she 
formally joined Estee Lauder, pitching in wherever she was needed. As 
the company grew to become an international conglomerate, so, too, did 
Evelyn's role and influence. She held many different positions at the 
company over the years.
  One of the earliest projects she tackled was to create the company's 
training programs. She enhanced the Estee Lauder product lineup by 
adding new colors and products that appealed to a

[[Page 17370]]

range of complexions and skin types. She had great instincts about new 
trends, about the needs of a consumer, and about the development of 
skin care and cosmetics. In fact, it was Evelyn who helped launch the 
name ``the Clinique brand.''
  In the last 25 years, she focused on fragrance--a lifelong passion 
she shared with her famous mother-in-law that stemmed from her love of 
flowers and gardening.
  In 1999 and again in 2007, she was recognized as one of New York's 
100 Most Influential Women in Business by Crain's New York Business.
  Evelyn was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1989 and soon became a 
tireless advocate for women's health. True to form, she was reluctant 
to publicly discuss her own condition. ``My situation doesn't really 
matter,'' she told a reporter in 1995. Instead, she chose to channel 
her energy and attention into helping raise money and educate women 
with less access and information about the disease. In 1989, as a 
member of the board of overseers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in 
New York, she initiated a fundraising drive that raised more than $18 
million to establish the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center, the country's 
first ever breast and diagnostic center. The center opened in 1992 and 
is a model for similar facilities around the world.
  In 1992 Evelyn developed the iconic pink ribbon, which we all know 
today as the worldwide symbol of breast health. She spearheaded the 
distribution of millions of pink ribbons and breast self-exam 
instruction cards at Estee Lauder cosmetic counters all across the 
country. Her efforts elevated breast cancer awareness in the public 
consciousness, and almost two decades later more than 115 million pink 
ribbons and millions of educational brochures and bookmarks have been 
handed out around the world.
  In 1993 she turned her attention to supporting the world's leading 
medical and scientific researchers and established the Breast Cancer 
Research Foundation to address the crucial lack of breast cancer 
research funding. Under her leadership, the foundation has grown to 
become the largest national organization dedicated exclusively to 
funding research relating to the causes, treatment, and prevention of 
breast cancer. To date, this foundation has raised $350 million, and 
supports 186 researchers around the United States, Canada, Latin 
America, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, and China.
  In 2000, Evelyn Lauder launched the Global Landmark Illuminations 
Initiative. We have all enjoyed seeing historic landmarks illuminated 
in pink lights during the month of October. Each year, more than 200 
prominent landmarks around the world participate. Evelyn has bathed the 
Empire State Building, Niagara Falls, the Tower of London, the Leaning 
Tower of Pisa, and the Tokyo Tower in pink lights.
  There was another side to Evelyn. She was an accomplished 
photographer with a keen eye and ability to capture extraordinary 
images. I have two of her photographs and treasure them. Her 
photography included rainbows rising from the Pacific Ocean, snow 
scenes in Colorado, patterns created by light reflecting on water, and 
landscapes in Chile, Tuscany, and the south of France, among others. 
Evelyn's works were featured in exhibitions at art galleries in London, 
Paris, Jerusalem, Barcelona, and Beijing, and well-received exhibitions 
in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and my hometown of San Francisco. 
She also published two books of photographs and had her work featured 
in many publications, including American Photo, House & Garden, the 
Oprah Magazine, and Town & Country.
  Evelyn was modest and self-effacing, but she donated all proceeds 
from her photographic exhibitions and royalties from her books to the 
Breast Cancer Research Foundation.
  Evelyn Lauder was one of a kind. She was a beautiful woman. I knew 
her. I remember Evelyn, her husband, my husband, and me sitting around 
a small table in a small Italian restaurant in New York City. I looked 
across that table at this beautiful woman and all that she has done in 
her lifetime. It is truly amazing. Her life may have begun under 
challenging circumstances but she became one of the country's most 
generous philanthropists and accomplished businesswomen. She was fun, 
she was smart, she was talented. She was a devoted wife, mother, 
grandmother, and friend. She was a remarkable American woman. She will 
be missed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Internet Sales Tax

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last week the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. 
Enzi, and the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, introduced a 
piece of legislation which is called the Marketplace Fairness Act. In 
doing so, I think they solved a problem that has persisted in almost 
every State in the Union and that Congress has had a difficult time 
dealing with for the last 10 years. The problem is what do we do about 
State sales taxes which everybody owes every time they make a purchase.
  If you buy a television set at the local appliance store in Tennessee 
you owe Tennessee sales tax. If you buy it online you still owe the 
sales tax. The difference has been that the local retailer is required 
to collect the sales tax, and does, and sends it to the State, but the 
online vendor, let's say Amazon, is not required to collect the sales 
tax and so it does not.
  So, like most individuals--I bought a television set from Amazon 
earlier this year. At the end of the year, I would need to file a form 
with our State government and say I bought it, acknowledge that they 
didn't collect the sales tax, tell the State I owe the sales tax on my 
purchase, and pay it. The truth is most Americans do not do that. That 
is a $23 billion a year tax avoidance, a great big tax loophole.
  One may ask why has that loophole not been closed. We hear a lot of 
talk about loopholes around here and we know States want to have 
dollars right now, either to lower taxes or pay for services, and most 
of us think we should not prefer one business over another business or 
one taxpayer over another taxpayer. The problem is 20 years ago the 
technology did not exist to make it easy for an online or remote vendor 
to collect the sales tax in the same way the local shoestore or local 
vendor collects it, so the Supreme Court said it would be an undue 
burden on interstate commerce.
  Here is the loophole in practical terms. I called the owner of the 
Nashville Boot Company last week after we introduced the bill, Frank 
Harwell. At the beginning he sold cowboy boots online. I think it is 
the Nashville Cowboy Boot company. But he sold boots online, and he 
said he sold as much as $400,000 a year of cowboy boots online. That 
was his major business. When he began, he was about the only one doing 
that, and I assume if you wanted cowboy boots, Nashville sounded like a 
good place to buy them, so he was doing all right. Now he said there 
are about 200 people selling boots online and so he does most of his 
boot selling out of his store. He has a store in Belle Meade Plaza 
right next to where I take my granddaughter to breakfast on Saturday 
mornings.
  This is what he says happens to him. He says people come into the 
Nashville Cowboy Boot company store and they try on the cowboy boots 
and then they go home and buy them online because they don't have to 
pay the sales tax. They owe the sales tax, but, as I said, the online 
sellers are not required to collect it and many taxpayers fail to pay 
it even though they owe it.
  Now we are not talking about Internet tax here. The Senate had a 
great big debate on the Internet access tax a

