Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to speak about an issue of great importance to the national security of the United States and to all of our allies--which is, preventing Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon. There is no doubt in my mind that we will in fact do that, but certain things have to happen. The question is how, not whether, we prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

For the first time in years, there is a real opportunity to take a good step to verifiably eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons capability through tough negotiations rather than the alternative--which is, inevitably, acts of war.

The initial interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is an encouraging first step, and I urge my colleagues not to put it at risk. How would they do that? By passing new sanctions right now. There is a lot of talk about that, and it is easy to look tough. I am kind of amazed, to be honest with you, that, I don't think, anybody from our side has gotten up and made a speech about this subject on the Senate floor. I meant to yesterday but I couldn't. I thank Senator Johnson, chairman of the banking committee, who has come to the rescue of all of us. He is not going to allow it to happen, and I totally congratulate him for that act of quiet and strong courage.

Instead, we should simply state the obvious: If Iran reneges or plays games, there is no question in anybody's mind in this Senate that we will quickly pass new sanctions the very moment the need arises. To me, this is a clear-cut case. Again, I frankly do not understand why more of us, at least on this side, have not gotten up to make this case. I think I have some ideas, but I do wonder.

There is still a long way to go, no question. But this diplomatic opportunity is real. Why? Because Iran wants and needs to find a way out of the financial isolation that our crippling sanctions have inflicted on its government, its business, and its people. It is devastating what our sanctions have done.

Iran's people elected a president who proposed a different path. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has given President Rouhani some flexibility to try and find an agreement. That is unprecedented, and most people think it is for real. We shall see. They did in fact agree to the initial deal. So already, one step has been taken with a good result. I don't think it is a coincidence.

The immense power of U.S.-led global financial sanctions, backed up by our allies, has created the opportunity to resolve this issue diplomatically, with verifiable agreements and skeptical inspectors, rather than with bombs or boots on the ground.

I have spent much of my tenure on the Intelligence Committee, going back before 9/11, with the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Treasury Department to build our tools to exploit and to freeze the international web of financial networks that enable terrorist and proliferation programs--particularly Iran's nuclear programs. I have staunchly supported the powerful multilateral sanctions regime that is currently suffocating the Iranian economy and forced the current Iranian regime to the negotiating table. They would not have been there otherwise. The effect of inflation and devastation of economic production and all the rest is devastating.

This initial agreement is the first concrete result of those sanctions. It stops progress on Iran's nuclear program. It neutralizes Iran's most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material--that is, 20 percent of enriched uranium--and it establishes strong monitoring mechanisms that enable inspectors to verify that Iran is in compliance with its commitments.

The first step maintains the powerful sanctions regime that has forced Iran to the table. The agreement maintains that. The very small amount of targeted and reversible financial relief that it provides-- roughly $7 billion out of $100 billion in sanctions that the agreement leaves fully in place--only underscores the grip that we and our allies have on Iran's financial position. The grip will not loosen during this 6-month agreement as we try to go to a next step. We will continue to control and limit Iran's access to money during the 6-month agreement. If Iran in fact reneges on the terms of the interim deal, Iran will not even get all of the small relief that we have agreed to. They will, however, get more sanctions, and over the next 6 months, the small amount of financial relief that Iran can gain in the deal will be dwarfed by the amount of their loss in oil revenue that our continuing sanctions will deny Iran. That was in place; that is in place. Iran will be in worse shape financially 6 months from now than it is today. That is a fact. The pressure does not relent. It just keeps going. So it is a good situation--tough, agreed to, and in place.

That is why Iran needs to complete a final comprehensive agreement to eliminate its nuclear weapons capabilities. Does that guarantee it? No, it doesn't. But we are a step further than we were before because this interim agreement does not give Iran what it needs to escape financial ruin--which counts.

I appreciate the concerns of colleagues who want more now. But we must give this opportunity a chance. However you see the first step, whatever your view of it is, the fact is that today Iran is further from a nuclear weapon than it would have been without this deal that we have just completed. We have accomplished this first step through diplomatic strength, without a shot fired. I think we can agree that is pretty good.

We all want to put pressure on Iran to comply with the commitments it has made to the interim agreement--and we will--and to agree to a long- term comprehensive deal--and we hope--that will prevent it from ever developing a weapon. But we have taken the first step.

My colleagues, the pressure already exists for Iran to continue on this diplomatic path. Again, if Iran reneges on the commitments it has made in this agreement or balks at a final deal that verifiably ends its nuclear weapons capabilities, we will go right to, without doubt, the Congress imposing new and ever more powerful sanctions on Iran. But we don't have to do that now. In fact, it is a terrible mistake to do that now.

Given the indisputable credibility of that threat, I urge my colleagues to consider how unnecessary and how risky it would be to preemptively introduce new sanctions right now. New sanctions now could be criticized as a violation of the interim agreement. It could be blown up that way. Such a move would separate us from our negotiating partners in the P5+1 and it could complicate the already difficult negotiations of a final agreement which we all pray for.