[[Page 17371]]

few years ago. I was right in the middle of that. By the time we got 
through with it, we had a compromise and we put a moratorium on new 
Internet access taxes. So we are not talking about taxing the Internet 
or a new Internet tax. We are talking about the plain old State sales 
tax that everybody--except in five States, one of them being New 
Hampshire, which doesn't have a sales tax--in 45 States owes.
  I have been very pleased with the reception I have heard to the bill 
introduced by Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin. It has five Republican 
cosponsors. I am one of them. It has five Democratic cosponsors. We 
hope there will be more. Many of the people who saw problems with 
earlier attempts to fix the bill believe this legislation solves the 
problem. Some of the early bills were large. This bill is 10 pages. It 
is very simple. If the problem was it was too complicated for remote 
sellers to collect the online tax, they fixed that. They have said if 
Tennessee wants to require remote sellers like Amazon to do the same 
thing the local boot company does, it has to provide Amazon with 
software that will make it simple for Amazon to collect the tax.
  When I want to know the weather in my hometown outside of Maryville, 
TN, I simply put in weather and the ZIP Code 37886, and back comes the 
information. That is all a remote vendor will have to do. It will put 
in Lamar Alexander, cowboy boots, whatever they cost, the ZIP Code, and 
the computer software will figure out the state and local sales tax and 
report it to the vendor, and the vendor will send the money 
electronically to whatever State. So the old problems don't exist.
  I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal today which I thought was 
very well balanced. It takes a whole page. States require online 
retailers to collect sales tax. Yes, it is fair. No, it protects small 
firms. I am not going to put this in the Record, but I do want to take 
issue with one argument among those who said: No, it protects small 
firms. Two arguments, really.
  One, the Enzi-Durbin legislation has a $500,000 exemption. So my 
friend in Nashville, who was the only, and I guess for a while, leading 
seller of cowboy boots online never made more than $400,000 in 
revenues. He said, I could tell that. So if he doesn't have more than 
$400,000 or $500,000 in revenue, he is not even affected by this 
legislation that gives States the option to decide what to do.
  Second, this says the legislation would overturn the Supreme Court 
ruling of 20 years ago. That is not accurate. It does not overturn 
anything. What the Supreme Court said 20 years ago was that with the 
state of technology that existed with so many different taxing 
jurisdictions, it was an undue burden on interstate commerce for States 
to require online sellers to collect the tax that was owed. This is 
what the Court said:

       This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that 
     the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be 
     better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has 
     the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the 
     burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, 
     Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions.

  Then it said:

       Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, 
     and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-
     order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.

  This is not overturning anything. It is simply responding to the 
invitation by the Supreme Court 20 years ago that said: As we look at 
it, this is too big a burden. That was back when there were thousands 
of taxing districts and no easy way to collect the money. But it did 
say that Congress had the right to decide what represents a burden. 
What this bill says is, there are two ways States may do this. There is 
the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement where about half the States 
have joined together and said, we will create a single way to allow 
online vendors to operate, or the State of Kentucky may say, we don't 
like what they are doing, we will create our own way. As long as it is 
a simple way, a single return, a single audit, and the State provides 
the software, then the State has that option. That is why Amazon 
decided last week that it supported the Enzi-Durbin bill.
  On the Republican or conservative side, there have been a lot of 
people who said, wait, this is about taxes. Well, it is about taxes, 
but it is about taxes in a way that conservatives like to talk about. 
We like to say we don't like it when the government policy prefers some 
taxpayers over others, or some businesses over others. We also, on this 
side of the aisle, believe in States' rights, and this bill doesn't 
decide anything. It simply empowers States to make their own decisions 
about taxes.
  In our State, for example, we have one of the lowest tax burdens, but 
we have the highest State sales tax. If we are able to collect $300 
million, $400 million, $500 million more in Tennessee from this tax 
that is now avoided because of the loophole, there could be proposals 
to reduce the sales tax rate or reduce some other tax. Certainly the 
money will help to avoid the arrival of a State income tax, which is 
about the most hated word in our tax vocabulary in Tennessee.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some of the 
responses that have come since last week. The Memphis Commercial Appeal 
editorial which urged that Congress close this longstanding loophole in 
the current tax law. ``It's the right thing to do.''
  Greg Johnson, a conservative columnist in the Knoxville News Sentinel 
said: ``Online sales tax bill would level the playing field.'' His 
article refers to the fact that 10 years ago William F. Buckley, Jr., 
whom he calls the father of modern conservatism, opined to the National 
Review about this problem and that it needed a result.
  The same sort of argument was made by Al Cardenas, head of the 
American Conservative Union, who wrote an article last week and said 
this needs to be fixed and supports a bill such as the one we 
introduced.
  There is also an editorial from the Seattle Times, an editorial from 
the Paris Post-Intelligencer, an editorial from the Denver Post, and 
one from Belleville in Illinois. All of these make the same points.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Commercial Appeal, Nov. 13, 2011]

                      A Level Field for Retailers


 Requiring online and catalogue retailers to collect sales taxes could 
                 help the state reach worthwhile goals

       When was the last time you sent a check to state government 
     for the sales tax you owed for an online purchase?
       More to the point, did you know you were supposed to?
       Join the club.
       Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander has come up with a way to 
     relieve shoppers of a responsibility many of us don't even 
     know we have.
       Alexander has predicted passage of the bipartisan 
     Marketplace Fairness Act, whose co-sponsors include five 
     Democrats and five Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of 
     Tennessee.
       The bill would require online and catalogue retailers to 
     begin collecting and remitting state sales taxes.
       In Tennessee, annual revenue from online sales tax 
     collections has been estimated at between $300 million and 
     $400 million.
       In a 2009 study, University of Tennessee-Knoxville 
     economics and business professors estimated that $52 billion 
     in potential revenues will have been lost in 46 states and 
     the District of Columbia over a six-year period through 2012 
     because taxes on online sales are not being collected.
       The measure's primary appeal is one of fairness--the 
     elimination of an unfair advantage online sellers have over 
     large and small brick-and-mortar stores.
       Very small businesses would be protected by an exemption 
     that covers annual online sales of less than $500,000 in the 
     Senate version of the bill, or $1 million if the House 
     version is adopted.
       The benefits to a state such as Tennessee could be 
     significant.
       The state's public college students were hit by annual 
     tuition and fee increases that ranged from 7.4 percent to 
     13.7 percent for the current school year.
       Increases for the 2012-13 school year will seem even worse 
     than usual next fall if the General Assembly decides to cut 
     back on the eligibility standards and/or the size of state 
     lottery scholarships.
       An expansion of the TennCare rolls called for by the 
     federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 
     will be offset to some extent by a larger federal match, but 
     TennCare officials have predicted that the state will have to 
     cover at least part of the expansion.

[[Page 17372]]

       And with new revenue from online sales, Tennessee could 
     also consider the elimination of its sales tax on food, one 
     of the most regressive aspects of the state revenue system.
       Passage of the measure also would move up the date on which 
     Tennessee could begin receiving revenue on sales from 
     Amazon's new Tennessee distribution centers.
       Under an arrangement worked out between Gov. Bill Haslam 
     and the company, those collections currently aren't due to 
     begin, absent federal standardization, until 2014.
       In fact, Amazon, which has been seeking sales tax relief in 
     several states as part of its decision making process 
     regarding new sites, has turned out to be a supporter of the 
     Alexander bill.
       There is software available to ease the transition for 
     online retailers--nothing, in fact, to prevent Congress from 
     closing this long-standing loophole in current tax law. It's 
     also the right thing to do.
                                  ____


                   [From Knoxnews.com, Nov. 11, 2011]

            Online Sales Tax Bill Would Level Playing Field

                           (By Greg Johnson)