I know some Senators doubt these risks. But I ask my colleagues this: If there is any chance at all that new sanctions right now might disrupt the agreement or jeopardize a future agreement, why on earth would we risk that? Why would we risk that? We know where we stand. We know where we are going. We can't be sure that we are going to get there, but we know that we always have the power to increase sanctions if they try to avoid certain things. But they haven't. So why pile on now and threaten to blow the whole thing up? Why would we risk an opportunity that may very well be the only chance we have to resolve this enormous problem without the use of military force? I do not know of an alternative to that.

If we lose this diplomatic opportunity, then the use of force will be the only option to stop Iran's path to a nuclear bomb. All of us have lived with war for the past 12 years. Intimately, painfully, horrifically, we have all seen close up the incalculable financial and human cost that has come with these wars and the burden that the wars now put on our troops, their families, our economy, and, therefore, our people. This has only hardened my resolve to ensure that this immense sacrifice never happens unnecessarily--that we take great care to exhaust every possible avenue to diplomatic resolution.

Colleagues, we have now an opportunity to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities. We can do it peacefully. Let's not put that at risk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Child Support Enforcement Effectiveness Act of 2013. This legislation will set the stage for improving child support enforcement across our country, and will provide states with more funds to allow them to do so. Through these crucial investments in this important child welfare program, we can improve the lives of thousands of children across our country.

Child support enforcement is a State-Federal partnership that works. For every dollar agencies and departments spend on child support enforcement, states collect an average of $5.19 in child support due. For that reason alone, this is an extraordinary use of taxpayer dollars. In 2010, the child support enforcement program a11owed States to collect more than $26 billion on behalf of the children and families to whom that money is owed. There is no question that these children benefit because they receive support from both their parents.

In addition to being an effective use of taxpayer dollars, child support enforcement is one of our most important investments in child welfare. Experts have repeatedly found that it is one of the most effective programs in reducing poverty rates among working families. For single parents below the poverty line, child support often represents as much as half of their family's income, and makes the difference between whether children's basic needs are met or not.

Because of the tremendous success of the child support enforcement program, we should work to improve it even further. One way we can improve it is by identifying best practices at the state level, so every state can maximize their return. West Virginia recovers about $4.99 for each dollar it spends on child support enforcement. Some states recover substantially more for each dollar they spend. By arming every State with information about what works and what doesn't, we can help States maximize the return on their investment and recover the largest possible amount on behalf of children.

This legislation would also permanently restore full funding for child support enforcement by reinstating the Federal match for incentive payments that States reinvest in their child support enforcement programs. By providing the resources for States to have robust child support enforcement programs, we can profoundly improve the lives of so many children across our Nation.

Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Child Support Enforcement Effectiveness Act of 2013. This legislation will set the stage for improving child support enforcement across our country, and will provide states with more funds to allow them to do so. Through these crucial investments in this important child welfare program, we can improve the lives of thousands of children across our country.

Child support enforcement is a State-Federal partnership that works. For every dollar agencies and departments spend on child support enforcement, states collect an average of $5.19 in child support due. For that reason alone, this is an extraordinary use of taxpayer dollars. In 2010, the child support enforcement program a11owed States to collect more than $26 billion on behalf of the children and families to whom that money is owed. There is no question that these children benefit because they receive support from both their parents.

In addition to being an effective use of taxpayer dollars, child support enforcement is one of our most important investments in child welfare. Experts have repeatedly found that it is one of the most effective programs in reducing poverty rates among working families. For single parents below the poverty line, child support often represents as much as half of their family's income, and makes the difference between whether children's basic needs are met or not.

Because of the tremendous success of the child support enforcement program, we should work to improve it even further. One way we can improve it is by identifying best practices at the state level, so every state can maximize their return. West Virginia recovers about $4.99 for each dollar it spends on child support enforcement. Some states recover substantially more for each dollar they spend. By arming every State with information about what works and what doesn't, we can help States maximize the return on their investment and recover the largest possible amount on behalf of children.

This legislation would also permanently restore full funding for child support enforcement by reinstating the Federal match for incentive payments that States reinvest in their child support enforcement programs. By providing the resources for States to have robust child support enforcement programs, we can profoundly improve the lives of so many children across our Nation.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, two decades ago, Congress passed the Cable Television and Consumer Protection Act of 1992 in part to stop cable companies from leveraging their market power to block competition from satellite television providers. Congress did so with the realization that market forces alone did not act to create true competition in video services, mainly because the entrenched interests held dominant control over the content necessary for new services to compete effectively. As a result, regulation in the name of competition was necessary to empower consumers and facilitate the development of new innovative video services. Twenty years later, DirecTV and Dish Network have become the second and third largest pay TV providers in the Nation, respectively.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act, builds upon the legacy, and the promise, of the 1992 Cable Act. More needs to be done.