       Almost exactly 10 years ago, William F. Buckley Jr., the 
     father of modern conservatism, opined in the National Review 
     about the vexing problem of e-commerce and the collection--or 
     lack thereof--of sales taxes by state governments. Buckley 
     stood firmly athwart principled, conservative convictions 
     against any tax on Internet usage.
       But when it came to the collection of taxes on Internet 
     purchases, Buckley saw how the growth in online commerce was 
     changing the world of retail sales and how local businesses 
     were being harmed by the uneven playing field on which out-
     of-state vendors did not collect sales taxes.
       ``The estimated commerce done by the Internet in 1998 was 
     $9 billion,'' Buckley wrote. ``Last year (2000) it was $26 
     billion. Which means we have to come to earth and face 
     homespun economic truths. If the advantage of tax-free 
     Internet commerce marginally closes out local industry, 
     reforms are required.''
       U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., proposed such reform 
     this week, co-sponsoring the bipartisan Marketplace Fairness 
     Act. ``The reason I'm a co-sponsor is that it's a states'' 
     rights issue,'' Alexander said in a Wednesday conference 
     call. ``(The bill) gives the state of Tennessee the right to 
     decide how to collect or not to collect its own state sales 
     tax.''
       Alexander noted how bricks-and-mortar retailers are at a 
     disadvantage. ``Main Street sellers are up at arms because 
     they have to collect a tax when they sell a television set or 
     a computer, and online sellers don't,'' Alexander said. 
     ``(This legislation) ends the subsidy of some businesses over 
     others.''
       Gov. Bill Haslam backs Alexander. ``The Marketplace 
     Fairness Act will bring much-needed, and long overdue, relief 
     to the state of Tennessee,'' Haslam wrote in a letter to 
     Alexander. ``Tennessee and other states are currently unable 
     to compel out-of-state businesses to collect sales taxes the 
     same way local businesses do.'' The University of Tennessee's 
     Center for Business and Economic Research estimates the state 
     loses more than $300 million per year in uncollected revenue.
       While Ebay opposes the bill, Paul Misener, Amazon's vice 
     president for global public policy, pledged support, writing 
     to Alexander, ``Your bill will allow states to obtain 
     additional revenue without new taxes or federal spending and 
     will make it easy for consumers and small retailers to comply 
     with state sales tax laws.''
       Alexander moved to pre-empt fire from the right. 
     ``Conservatives understand (collection from online vendors) 
     is not a new tax. It is a tax that already exists. It is not 
     an Internet tax,'' Alexander said. ``This is an existing tax 
     on all sales, and it is not fair to charge it to some 
     taxpayers and not others. It is not fair to discriminate 
     against stores in Tennessee in favor of stores outside 
     Tennessee.''
       A decade ago, Buckley embraced reality when online sales 
     were $26 billion and local industry was being crowded out by 
     uneven and unfair application of existing tax laws. Last 
     year, online retailers sold $142 billion in merchandise. As 
     Buckley wrote and Alexander recognizes, reforms are required.
                                  ____


                [From the Seattle Times, Nov. 11, 2011]

         Bill To Tap Into Online Sales-Tax Revenue Makes Sense

       The Seattle Times editorial board supports the Marketplace 
     Fairness Act, which would allow states to collect sales taxes 
     on mail-order and online purchases across state lines.
       Washington's delegation in Congress, Democrat and 
     Republican, should support the Marketplace Fairness Act, a 
     bipartisan Senate bill that would allow states to collect 
     sales taxes on online and catalog purchases across state 
     lines.
       For years, Washington residents have escaped sales taxes by 
     buying online. People have enjoyed doing this, brushing aside 
     the irksome thought that they were shortchanging local 
     merchants, wiping out local jobs and undermining local 
     governments. When the Internet was small and times were good, 
     their irresponsibility could be overlooked. No longer.
       In the two-year period ending June 30, 2013, Washington 
     state government is in a $2 billion hole. Counties and cities 
     also suffer. The Department of Revenue estimates that passing 
     the Marketplace Fairness Act will bring state and local 
     government $483 million in new money in the next biennium. 
     The effect in this biennium would be less but still 
     meaningful.
       Every hundred million dollars counts.
       Most states have an income tax. Our state does not, and has 
     voted four times against one. If a sales tax is what the 
     people want, they must update it for the 21st century--and in 
     an Internet world, that means collecting the tax across state 
     lines.
       This state is also the home of the most successful Internet 
     retailer, Amazon. For several years, Amazon has fought 
     efforts of other states to collect sales taxes. Despite 
     Amazon being a neighbor to The Seattle Times, we have 
     criticized its position.
       Amazon now changes. It has endorsed the Marketplace 
     Fairness Act. This is strategically smart, and it is welcome.
       ``Amazon's coming out in support is huge,'' says Russ 
     Brubaker, assistant director of the Department of Revenue in 
     Olympia.
       Interstate sales-tax bills have been offered before, by 
     Democrats. Brubaker notes that the new bill, sponsored by 
     Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., now has an equal group of 
     Republicans behind it, including Sen. Lamar Alexander of 
     Tennessee.
       ``Having him on that bill makes a big difference,'' 
     Brubaker says.
       This is a bill that makes sense. The timing is right. Our 
     delegation should support it, and push hard.
                                  ____


           [From the Paris Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 10, 2011]

                   Online Sales Tax Path Is Clearing


                 After a Long Fight, States are winning

       Bit by bit, states are winning the battle to collect sales 
     taxes for purchases made by computer.
       What once seemed a solid wall of opposition that gave 
     online sellers a huge advantage and caused states to lose 
     many millions in lost revenue is being dismantled brick by 
     brick.
       The latest turn is that Tennessee's senior U.S. Senator, 
     Lamar Alexander, has introduced a bill in Congress, 
     coauthored by Republican and Democratic senators, to let 
     states collect sales taxes. If enacted, the bill would negate 
     a Supreme Court ruling that allows a state to collect taxes 
     only when a seller has a physical location within the state.
       ``It's a state rights issue,'' Alexander said. ``It gives 
     the State of Tennessee the right to decide how to collect or 
     not to collect its own sales tax.
       ``It ends the subsidy for some businesses over others, it 
     ends the subsidy for some taxpayers over others, it closes a 
     loophole that's been growing for 20 years, and it permits the 
     state to collect that avoided revenue.''
       It's no small matter. This year, University of Tennessee 
     economists have estimated, the Volunteer State is losing $365 
     million in missed sales taxes. The estimate for 2012 is $410 
     million.
       Some traditional opponents of the tax move now support it. 
     Chief among them is the on-line giant Amazon, which said 
     Wednesday it will work to get Alexander's bill passed. The 
     firm, under a deal negotiated by Gov. Bill Haslam, had 
     already agreed to begin collecting the tax in 2014; 
     Alexander's bill, if passed, could speed up that process.
       Support also has come from Wal-Mart and Best Buy, as well 
     as from some congressional conservatives who originally had 
     opposed the move as a new tax. The American Conservative 
     Union has endorsed a similar bill introduced in the House.
       Some opposition remains--eBay opposes the trend on the 
     basis that it would place a new burden on small businesses. 
     Alexander's bill would ease that burden by exempting on-line 
     sellers who have less than half a million dollars in out-of-
     state sales; the House bill sets a $1 million cutoff point.
       The time is right. The path is clearing. Congress should 
     act.
                                  ____


                 [From the Denver Post, Nov. 14, 2011]

                    Online Sales Tax Could Be a Boon

       A new Internet sales tax bill introduced in Congress has 
     the potential to allow cash-strapped states to collect 
     billions in sales taxes from online purchases.
       The Marketplace Fairness Act is a significant step forward 
     that could help Colorado--someday.
       The problem that Colorado and a handful of other states 
     would face in trying to use the authority described in the 
     bill is lack of uniformity.
       Colorado's local taxing authorities have many different 
     rates for various items and would have to agree on uniform 
     sales tax rates for online purchases.
       Yes, it's a heavy lift. However, the folks at the state 
     Department of Revenue say they think it's possible. We hope 
     so. This measure could put an end to the Amazon tax wars, and 
     could help states collect revenues rightfully due.
       Some online retailers have fought hard against state-level 
     attempts to get them to