Simply put, the video marketplace today, even with a variety of cable and satellite television providers, still is one of ever-escalating rates and of limited choice in terms of programming packages. Consumers find themselves paying more and more each year for their pay TV service, and those yearly rate increases often far exceed inflation. Even though consumers have at their fingertips hundreds of channels of programming, most homes watch very few of those channels and would prefer to have more choice in what they pay for each month.

We have all heard the familiar complaint that we have five hundred channels, but there is nothing to watch. My

legislation aims to enable the ultimate a la carte--to give consumers the ability to watch the programming they want to watch, when they want to watch it, how they want to watch it, and pay only for what they actually watch.

Key to that goal is online video. The Internet has revolutionized many aspects of American life, from the economy, to health care, to education. It has proven to be a disruptive and transformative technology. It has forever changed the way Americans live their lives. Consumers now use the Internet, for example, to purchase airline tickets, to reserve rental cars and hotel rooms, to do their holiday shopping. The Internet gives them the ability to identify prices and choices and offers an endless supply of competitive offerings that strive to meet individual consumer's needs.

But that type of choice, with full transparency and real competition, has not been fully realized in today's video marketplace. The core policy question is how to nurture new technologies and services, and make sure incumbents cannot simply perpetuate the status quo of ever- increasing bills and limited choice through exercise of their market power.

Broadband-based online video today stands at a crossroads. It promises to become the video delivery platform that can truly bring consumer-centric video services to the marketplace. Consumers clearly have an appetite for online video and the choice and flexibility it affords, and innovative companies have risen to tap into that demand. But their ability to fully compete and maximize the benefits of broadband-based online video have been compromised.

Consumers do not really care whether they access their favorite video programming through a traditional cable line, fiber, satellite, or broadband wireless technology. What they are most frustrated by today, though, is that some cable or broadcast programming is sometimes not accessible in an ``over the top'' online format, or that their experience with online video is somehow degraded. And disturbing reports suggest that one of the reasons that the consumers have these experiences is due to anticompetitive activity on the part of incumbent media companies and broadband providers.

As both the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, and the Department of Justice have noted, the nature of broadband-delivered video makes it uniquely susceptible to anticompetitive activity. Online video distributors do not own their distribution platform, and their viability depends on the ability to acquire sought-after programming from content companies on competitive terms. Yet, given their relationships with both content companies and Internet service providers, traditional cable and satellite providers have the incentive and ability to try to limit the growth of innovative, competitive online video distribution companies.

Press reports make clear that video marketplace incumbents are using their market positions to limit online video companies from entering the market and competing on a level playing field. Incumbent media companies, who control both the delivery platform and the content necessary for a robust online video service, are putting up barriers to protect their current services from new competition. Other reports indicate that some pay-TV operators are offering incentives to media companies that agree to withhold content from Web-based entertainment services.

My legislation would bar these and other anticompetitive practices in the online video marketplace, while offering regulatory parity to online video services that offer services similar to those presently provided by cable and satellite companies. It also would remedy lingering issues surrounding the regulatory treatment of online video services by the FCC. Finally, the bill would empower consumers with more information about their broadband Internet service, and give the FCC the authority to oversee the use of metered broadband Internet billing practices that could be used to stifle use of data-intensive online video services.

I offer this legislation to begin an overdue conversation about the best way that Congress can protect and promote a consumer-centric online video marketplace. I recognize that this bill is not perfect. That is why I invite discussion and comments from my colleagues and others on ways to improve it as we move forward. While I am sure that we can find ways to improve this legislation, we should not stand aside in the name of the free market while the innovation and choice that can come from online video for West Virginia and around the country is stifled.

It is time for Congress to act to maximize the promise of today's online world, and improve the consumer experience in the video marketplace. Consumers must be able to benefit from online video's promise of decreased costs for video services, more choice over the types of programming that their families consume, and higher-quality video content that educates and entertains. I strongly believe that the breathing room provided to online video distributors by my legislation is one of the keys to fostering a consumer-centric revolution in the video marketplace.

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

Mr. President, two decades ago, Congress passed the Cable Television and Consumer Protection Act of 1992 in part to stop cable companies from leveraging their market power to block competition from satellite television providers. Congress did so with the realization that market forces alone did not act to create true competition in video services, mainly because the entrenched interests held dominant control over the content necessary for new services to compete effectively. As a result, regulation in the name of competition was necessary to empower consumers and facilitate the development of new innovative video services. Twenty years later, DirecTV and Dish Network have become the second and third largest pay TV providers in the Nation, respectively.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act, builds upon the legacy, and the promise, of the 1992 Cable Act. More needs to be done.

Simply put, the video marketplace today, even with a variety of cable and satellite television providers, still is one of ever-escalating rates and of limited choice in terms of programming packages. Consumers find themselves paying more and more each year for their pay TV service, and those yearly rate increases often far exceed inflation. Even though consumers have at their fingertips hundreds of channels of programming, most homes watch very few of those channels and would prefer to have more choice in what they pay for each month.

We have all heard the familiar complaint that we have five hundred channels, but there is nothing to watch. My

legislation aims to enable the ultimate a la carte--to give consumers the ability to watch the programming they want to watch, when they want to watch it, how they want to watch it, and pay only for what they actually watch.

Key to that goal is online video. The Internet has revolutionized many aspects of American life, from the economy, to health care, to education. It has proven to be a disruptive and transformative technology. It has forever changed the way Americans live their lives. Consumers now use the Internet, for example, to purchase airline tickets, to reserve rental cars and hotel rooms, to do their holiday shopping. The Internet gives them the ability to identify prices and choices and offers an endless supply of competitive offerings that strive to meet individual consumer's needs.

But that type of choice, with full transparency and real competition, has not been fully realized in today's video marketplace. The core policy question is how to nurture new technologies and services, and make sure incumbents cannot simply perpetuate the status quo of ever- increasing bills and limited choice through exercise of their market power.

Broadband-based online video today stands at a crossroads. It promises to become the video delivery platform that can truly bring consumer-centric video services to the marketplace. Consumers clearly have an appetite for online video and the choice and flexibility it affords, and innovative companies have risen to tap into that demand. But their ability to fully compete and maximize the benefits of broadband-based online video have been compromised.

Consumers do not really care whether they access their favorite video programming through a traditional cable line, fiber, satellite, or broadband wireless technology. What they are most frustrated by today, though, is that some cable or broadcast programming is sometimes not accessible in an ``over the top'' online format, or that their experience with online video is somehow degraded. And disturbing reports suggest that one of the reasons that the consumers have these experiences is due to anticompetitive activity on the part of incumbent media companies and broadband providers.

As both the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, and the Department of Justice have noted, the nature of broadband-delivered video makes it uniquely susceptible to anticompetitive activity. Online video distributors do not own their distribution platform, and their viability depends on the ability to acquire sought-after programming from content companies on competitive terms. Yet, given their relationships with both content companies and Internet service providers, traditional cable and satellite providers have the incentive and ability to try to limit the growth of innovative, competitive online video distribution companies.

Press reports make clear that video marketplace incumbents are using their market positions to limit online video companies from entering the market and competing on a level playing field. Incumbent media companies, who control both the delivery platform and the content necessary for a robust online video service, are putting up barriers to protect their current services from new competition. Other reports indicate that some pay-TV operators are offering incentives to media companies that agree to withhold content from Web-based entertainment services.

My legislation would bar these and other anticompetitive practices in the online video marketplace, while offering regulatory parity to online video services that offer services similar to those presently provided by cable and satellite companies. It also would remedy lingering issues surrounding the regulatory treatment of online video services by the FCC. Finally, the bill would empower consumers with more information about their broadband Internet service, and give the FCC the authority to oversee the use of metered broadband Internet billing practices that could be used to stifle use of data-intensive online video services.

I offer this legislation to begin an overdue conversation about the best way that Congress can protect and promote a consumer-centric online video marketplace. I recognize that this bill is not perfect. That is why I invite discussion and comments from my colleagues and others on ways to improve it as we move forward. While I am sure that we can find ways to improve this legislation, we should not stand aside in the name of the free market while the innovation and choice that can come from online video for West Virginia and around the country is stifled.

It is time for Congress to act to maximize the promise of today's online world, and improve the consumer experience in the video marketplace. Consumers must be able to benefit from online video's promise of decreased costs for video services, more choice over the types of programming that their families consume, and higher-quality video content that educates and entertains. I strongly believe that the breathing room provided to online video distributors by my legislation is one of the keys to fostering a consumer-centric revolution in the video marketplace.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Tom Wheeler to be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

No one can question that Mr. Wheeler is a supremely qualified nominee to lead the FCC. He brings to the job a long and distinguished career in the communications industry. He was a pioneer in the cable and wireless industries, having been instrumental in the growth of both these critical communications sectors. As an entrepreneur, he built businesses and created jobs.

This collective experience provides Mr. Wheeler with a unique insight into the challenges facing the Nation's communications regulator. And it affords him the experience to lead an agency that has the most challenging and complicated set of issues pending before it since the Commission implemented the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I do not say this lightly. The decisions the FCC will make over the next few years will shape the future of the Nation's telephone network, public safety, the wireless industry, broadcasting, the Internet, and consumer protection for decades to come.

The Commission has before it a number of key proceedings to implement my Public Safety Spectrum legislation that became law last year. Not only will the agency implement a new tool for identifying spectrum through voluntary incentive auctions, the revenues from those auctions will provide critical support for deployment of the long-overdue nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network for first responders.

Aside from that work, the Commission is examining the future of the Nation's voice telephone network, and what the transition of that network can mean to longstanding, fundamental tenets of communications policy like universal service, competition, public safety and consumer protection.

The FCC continues to look at the future of media policy in an era when online video distribution looks to disrupt traditional business models and bring more consumer choice to the video industry. The FCC will need to conclude its work on the E-Rate program and update it to meet the next-generation connectivity needs of our schools and libraries. And finally, the FCC will have to implement a decision from the courts on the FCC's net neutrality rules and potentially on the Commission's underlying authority to protect consumers in the broadband age.