[[Page 17373]]

     collect sales taxes. They argued states were imposing 
     improper and burdensome regulations on interstate commerce, 
     and they had the law on their side.
       The answer was federal legislation to allow states to 
     compel sales tax collection. In Colorado, that could mean an 
     additional $173 million in state and local taxes in 2012. 
     That's not chump change.
       Geoff Wilson, general counsel for the Colorado Municipal 
     League, said his reading of the legislation is that local 
     taxing authorities would have to agree to the same rates for 
     online sales originating with out-of-state retailers, ones 
     without a physical presence in Colorado. They'd still keep 
     their local rates for local sales.
       Those online sales taxes would be collected at the state 
     level, and then disbursed to the local entities.
       It would likely mean that there would still be a 
     difference--one tax rate if you buy something in a store 
     locally and another if you buy online. Optimally, you'd want 
     those to be pretty close, but given the variation in 
     Colorado's sales tax rates from one jurisdiction to another, 
     there would certainly be a difference between the sales taxes 
     you'd pay at a brick and mortar store versus online.
       ``It's not a perfect remedy, but it's not the injustice 
     that it used to be,'' Wilson told us.
       What he means by that is now, people who buy goods online 
     from out-of-state retailers frequently do so without paying 
     any sales taxes.
       That puts a local retailer with the store down the street 
     at a big disadvantage in competing with those selling items 
     online. A uniform tax rate for an online purchase would 
     drastically reduce the ``Main Street inequity'' problem, 
     Wilson said.
       State revenue officials say passage of the bill, which has 
     bipartisan support, would create a big incentive for 
     Colorado's many disparate taxing authorities to agree on 
     simplification.
       We hope Colorado policy makers give this serious thought. 
     We appreciate and respect the autonomy of home rule cities 
     and counties.
       However, forging an agreement on this matter could result 
     in a measure of fairness for local retailers and much-needed 
     revenue for state and local governments.
                                  ____


                     [From bnd.com, Nov. 14, 2011]

                     Internet Tax Is About Fairness

       The tax-free days of shopping on the Internet may soon be a 
     thing of the past. A bipartisan group of senators, including 
     Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, has introduced a bill that may 
     finally have traction.
       This is good news. While no one likes paying taxes, this 
     bill should help level the playing field for all businesses.
       Opponents complain that the measure will hurt small 
     Internet businesses, but small brick-and-mortar businesses 
     have to collect sales taxes; why shouldn't small Internet-
     based businesses also?
       The only reason they don't already do it is that the system 
     of figuring each jurisdiction's sales tax rate is so 
     complicated. This bill would set up a simplified process; 
     states would choose whether to participate.
       The bill is called, appropriately, the Marketplace Fairness 
     Act. It's time for Congress to approve this plan.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is a States rights argument. It is 
about allowing States to close a loophole--a tax loophole. It is about 
stopping the subsidization of some taxpayers over other taxpayers, 
stopping the subsidization of some businesses over others. About the 
only ones left complaining are the taxpayers and businesses that enjoy 
being subsidized by other taxpayers and other businesses, and that, in 
our opinion, is not the correct tax policy.
  I am very pleased with the work of Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin. I 
will conclude where I started. I think they have solved the problem. As 
more Senators look at the fairness of the Marketplace Fairness Act and 
look at the options it gives each State, I hope we will have more 
cosponsors. If I were running an online retailer in this country, I 
would begin to make my plans to collect the sales taxes that are 
already owed and return them to the States because States will have the 
right under this legislation to do it.
  I thank the President and I yield the floor. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have mentioned this to the 
distinguished Republican floor leader, and I ask unanimous consent that 
I be allowed to speak for a few minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, at some point we may bring up the State 
and Foreign Operations Subcommittee's appropriations bill. I understand 
that several Senators on the other side have refused to allow the 
Senate to debate and vote on this bill, for one reason or another. That 
is unfortunate, because it provides the funding for many programs that 
have critical importance to the Nation's security. Let me mention a 
few.

  It supports our counterterrorism strategy in South Asia, the Horn of 
Africa, and the Far East. It responds to the turbulent events in the 
Middle East and North Africa, and threats on the Mexican border. It 
combats transnational crime, piracy of intellectual property, and the 
denial of fundamental freedoms. It promotes access for U.S. companies 
to foreign markets. It provides the funds to operate and secure our 
embassies and consulates that serve millions of Americans while 
traveling, working and studying overseas. It preserves U.S. influence 
in key international organizations and alliances. And it responds to a 
massive famine in Somalia, floods, and other humanitarian disasters.

  We have to do this and much more with a budget allocation that is $6 
billion below the President's request.
  I worry that ``foreign aid'' today is a term often maligned and 
misunderstood. It is viewed by many as a form of charity, or a luxury 
we can do without, or that it is a sizable part of the Federal budget. 
But it is none of those things, as that list I just mentioned 
illustrates.
  These have never been Democratic or Republican issues. The funds in 
this bill determine whether the United States will remain the global 
leader it has been since the Second World War.
  Six weeks ago, former President George W. Bush said:

       One of the lessons of September 11th is that what happens 
     overseas matters here at home. . . . We face an enemy that 
     can only recruit when they find hopeless people, and there is 
     nothing more hopeless to a child who loses a mom or dad to 
     AIDS [than] to watch the wealthy nations of the world sit 
     back and do nothing.

  Former President Bush is right.
  In fact, his former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was equally 
blunt about the stakes involved. She said:

       We don't have an option to retire, to take a sabbatical 
     from leadership in the international community and the world. 
     If we do, one of 2 things will happen. There will be chaos, 
     because without leadership there will be chaos in the 
     international community, and that is dangerous. But it's 
     quite possible, that if we don't lead, somebody else will. 
     And perhaps it will be someone who does not share our values 
     of compassion, the rights of the individual, of liberty, and 
     freedom.

  I could not agree more, and I hope other Senators appreciate what is 
at stake. Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable 
challenges of the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we 
will bear responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today.
  I wonder if, in my parents' generation, this country had not rallied 
behind President Truman and Secretary George Marshall, who had the 
Marshall plan, which to many people was very unpopular, whether we 
would have given aid to countries we had just been at war with. What a 
different world it would be today if we had not helped rebuild Europe 
or Japan.
  It is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our 
competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence 
around the world and to compete in the global marketplace. Great 
Britain's conservative government is on a path to increase its 
international development assistance to .7 percent of its national 
budget. You might say: Only .7 percent of its national budget? In the 
United States, it is .2 percent of our national budget.
  Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold 
War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than 
any other region except the European Union, our share is shrinking 
while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere.

[[Page 17374]]

  There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world 
is changing profoundly, and we cannot afford to retrench or succumb to 
isolationism.
  The funding in the State, Foreign Operations bill enables us to 
engage with our allies, defeat our competitors, and deter our 
adversaries. It may be an attractive target for campaign speeches and 
bumper sticker politics, but without it we cannot meet the growing 
threats to our struggling economy and our national security.
  The bill that Senator Graham and I will, I hope, be able to bring to 
the floor of this body, was reported by the Appropriations Committee on 
a bipartisan vote of 28 to 2. It is $6 billion below the President's 
budget request. It scales back many Department of State and U.S. Agency 
for International Development operations and programs. It is going to 
force significant reductions in planned expenditures. I wish it did 
not, but I also agree that we have to control spending.
  I doubt there is any Member of Congress from either party or either 
body who does not care if the United States becomes a second or third 
rate power. I think all of us in Congress expect the United States to 
lead, to build alliances, to help American companies compete 
successfully, and to protect the interests and security of our 
citizens.
  Yet there are unmistakable signs that our global influence is already 
waning. It is not preordained that the United States will remain the 
world's dominant power. As Former Secretary Rice said:

       If we don't lead, somebody else will.