I have absolute confidence in Mr. Wheeler's ability to guide the agency through its consideration of these far-

reaching issues. This confidence comes in part from my strong belief that Mr. Wheeler agrees with me that the FCC must always have consumer protection and the public interest as its primary touchstones.

Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn has done an excellent job as the steward of the Commission over the last several months. I am proud of her accomplishments, especially her commencement of a proceeding to strengthen and expand the hugely successful E-Rate program, something our Nation's children deserve. But acting chairs of agencies can only accomplish so much, particularly when they have taken charge of an agency that lacks a full complement of its members. It is past time for the Senate to act on Mr. Wheeler's nomination and to put in place the President's permanent head of this essential agency.

At its core, the FCC is a regulatory agency. Too many have forgotten that the agency's fundamental responsibility is the regulation of communications networks. These regulations serve important policy goals. You cannot have universal service without regulation. You cannot ensure competition without regulation. You cannot have consumer protection without regulation. Given his experience and history, Mr. Wheeler understands the vital role of the Commission and the need for an active, smart regulator for the nation's communications markets.

The Members of the Senate Commerce Committee have fully vetted Mr. Wheeler's nomination. And an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the committee favorably reported Mr. Wheeler's nomination out of committee in July. At his nomination hearing in June, Mr. Wheeler ably demonstrated his knowledge of the issues the FCC will face in the coming years. Mr. Wheeler answered all of the questions for the record submitted to him after that hearing--including all 78 questions from Republican committee Members. And he did so in a substantive and detailed manner. And honest, thoughtful responses by nominees have always been sufficient for this body to move forward when they are eminently qualified for a position and capable of fulfilling their mission.

It also has not been the practice of the Senate Commerce Committee to demand that a nominee to an independent regulatory agency like the FCC prejudge issues that might come before his or her agency. In fact, it was our colleague and former Commerce Committee Chairman Senator John McCain who, during consideration of a past Republican FCC Chairman nominee, said ``Just as it is not appropriate for nominees to the bench be asked how they will vote on a specific issue that is currently before, or likely to come before, their court; it is not appropriate for commissioners who have quasi-judicial responsibilities to pre-judge cases they must consider.''

As Chairman of the FCC, Mr. Wheeler will be able to use the power of the FCC to spur universal deployment of advanced technologies, foster job growth and innovation, and protect consumers. This is an agency that oversees, by some estimates, nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy. This is an agency that has raised over $50 billion for the U.S. Treasury through spectrum auctions. This is the agency that has, through smart policy, guided the Nation into the digital age. This is the agency that has wide-ranging authority over so many communications services that are a vital part of our daily lives. From broadband to wireless phones to television content to public safety communications-- this little agency oversees it all.

Because we entrust the FCC with such great responsibility, we expect a lot from those whom the President chooses to run that agency. I am pleased to support Mr. Wheeler for Chairman of the FCC, and I call on my colleagues to do the same today. With all the important issues before the FCC, it is critical that the agency has a confirmed Chair and strong leader in place. I am confident, given Tom Wheeler's extensive experience and capabilities in the communications industry, he is the right person for this job.

Mr. President, it is my great privilege to rise today to recognize the distinguished career of Dr. Charles M. Vest, a native West Virginian, on his retirement as president of the National Academy of Engineering, NAE. In his time at the NAE, Dr. Vest worked tirelessly to identify and address the most pressing and important challenges facing American engineering, including the declining interest in math and science among our Nation's students and the growing challenges of information flow among government, the private sector, and academia. As NAE president, Dr. Vest was instrumental in urging Congress to pass the America COMPETES Act, which provided a blueprint for investing in critically important scientific and technological pursuits. Dr. Vest also helped craft the Grand Challenges for Engineering, a global initiative that identifies the greatest challenges and opportunities facing engineers today. In this increasingly technology-based and globalized world, Dr. Vest recognized the need for a clear and strong national vision for our engineers and scientists. He provided the dynamic leadership that the NAE required to allow American engineers to compete and thrive in a rapidly evolving world.

A native of Morgantown, WV, Chuck displayed a clever and inquisitive mind from a young age. Growing up under the shadow of Sputnik, he developed a keen interest in electronics and he would constantly tinker with surplus World War II gadgets, such as microphones and resistors. This curiosity led him to West Virginia University where he received a degree in mechanical engineering. Chuck continued his education at the University of Michigan, earning a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering; he remained there for 22 years as a professor, a dean, and university provost.

Dr. Vest has since served as a director of DuPont and IBM. He has held positions on an array of Federal committees and commissions, including the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and as vice chair of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness. Chuck has authored three books, received honorary doctoral degrees from 18 universities, and was awarded the 2006 National Medal of Technology and the 2011 Vannevar Bush Award.

Quite possibly, Dr. Vest's most important achievements occurred during his tenure as president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. In his 14 years at the helm of MIT, Dr. Vest proved a worthy advocate of more robust communication and sharing within the science community. Under his extraordinary leadership, MIT launched its OpenCourseWare initiative and cofounded the Alliance for Global Sustainability. As he will readily attest, though, one of Dr. Vest's

proudest accomplishments at MIT was in improving the diversity of the university's student body and faculty. Chuck worked tirelessly to ensure that opportunities at MIT were available to anyone with the right mind and work ethic.

In all that he has done and stood for, Chuck has embodied what is best about being a West Virginian and an American. Chuck's passion for helping others--whether as a teacher, an engineer, or a leader--has impacted countless lives and ensured his place among our country's most respected and honored citizens. Dr. Charles M. Vest has long shone as one of West Virginia's brightest stars, and today it gives me great pleasure to commend him--and thank him--for his enormous contributions to the Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics enterprise.

Mr. President, now, more than 2 weeks into the government shutdown and at the brink of default, we are acutely aware of what happens when politicians turn their backs on public policy and, instead, advance partisanship over service to the American people.

Let's be clear about this government shutdown. It is a self-imposed crisis manufactured by a small group of hard-line conservatives in the House of Representatives over their opposition to the Affordable Care Act. A dedicated group of public servants, Democrat and Republican, here in the Senate have worked frantically over the past 2\1/2\ weeks to find agreement in spite of the obstruction of an extreme minority who put their own ideology above the good of their constituents and the Nation.

Last week, I held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee about the impacts of the government shutdown to the public and the U.S. economy. We heard firsthand stories about the damage and disruption caused by the shutdown on our families, our businesses, our government, and our standing in the world.

The message we heard--loud and clear--was that the longer this shutdown continues, the worse things will get. It has never been more apparent just how important the countless services, provided by the Federal Government, are to the economic security of millions of families and the Nation.

In West Virginia, we are keenly aware that the Mine Safety and Health Administration personnel are not able to conduct regular reviews of mine safety. Four miners have died across this country during the shutdown. I am not saying that these accidents would not have happened if the government's doors had been open over the past 3 weeks, but I do believe that we owe it to the hard-working men and women who work in our Nation's mines to make sure that as long as they are on the clock, the government's safety experts are as well.

The shutdown is causing problems above ground too. Federal investments in research and development, for example, have long helped spur innovation in the United States. Just because House Republicans have shuttered the research arm of our government does not mean that overseas competitors such as China are pausing their research as well. Unfortunately, these vital government services are in the spotlight because they are currently not in existence, quite frankly.

To further demonstrate the real-life consequences of the shutdown, I released a report during the hearing that provided a snapshot of the impacts of the government shutdown on the public and the U.S. economy.

Because of the shutdown, experts from the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board cannot monitor our highways, railroads, and pipeline networks and study how to make them safer. Scientists and technical experts at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and Department of Defense aren't performing basic research and engineering that private aerospace and technology companies need for commercial success.

Consumer Product Safety Commission officials cannot monitor our ports and stop hazardous products from entering our stores. I am particularly concerned about keeping dangerous imported products off of store shelves and out of the hands of our children, especially with the holiday season approaching.

The fights we continue to have over paying our bills and funding vital government services are a distraction. Congress is no longer doing big things that support families and our communities. It is no longer acting as one body, for the people, but instead as factions pitted bitterly against each other.

I fear that people have lost confidence in their government and confidence in their future. I fear they are asking whether government can even make a difference in their lives anymore.

Last week's hearing in the Commerce Committee proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this shutdown is doing great harm to our country. Sadly, it was totally avoidable. As we move towards an apparent bipartisan agreement that will reopen the government and avoid default, I hope those who so recklessly drove us toward financial catastrophe have learned their lesson.

In a matter of months, we will again have to address questions related to funding the government and the debt limit. The conservative fringe in the House and the so-called leadership there that was held hostage by their threats can force us to repeat these last 3 weeks or they can learn from this great mistake and shift their focus to the larger issues facing our Nation. We may disagree on the best prescription for these ills, but I look forward to participating in a fair and honest debate.

Madam President, I am proud today to speak in support of my resolution to designate October 7 through October 13, 2013 as National Chess Week. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues Senator Alexander and Senator Levin.

National Chess Week is designed to increase awareness about the many benefits of chess, and to encourage both children and adults to enjoy this game. Chess has a wide range of educational and cognitive benefits, including improving problem-solving skills and developing critical thinking skills. It helps increase memory function and hone reading and math skills. For these reasons, chess is used by some educators as part of their curriculum, and is even used to help patients who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or the effects of a stroke.

Over 80,000 children and adults nationwide are members of the U.S. Chess Federation, and \1/2\ of them are students. Engaging students in chess can help make learning fun, and give them a lifelong pastime that they can enjoy while using and developing their skills. I am proud to support and endorse National Chess Week, which I hope will result in engaging even more citizens of all ages in this important activity.