  I think every one of us can imagine which countries that might be, 
and I shudder to think of some of them.
  You cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect others to follow if we 
do not lead. And we cannot lead if we do not pay our way.
  We need to stop acting as though these investments do not matter; 
that the State Department is not important; that we do not need the 
United Nations; that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, 
Somalia, or other countries does not matter; and that the global 
threats to the environment, public health, and safety will somehow be 
solved by others.
  Think of this: The most deadly, contagious diseases in the world are 
only an airplane trip away from our shore.
  This year's State, Foreign Operations bill, which was drafted in a 
bipartisan manner, balances our priorities. Funding for these programs 
was requested by Republicans and Democrats. In fact, I the total number 
of requests we received from both parties dwarfed what Senator Graham 
and I had available to spend.
  There are no earmarks in this bill. Because of the budget cuts, 
Members on my side did not get close to everything they wanted, and 
neither did Members on Senator Graham's side.
  But to anyone who thinks the 1 percent of the Federal budget we spend 
on international diplomacy and development is too much, this bill will 
freeze most embassy and consular operations, curtail programs, and in 
some cases defer payments to international organizations that we are 
obligated by treaty to pay.
  This country is at a crossroads. We can retreat from the world, as 
some seem to want, while China and our other competitors continue to 
expand their influence, or we can remain a leader. This Senator hopes 
we will have the sense to choose the latter course.
  I was barely a child at the end of World War II, but I watched as our 
soldiers came home, and I saw America's influence grow. I saw it as a 
young student in college and in law school. I saw students who came to 
this country to learn what we did--why?--they were inspired by America 
and wanted to learn from our example. I saw members of my family and 
friends join the Peace Corps. And when I have traveled overseas since 
becoming a Senator, I hear people say: Thank goodness America helped 
us. I hope my children and my grandchildren do not hear a different 
story.
  The funding in this bill, which is strongly supported by the 
Department of Defense, is, along with the U.S. military, the best form 
of insurance the American people have.
  I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran for their support 
of the subcommittee's budget. And I want to thank Senator Graham, who 
is a highly informed and passionate advocate for U.S. global 
leadership. I appreciate his input and support, as I do the other 
members of the Appropriations Committee from both parties.
  It is easy for us to stand up and speak about how we want America to 
be No. 1. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and say you want to win 
the New York marathon but you do not want to train for it. If we want 
to be No. 1, we have to earn it.
  One thing that has united some of the great leaders of our country--
both Republicans and Democrats--is their desire to expand, in the most 
positive way, America's influence around the world, one, so we could 
help others, and two, because it protects us. If we get to this bill, I 
hope we will not find ourselves tangled in knots with sloganeering or 
special interest amendments, but, rather, debate it with only one 
interest in mind: that of the United States of America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Close Up Foundation

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to speak for just a few moments 
on a very special anniversary that we are celebrating, not just here in 
Washington but around the country; that is, the 40th anniversary of the 
Close Up Foundation, familiar to us all.
  It is a foundation that was started in 1971. Close Up has worked for 
four decades to promote responsible and informed participation in the 
democratic process through Washington-based civic education programs 
and classroom publications. I had the pleasure myself of participating 
in one of the first ever Close Up programs back in 1972. So I 
participated in the second year when the program was in its fledgling 
stage.
  Little did I believe then or know then that I would be a Member of 
the Senate. But I can remember the tremendous impact that program had 
on me at that age. It was the first time I had ever visited Washington, 
DC. I can tell you without the Close Up program, I probably would not 
have made that trip until many years later. But it made a lasting 
impression on me and I believe gave me some idea back then of a 
potential career in public service.
  I am very proud to be an alum of this important program, and I am 
delighted to help celebrate that later tonight at a reception for the 
40th anniversary, which is today.
  Close Up's mission is to inform, educate, and inspire young people to 
be active citizens in our democracy. Close Up seeks to create a 
generation of Americans that exercise their rights and accept the 
responsibilities of citizenship.
  Each year, Close Up serves thousands of high school and middle school 
students and their teachers on Washington-based government and 
citizenship education programs. These programs demonstrate that an 
active citizenry is necessary for the perpetuation of our democracy, 
and they provide students with the knowledge and skills to participate 
firsthand--hands on, seeing is believing, being here in Washington, 
seeing the buildings, experiencing firsthand the ways of the Senate and 
the House operating, seeing the Supreme Court in action leaves a 
lasting impression, believe me, on these students--since the 1970s.
  I know my colleagues will join me in the pride that 750,000 students 
and teachers from across the country have participated in Close Up 
programs. Participating students return to their schools and share with 
their classrooms, with their student bodies, what they learned and 
experienced. So while we have had 750,000 students participate, we have 
directly touched millions of students and teachers and family

[[Page 17375]]

members, as these students go back and relay very fine experiences.
  Students who participate in Close Up Washington travel to our 
Nation's Capital, usually for about 1 week, joining with their peers 
from all over the United States, to live and learn together during an 
intensive, inspiring, and skill-building program. The program is 
designed to enrich students' knowledge of the basic concepts and 
institutions of the Federal Government, an important part of our 
democracy, and to develop a practical understanding of the process of 
the democratic political system and the role of citizens in this 
system, which is central, as the Chair knows.
  To engage students, expert institutional staff use best practices and 
methodologies, including role modeling, small group discussions, 
simulations, and student-driven interaction with key policy experts. In 
other words, this is not just a tour of Washington, it is not just a 
tour of the building, it is an interactive, hands-on experience for 
young middle school and high school students to have a better 
understanding of how their government operates.
  If we think about it, we know they understand by maybe reading the 
paper and talking to friends how their local government operates. They 
get a sense of how their State governments operate. Without a real 
opportunity to visit the Nation's Capital, which many of these students 
might not have, how will they get a feel for what goes on here, which 
is very important.
  Each year the Close Up Washington program participants engage in 
1,000 meetings with Members of Congress and their staffs on Capitol 
Hill. Our Capital's institutions and historic sites are used as 
classrooms to help students explore the link between history and 
contemporary political issues. It brings it alive to them. It makes it 
real for them. That is why it is so important for us to continue this 
program.
  Students also learn and practice the habits of active, effective 
citizenship with an intense emphasis on civil discourse. One of the 
most important and commendable aspects of the Close Up program is its 
accessibility to economically disadvantaged students. I wish to take a 
minute to stress this. There are many programs that are sponsored 
directly or indirectly by the Federal Government that allow students to 
come to Washington. Then, of course, there are many privately funded 
activities.
  But this is the only Federal program that I know of that reaches out 
in a special way to students that would be unable to come under any 
other circumstances, they just could not afford it. Their families 
cannot afford it, and so it would be out of reach for many of them. 
That is what is so important about Close Up.
  The other important aspect, it is not just for the kids in the class 
who are 4.0 students. Many students come on academic scholarships or 
they are chosen because of their academic prowess. This is for the 
average kid, as well as those who are achieving academically. But it is 
for the average kid, the kid whom we depend on to be our citizen for 
the future.
  So because of that, it is especially important for us to continue 
this opportunity. Close Up provides a diverse program experience for 
its participants and has provided over $100 million in fellowship 
assistance to students and teachers from underserved communities 
through public funding and a committed network of corporate and 
philanthropic donors. So to the Federal money that serves as its base, 
we get additional support from individuals and from foundations to 
leverage that resource, to provide an opportunity for kids who would 
never be able to see with their own eyes the Capitol or the White 
House, would never be able to walk into the Supreme Court, to actually 
see it and touch it and to experience it.
  If it sparks an interest in one-fourth of the children who come, that 
would be great. But I think it sparks an interest in almost 100 percent 
of them in some way. When they leave, they are forever changed in a 
positive way and can become active participants in this democracy.
  So at a time when students throughout the United States show an 
alarming lack of proficiency in civics, as demonstrated by the recent 
results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing of 
4th, 8th, and 12th graders, Close Up continues to work to engage young 
people so they understand the political process, find their own voice, 
and they embrace the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, which 
is indeed a gift, and they learn to appreciate that gift and to 
participate more fully in this democracy.
  I commend and congratulate Close Up for 40 years of excellent 
service. I hope it will continue for another 40 years. I am proud to be 
a strong supporter of the Close Up program. I urge my colleagues, as we 
have an opportunity, to support the funding for this program, even in 
these tough budgetary times.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Iran's Growing Nuclear Threat