Mr. President, today I am proud to partner with Senator Sherrod Brown to introduce the Rebuilding America's Schools Act. This legislation would provide a permanent path forward so our Nation's students can learn in high-quality settings. Investing in education is key to the future success of our Nation, so we have to make choices that support teachers and strong curricula, textbooks, and technology. We must also invest in school facilities.

Studies show that the learning environment affects students' academic achievement, as well as their behavior. It also makes a difference in the effectiveness of teachers. When the Department of Education asked principals about the caliber of their facilities in 2005, 43 percent reported that environmental factors like excessive noise, poor lighting, or inadequate ventilation interfered with instruction. The number was even higher when it came to portable or temporary buildings and classrooms. Building on these sentiments is a recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave our Nation's school facilities a grade of ``D.'' Clearly, we have significant work to do.

I have fought for many years to provide the Federal support needed to help improve our existing schools and build new ones, so that our students have the best environment possible to learn and grow. For most students, their school is the center of their lives. School is where friendships are built, knowledge is gained, and the foundation is laid for them to excel in society.

The Rebuilding America's Schools Act would provide important additional Federal resources to build and renovate schools through the qualified zone academy bond program and the Qualified School Construction Bond Program. Since 1998, qualified zone academy bonds have helped renovate and repair schools in every State. In 2010-2011, school districts in 49 States used $11 billion in qualified school construction bond financing to build and renovate 21st century schools in communities across the country. The need is great--the National Education Association estimates that our public school systems need as much as $322 billion to bring our school facilities up to modern standards. Our legislation would make significant progress in helping to finance these desperately needed improvements.

In addition to helping make sure that no child has to attend classes at a deteriorating school, this legislation will help create good- paying construction jobs and stimulate our local economies. In fact, our legislation is an important opportunity to make an investment in our schools, our students, our teachers, and ultimately, our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that invests in the future success of our youngest generations and our Nation.

Mr. President, today I am proud to partner with Senator Sherrod Brown to introduce the Rebuilding America's Schools Act. This legislation would provide a permanent path forward so our Nation's students can learn in high-quality settings. Investing in education is key to the future success of our Nation, so we have to make choices that support teachers and strong curricula, textbooks, and technology. We must also invest in school facilities.

Studies show that the learning environment affects students' academic achievement, as well as their behavior. It also makes a difference in the effectiveness of teachers. When the Department of Education asked principals about the caliber of their facilities in 2005, 43 percent reported that environmental factors like excessive noise, poor lighting, or inadequate ventilation interfered with instruction. The number was even higher when it came to portable or temporary buildings and classrooms. Building on these sentiments is a recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave our Nation's school facilities a grade of ``D.'' Clearly, we have significant work to do.

I have fought for many years to provide the Federal support needed to help improve our existing schools and build new ones, so that our students have the best environment possible to learn and grow. For most students, their school is the center of their lives. School is where friendships are built, knowledge is gained, and the foundation is laid for them to excel in society.

The Rebuilding America's Schools Act would provide important additional Federal resources to build and renovate schools through the qualified zone academy bond program and the Qualified School Construction Bond Program. Since 1998, qualified zone academy bonds have helped renovate and repair schools in every State. In 2010-2011, school districts in 49 States used $11 billion in qualified school construction bond financing to build and renovate 21st century schools in communities across the country. The need is great--the National Education Association estimates that our public school systems need as much as $322 billion to bring our school facilities up to modern standards. Our legislation would make significant progress in helping to finance these desperately needed improvements.

In addition to helping make sure that no child has to attend classes at a deteriorating school, this legislation will help create good- paying construction jobs and stimulate our local economies. In fact, our legislation is an important opportunity to make an investment in our schools, our students, our teachers, and ultimately, our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that invests in the future success of our youngest generations and our Nation.

Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have been proud to fight tirelessly for policies that will help vulnerable children in our foster care system find the permanent homes they need and deserve. I have been very proud of the Finance Committee's bipartisan work over the years to encourage adoption and enhance child welfare services for our most vulnerable children. That work would not have been possible without the commitment of Chairman Baucus, as well as my other colleagues that I have been so proud to work with over the years. Our goal has always been to improve our Federal laws related to adoption and foster care, so that every child has an opportunity to have a loving, safe home and a successful future.

To build on our history of encouraging safe and stable families, Senator Casey and I are introducing the Removing Barriers to Adoption and Supporting Families Act of 2013. This legislation outlines our vision for a path to increase the number of successful adoptions from foster care in our country. Doing so, we believe, can improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children in our foster care system.

This legislation encourages safe and stable families, and takes a number of important steps forward to ensure that permanency is paramount for children in our foster care system.

First, the legislation puts incentives in place to help encourage interstate adoptions, creating a shared incentive for states that work together to connect children in foster care with families who are ready and willing to provide loving homes, but who happen to live across state lines. It also helps facilitate interstate adoptions further

through better data tracking and development of national standards for home studies, a requirement before a child can be adopted.