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we have been seized with obviously pressing 
issues and emergencies, and I fear we have not been paying enough 
attention to the issue of Iran and the growing nuclear threat posed by 
that country. The recent release of the report by the International 
Atomic Energy Commission has returned the Iran nuclear issue to the 
front pages and, hopefully, to the top of our list of priority issues 
that need to be discussed and need to be evaluated.
  The IAEA nuclear watchdog, which I visited last March with a group of 
Members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, has never been 
an instrument of U.S. policy. In fact, it has often offered 
perspectives contrary to America's views or preferences and has 
rigorously defended its objectivity independent of individual 
governments. Therefore, I think this latest report has all the more 
weight that we should give serious consideration to. This objective 
organization of nuclear experts has had unrivaled access to information 
and sources within Iran. It has stripped away the veneer of ambiguity 
and uncertainty about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
  Iran is after the bomb, and we all know it. We can see the proof in 
this IAEA report, including compelling detail about Iran amassing 
fissile material, designing explosive trigger devices, and developing 
delivery systems. The report details the way in which Iran has 
relentlessly pursued this objective over the years and from whom it has 
obtained assistance.
  The report also shows our own intelligence community's official 
estimate in 2007 that Iran had suspended these activities in 2003 was 
wrong. The activities to design nuclear weapons soon resumed and are 
continuing.
  Ironically, it seems efforts to slow down or halt nuclear weapons 
development through sanctions or even through computer viruses have 
only had minimal or temporary effect. Many have been unwisely comforted 
by such delays and, therefore, have been less focused and less 
determined to find real solutions to this mortal security threat.
  Also, we have been mistakenly reassured by the contention that Iran 
has not yet made the political decision to actually assemble nuclear 
weapons. This could potentially be one of the most dangerous 
conclusions of all. As I have repeatedly said from this floor and 
during my tenure at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nuclear weapons-
capable Iran is nearly as dangerous as a nuclear-armed Iran. An Iran 
that has spent years secretly pursuing--and now we know successfully--
the technologies, the expertise, and materials required to create 
nuclear weapons is a

[[Page 17376]]

threat to the United States and to the world.
  Facing this imminent danger now, with ample verification from the 
IAEA that our anxieties are well-founded, is absolutely essential. It 
is no longer possible to avoid the hard choices or defer to the 
administration's decisions. In my opinion, there are only three ways we 
can respond to this threat: We can accept the inevitability of a 
nuclear Iran and learn to live with it--to tolerate and try to contain 
this new Iranian power; secondly, we can reluctantly take up the 
military option to remove the threat--an option three Presidents have 
confirmed has always been on the table; or, third, we can dramatically 
escalate the sanctions regimes to force Iranian compliance with our 
collective international will.
  The first option--tolerating a nuclear weapons-capable Iran--is not 
acceptable. As I said, three previous U.S. Presidents have 
unequivocally stated this. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the 
entire region and its enormous energy resources, motivate broad nuclear 
proliferation throughout the Middle East, further destabilize a region 
already in turmoil, encourage radicalism and terrorism, and threaten 
the destruction of the State of Israel.
  This last danger alone--to which Israel, as a last resort, would most 
certainly respond to ensure its survival--compels us to be clear-eyed 
and determined to find a viable solution. Toleration, I would suggest, 
is not a solution.
  The second option--military action, while always posed as a last 
resort following the failure of all other efforts--must, in my opinion, 
remain on the table. Our Nation and the international community as a 
whole must see with vivid clarity what measures remain should our other 
efforts continue to fail. The Iranian regime must be especially 
nondelusional about those potential consequences, should it not change 
its behavior. Indeed, to make all our efforts to find a solution 
credible, the military option itself must be entirely believable.
  It is also essential to note that military options are not ours 
alone. There is broad, open discussion now in Israel and elsewhere 
about whether Israel itself should act to remove this threat to the 
survival of their state. This also must be part of our own policy 
calculation.
  As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a television 
interview this weekend: ``I don't have any doubt that the Israelis will 
defend themselves if the Iranians look as if they really are about to 
cross that nuclear threshold.''
  If there is any remaining doubt the United States should not tolerate 
a nuclear Iran, I think we can assume Israel may not.
  It is exactly to avoid this violent option that we must renew all our 
efforts at finding other ways to force the Iranian regime to change its 
behavior, and that includes compelling persuasion to convince our 
friends and allies--and China and Russia as well--that united efforts 
are essential.
  We need a new dramatically tougher sanctions regime, and we need it 
now. If we don't impose it now, it may very well be too late.
  I say this with some real reservations about whether any new 
sanctions can persuade the Iranian regime to change its policy. If we 
truly believe a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is unacceptable, then the 
only logical response is to at least prepare for a strike and send the 
signal that the United States is prepared to act on what has been 
deemed by, as I said, three Presidents as unacceptable.
  I think it is contrary to U.S. interests to try to outsource this 
task to the State of Israel, but I also think the long-term danger is 
far greater than the serious but shorter term negative consequences of 
a strike.
  Having said that, this force option needs to be carefully considered, 
and I think we need to continue whatever efforts we can make to prevent 
us from having to ultimately choose that as our only option.
  So I am suggesting a new, dramatically tougher sanctions regime. It 
is going to have to be imposed very quickly. Publicly released 
information clearly indicates that Iran is much closer to nuclear 
weapons capability than previously acknowledged. We must use the full 
focused power of our diplomatic instrument not to persuade Iran--that 
has clearly been a total failure to date--but to persuade other nations 
that immediate, tough, new international sanctions are the only way to 
prevent us from having to go to an option which none of us wishes to go 
to.
  We must convince other reluctant nations to make different 
calculations about their own self-interest in this matter. If other 
Nations, including China and Russia, come to realize that a nuclear 
Iran truly will not be tolerated and that new developments bring us 
closer to a military solution and its unforeseeable consequences, then 
they will hopefully come to different conclusions about how their own 
interests can best be served.
  Our allies and friends, once they come to accept the reality of our 
firm determination to neither tolerate a nuclear Iran nor remove the 
military option, will increase their own commitment to the sorts of 
sanctions regime that are now essential. This in turn will show the 
Iranian regime at last that they face a truly united, truly formidable, 
and genuinely firm coalition entirely devoted to preventing them from 
having nuclear weapons at their disposal. Only then will we have a 
chance to force the regime to change its behavior.
  So far, as I said, sanctions are simply not achieving the desired 
result. Those who point to their modest effect actually harm the 
broader effort, because those effects deflect our determination to 
force a real change in Iranian behavior. Sanctions may have reduced 
Iranian GDP by one or two percentage points and may have forced the 
regime to find creative ways to avoid them. For example, I understand 
that as official banks have been subject to sanctions, many banks have 
miraculously privatized.
  There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that these sanctions have 
actually forced the regime to change its behavior regarding its nuclear 
ambitions. And now we learn from the IAEA report that these sanctions 
have also not been serious obstacles to the technological, commercial, 
and scientific activities focused on acquiring nuclear weapons 
capability. We simply must do much more, and we must do it now.
  I am cosponsor of a bill, S. 1048, which is intended to further 
tighten the noose on the Iranian regime. I will continue to support 
those measures. But in light of this new information from the IAEA, I 
am in favor of even greater sanctions pressure. I have signed a letter 
to the President calling on him to use his prerogatives to impose 
sanctions on the Iranian central bank. Many have opposed that option 
because it could constrict global energy supplies, increase oil prices, 
and would be ineffective if not supported by other nations. According 
to media reports, the administration itself decided just days before 
the release of this IAEA report to take central bank sanctions off the 
table for these reasons. This was, I believe, a serious mistake and 
those judgments, I suggest, should be reconsidered.
  When the reality of this imminent threat to global security is clear, 
when all nations reflect on the consequences of military action against 
Iran, and when a well-designed comprehensive new sanctions regime with 
real teeth is presented to them, we will have the determined coalition 
we need to avert the disastrous consequences of our failure to prevent 
the unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as I understand the current situation, 
we do not know whether we are on three bills or one bill. That is up to 
the leadership. Senator Alexander and I have worked on the Energy and 
Water bill.

[[Page 17377]]

We are very hopeful we can move this bill. It was unanimous in the 
subcommittee on Appropriations. There was only one dissent in the full 
committee--which is one of the largest committees in the Senate, in the 
Appropriations Committee. It is a significant bill. We believe we 
should move it as quickly as we possibly can. We have been talking. 
Obviously we are waiting to hear from the leadership. We are hopeful 
that once we hear we can move very quickly to get this bill passed by 
this body.
  It has been a great pleasure for me to work with Senator Alexander. I 
know he has some comments he wishes to make at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. As she usually does, the Senator from California said 
directly what the situation is. We on the Republican side understand 
that the majority leader has some important business he has to make 
sure the Senate finishes this week. We, as would many Democrats, want 
us to get to the Defense authorization bill before we go home. Senator 
Reid wishes to do that. We respect that and we agree with that.
  Senator Reid wishes to make sure we have a chance to deal with the 
conference report that the House is expected to pass on Thursday, which 
contains a continuing resolution to fund the government to mid-
December. We understand that as well.
  That gives us a little time here, a day or two, to consider the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill that Senator Feinstein has 
described. It has broad consensus here in the Senate. It has no 
mandatory spending in it. It has an important defense component--
nuclear weapons nonproliferation. It has a great many nondefense items 
that are important to the growth of our country. It seems on the 
Republican side--I can speak for that--there is broad consensus. At 
Senator Reid's request I checked with many of our Republican Senators, 
asked them how many amendments they have and whether they thought they 
could bring them to the floor today or tomorrow morning so we could 
deal with them tomorrow, at the latest Thursday morning. So far the 
news has been encouraging. There have not been that many amendments and 
all the Senators with whom I have talked have said if they have 
amendments they believe there is no reason why, as long as they are 
given a short period of time to talk and a chance to vote on them--and 
they are germane, of course; they will have to be germane to fit with 
the rules of the Senate--they will be fine with that.
  We are going to be checking tonight with all Republican offices. We 
do not want to encourage any more amendments but we want to know about 
them if there are any so I can go to Senator Feinstein and Senator Reid 
and say here are the amendments the Republican Senators want to offer, 
we are ready to go, we can deal with it tomorrow and Thursday and 
hopefully we will be able to do our basic work. Our basic work is to do 
appropriations work in this body. That is our constitutional 
responsibility.
  So I thank Senator Feinstein for the way she approaches this. I 
understand where the majority leader is, and so far, I am encouraged. I 
will gather information. I will make my report to you and Senator Reid, 
and then we will see where you want to go.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me thank the distinguished ranking member for 
those comments, and I believe we are in agreement. What is sauce for 
the goose is sauce for the gander. I would hope any Democratic 
amendments could come in just as quickly as possible, and we think we 
have a good bill. Hopefully there will not be many. I agree with what 
the Senator said about the Defense bill. We have a CR, and we really 
need to get cracking. Time is of the essence.
  We have been sitting here for a couple of hours waiting for 
amendments. There have been none thus far, and I think the word is out: 
Now is the time. Please, Members, if you have amendments, please file 
them. We have had one amendment just filed on the Republican side and 
know of a couple of others, but that is about it at this stage.
  Let me thank the ranking member. I guess we just sit here and wait.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated, Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Alexander are working very hard to come up with an agreement 
that we can move forward with on the Energy and Water bill. I am 
terribly disappointed we weren't able to do the so-called minibus, 
consisting of three appropriations bills, as we did a couple weeks ago. 
It is too bad, unfortunate, that we were not able to do so, but an 
objection was raised that caused us not to be able to do that. They 
have not been able to reach an agreement tonight, so we will continue 
working and, hopefully, tomorrow something good will happen.
  It is my understanding the Republicans have run a hotline with their 
Members to see if they can reduce the number of amendments on the 
Energy and Water bill. Remember, we can't legislate on an 
appropriations bill, and it has to be germane, so at least we have 
those restrictions.
  I would also say that while my friends on the Republican side are 
working through amendments--if, in fact, there is an agreement--there 
are Democrats who also want to offer amendments, so it is not going to 
be just amendments offered by Republicans. If, in fact, we can work 
something out, Democrats also wish to offer amendments. So I hope, and 
I am cautiously optimistic, that the two fine Senators can work through 
this morass we have and move forward. I sure hope we can do that.
  We are not going to spend a lot of time on this. We wasted most of 
the day on procedural issues relating to this. But Thanksgiving is fast 
approaching. We have a lot of stuff to do other than this Energy and 
Water appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        American Education Week

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This week marks the 90th anniversary of American 
Education Week where we honor our teachers, education support 
professionals, parents, and substitute teachers for their dedication 
and service to our children and to our schools.
  My mother was a high school English teacher. Born in Mansfield, GA, a 
town of about 500 people, she taught in the era of segregation in 
central Florida. Raising my two older brothers and me in Mansfield, OH, 
she taught in an era of a growing American middle class. As have 
teachers throughout our history, she taught her students and her sons 
that education is the gateway to opportunity, that it can integrate a 
divided and segregated Nation and, in the process, create a more 
prosperous nation.
  When our Nation needs our teachers the most--at a time when our 
economy needs our schools to succeed--we must remind ourselves of the 
importance of educators. I would add that the Presiding Officer is 
known in this body as one of the premier educators in our country, 
before he came to the Senate, as superintendent of the Denver schools.
  Unfortunately, many of our educators are working in substandard 
school buildings with leaky roofs and poor air quality and 
malfunctioning HVAC systems. The average U.S. public school building is 
40 years old--obviously, many are much older--impairing teacher 
effectiveness and student achievement. In Ohio, thanks to former 
Governor Taft, who, in part, was able to renovate a large number of our 
school buildings about a decade ago,

[[Page 17378]]

has made a significant difference. But school buildings in my State, as 
they are across the country, are still too often old, decayed and much 
less efficient and often compromise teacher and student morale and 
teacher effectiveness. Conservative estimates suggest it would cost 
some $270 billion to make much needed maintenance and repairs for 
schools.
  That is why I introduced the Fix America's Schools Today Act--the 
FAST Act--which would invest some $30 billion to repair and modernize 
our Nation's school facilities. The FAST Act would invest in States and 
local school districts to help them make critical repairs to existing 
facilities or to supplement their current maintenance efforts.
  Modernizing our schools can save $100,000 a year in maintenance 
costs--enough for two new teachers or 200 more computers or 5,000 
textbooks.
  The FAST Act would focus on areas of need--school districts with high 
percentages of poor children and schools with the greatest need for 
repair and renovation.
  Modernizing schools can improve the academic experience for students. 
In September, I spoke with principals from across Ohio who discussed 
how the quality of their school facilities affected their students and 
their teachers. This is pretty interesting. I heard from the former 
principal at a high school near Zanesville, a city in eastern Ohio, who 
described a student's reaction following the renovation of their 
school. This was a generally low-income, an Appalachian area of Ohio. 
Students were used to going to schools that were substandard--not in 
terms of teacher quality but in terms of the facility itself. We preach 
to our young people that education matters more than anything else in 
our society, and then we send students to physically substandard 
schools. But this student's reaction, after the renovation of the 
school: ``I felt rich,'' he said, because he was going to school now in 
a renovated, modern, high-tech environment, something he had never seen 
growing up in Appalachia, Ohio, as a kid whose parents didn't make a 
lot of money.
  Improving school facilities, of course, though, is more than just 
about student morale. Research has proven the rates of absenteeism 
decline and test scores improve in a more modern school facility. It is 
also about teacher effectiveness. According to a study conducted by the 
Department of Education, 47 percent of schools indicated the condition 
of their permanent facilities interferes with the delivery of 
instruction. The condition of the school interferes with the delivery 
of instruction. This is problematic. Some 70 percent of students are 
forced to learn in facilities that have at least one significant--
sometimes more than that--inadequate building feature, such as an 
outdated heating and air-conditioning system, a leaky roof, a plumbing 
problem. Some 57 percent of students are learning in a school with at 
least one unsatisfactory environmental condition, such as poor indoor 
air quality, poor acoustics or heating and lighting challenges.
  These substandard conditions can also harm the health and well-being 
of teachers and support professionals. Last week, I hosted a national 
call with advocates to discuss this legislation and discuss the impact 
substandard schools have on students and faculties and parents. One of 
the participants shared with me her personal experience as a special ed 
teacher. It is a story I imagine many of my colleagues have heard 
before and can be found anywhere in our country.
  Joellen spent 9 years of her 23-year teaching career in an elementary 
school in Fairfield, CT, with severe mold contamination. Poor air 
quality in the school forced her into an early retirement by 
compromising her health and her well-being. Because of these poor 
working conditions, Joellen has lost 50 percent of her lung function 
and is currently dependent on an oxygen tank. She is not the only one 
affected by these conditions. Eighty-five of her colleagues are also 
battling health conditions as a result of an unhealthy school 
environment.
  It is unacceptable that our failure to act undermines student 
achievement and teacher effectiveness and the health and the well-being 
of our entire school communities. It is even more disturbing that our 
schools go unrepaired when there are thousands of workers ready and 
willing to modernize our schools. The FAST Act, by employing people to 
repair our aging schools, would create good-paying, middle-class jobs.
  We know we have to fix our schools. We know we have to do this 
renovation. We know as a nation, when we put real attention into 
infrastructure, the dividends it paid for generations were significant. 
The United States, in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, led the world 
in infrastructure. Whether it was school repairs, the building of 
community colleges, water and sewer systems, highways and bridges, 
ports and locks or medical research, we were the envy of the world in 
our infrastructure, and it set the foundation for decades of 
prosperity. Unfortunately, as this Congress has been more interested in 
tax cuts for the rich and less interested in investment in medical 
research, in education, in health care facilities, in transportation, 
we have declined economically as a nation. The middle class is under 
fire. We are not able to build and produce the way we could have if we 
had kept this infrastructure up to date.
  That is the importance of the FAST Act. It is the importance of much 
of the rest of the jobs bills we have pushed in this Congress. We know 
that every $1 billion in school renovation can create 10,000 jobs.
  The FAST Act includes strong ``Buy American'' provisions to ensure 
that Ohio construction workers, for instance--we are the third leading 
manufacturing State in the country, exceeded only by Texas, twice the 
size of California--three times the size--building technicians, boiler 
repairmen, roofers, painters, electricians, and people who manufacture 
these products are using American-made products.
  The FAST Act is included in President Obama's American Jobs Act. 
Under his proposal, Ohio would receive some $985 million in funding for 
K-12 schools and an additional $148 million for Ohio's community 
colleges. Ohio has one of the best community college networks in the 
country.
  It is obvious our schools need fixing. Our workers need work. 
Interest rates are low. Construction companies want to put people to 
work and, competing with each other, will bid as low as they likely 
will in the next decade or two, so now is the time to do this.
  This bill has been endorsed by some 50 organizations: the American 
Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of 
Teachers, the National Education Association, the Building & 
Construction Trades, First Focus Campaign for Children, and the Parent 
Teacher Association, the PTA. They agree it is about jobs, about 
education, and our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to support 
this commonsense legislation.
  Lastly, I wish to read a couple letters I received about this 
legislation. First is Jeannine from Strongsville, OH. She is a teacher:

       I have taught at the same middle school for 24 years. 
     During that time, I have watched our building physically 
     deteriorate before my eyes.

  Strongsville is what we would call, by most measurements, one of 
Cleveland's more affluent suburbs. Nonetheless, she has seen it 
physically deteriorate in 24 years of teaching.

       The leaky roof leaves stains on the ceilings and the 
     floors. Often the heating doesn't work.
       Two years ago, my classroom had no heat in December. We are 
     a suburb of Cleveland, so do I need to tell you how cold it 
     was in there?
       After more than two decades with no money for paint, our 
     vice principal asked Home Depot for help--it donated enough 
     paint to spruce up the hallways, offices, and a handful of 
     classrooms.

  She writes:

       Does it sound like I teach in the inner-city or an extreme 
     rural area in Ohio?

  She doesn't. She teaches in what we would call an affluent suburb of 
Cleveland.

       I teach in a suburban community where many of the houses 
     sell for around $300,000 or more. But the community has not 
     passed a levy in a while.

[[Page 17379]]

       I pay 20% toward my health insurance . . .

  My colleagues may remember that Governor Kasich had just pushed 
through a bill to take away collective bargaining rights for people 
such as Jeannine, saying they should be paying more of their health 
care. They have already made those concessions at the bargaining table. 
That is why Jeannine says she pays 20 percent toward her health 
insurance. She says:

       10% toward my retirement, and [I] have not seen a pay 
     increase in years.
       I really love what I do, but am despondent at times about 
     the lack of community support for education.

  That is a whole other issue. But we do know we can make a difference 
in making not just Jeannine's life better--that is a goal we should 
share--but, most importantly, making teacher morale, student morale, 
teacher effectiveness, and student learning significantly better.
  The last letter I will share is from Erin from Columbus, OH. She is a 
special ed teacher. She writes:

       Of our 14 schools, 5 are currently undergoing the last of a 
     2 year renovation project.
       We had schools where walls were literally falling in, we 
     were in urgent need of these repairs.
       Now, we find ourselves lacking in technology, and are in 
     need of updating these needs, in order to compete with the 
     ever changing needs of the demands of the workplace that our 
     students will be entering.
       Investments in education such as targeted resources for 
     school and campus repair and modernization will jump start 
     the economy and ensure students the learning environments so 
     essential to their success.
       Our student day is now shorter, all in an effort to save 
     money.

  Think about this: They are making the schoolday shorter when we are 
talking, in the paragraph before in her letter, about: How do we 
compete internationally? We are going to make our schoolday shorter 
when already we go to school--I think the former Denver school 
superintendent, the Presiding Officer, would confirm this--fewer days 
than many of our economic competitors. So because of costs, because we 
need to continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this 
country, we cannot fund the kinds of things we want to fund in 
education to compete internationally.
  In the end, Erin writes:

       It's the students that lose, and our educators know this, 
     and [we all] strive each and every day to reach every single 
     student, with the ever increasing demands put upon them.

  She writes:

       The FAST Act will make sure that our students have the 
     learning environments they need and deserve.

  My words may have, I hope, convinced some of my colleagues. I hope 
the words, the two letters from Jeannine and Erin--Jeannine from a 
Cleveland suburb; Erin, a central Ohio teacher, both with long 
experience in the classroom--I hope their words were compelling enough 
so my colleagues will join me in supporting the FAST Act, getting it 
through the Senate--not filibustering it. Let's debate it, talk about 
it, vote on it up or down, and send it to the House. I hope we get it 
to the President by the end of the year so we can start putting people 
back to work doing the school renovation, putting our factory workers 
back to work making the windows and cement and brick and all we need in 
school construction and school renovation and making a difference for 
our students in the decades ahead.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________