Second, the bill aims to establish permanency for youth by eliminating long-term foster care as a goal for children under 17. We also request a study to learn more about why long-term foster care has been set as a goal for some youth. We believe the study will further inform our overall goal of connecting these children to permanent families and caring adults. But, simply put, we believe permanent foster care should not be a goal for children who are younger than 17.

Third, this legislation dedicates funding to post-adoption and post- permanency support services for children who are adopted, or are permanently in the care of a relative or guardian. This is an important step to make sure that families receive support after a child becomes a family member and, more broadly, can help make sure more adoptions and permanent placements are successful. Additionally, the legislation requires states to engage in public-private partnerships and enhanced strategies to find more permanent placements for older youth who are most at risk of aging out of foster care. Among our foster care population, these are some of our most vulnerable and valuable young people who are most in need of guidance and a loving, nurturing home.

Finally, this legislation would do more to keep siblings together after they are removed from an unsafe home. The bond between siblings is unique and often an important source of stability for children. Unfortunately, once a child joins a permanent home through adoption, there are sometimes barriers to maintaining sibling relationships under current Federal law. Our legislation helps to remove these barriers by strengthening the opportunities for sibling relationships and joint placement, and making sure that the parents of siblings are given notice if their brother or sister enters foster care.

Our legislation lays out an important vision for how we can improve adoption and foster care in our country. Adoptions from foster care have increased in recent years, which means that more families are stepping up to adopt children who are in vulnerable situations through no fault of their own. But, we have far more to do to ensure that every child in foster care has this opportunity. I am extremely grateful to many of the adoption advocates, including the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, Voice for Adoption, and Listening to Parents, among others, who have been so instrumental in developing recommendations and moving this and other related proposals forward.

Together, we can make great strides toward improving opportunities for the nearly 400,000 children in foster care, of which 102,000 are waiting to find forever families through adoption. New data from the Department of Health and Human Services on adoption and foster care suggests that while the number of children in foster care remains steady, the adoption rate continues to climb. Last year alone, 52,000 children were adopted from foster care and for each of those children, being adopted is a positive, affirming, and life-changing event. Through our work, we can provide more of these opportunities for children in foster care, and set them up to have successful lives with forever families.

Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have been proud to fight tirelessly for policies that will help vulnerable children in our foster care system find the permanent homes they need and deserve. I have been very proud of the Finance Committee's bipartisan work over the years to encourage adoption and enhance child welfare services for our most vulnerable children. That work would not have been possible without the commitment of Chairman Baucus, as well as my other colleagues that I have been so proud to work with over the years. Our goal has always been to improve our Federal laws related to adoption and foster care, so that every child has an opportunity to have a loving, safe home and a successful future.

To build on our history of encouraging safe and stable families, Senator Casey and I are introducing the Removing Barriers to Adoption and Supporting Families Act of 2013. This legislation outlines our vision for a path to increase the number of successful adoptions from foster care in our country. Doing so, we believe, can improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children in our foster care system.

This legislation encourages safe and stable families, and takes a number of important steps forward to ensure that permanency is paramount for children in our foster care system.

First, the legislation puts incentives in place to help encourage interstate adoptions, creating a shared incentive for states that work together to connect children in foster care with families who are ready and willing to provide loving homes, but who happen to live across state lines. It also helps facilitate interstate adoptions further

through better data tracking and development of national standards for home studies, a requirement before a child can be adopted.

Second, the bill aims to establish permanency for youth by eliminating long-term foster care as a goal for children under 17. We also request a study to learn more about why long-term foster care has been set as a goal for some youth. We believe the study will further inform our overall goal of connecting these children to permanent families and caring adults. But, simply put, we believe permanent foster care should not be a goal for children who are younger than 17.

Third, this legislation dedicates funding to post-adoption and post- permanency support services for children who are adopted, or are permanently in the care of a relative or guardian. This is an important step to make sure that families receive support after a child becomes a family member and, more broadly, can help make sure more adoptions and permanent placements are successful. Additionally, the legislation requires states to engage in public-private partnerships and enhanced strategies to find more permanent placements for older youth who are most at risk of aging out of foster care. Among our foster care population, these are some of our most vulnerable and valuable young people who are most in need of guidance and a loving, nurturing home.

Finally, this legislation would do more to keep siblings together after they are removed from an unsafe home. The bond between siblings is unique and often an important source of stability for children. Unfortunately, once a child joins a permanent home through adoption, there are sometimes barriers to maintaining sibling relationships under current Federal law. Our legislation helps to remove these barriers by strengthening the opportunities for sibling relationships and joint placement, and making sure that the parents of siblings are given notice if their brother or sister enters foster care.

Our legislation lays out an important vision for how we can improve adoption and foster care in our country. Adoptions from foster care have increased in recent years, which means that more families are stepping up to adopt children who are in vulnerable situations through no fault of their own. But, we have far more to do to ensure that every child in foster care has this opportunity. I am extremely grateful to many of the adoption advocates, including the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, Voice for Adoption, and Listening to Parents, among others, who have been so instrumental in developing recommendations and moving this and other related proposals forward.

Together, we can make great strides toward improving opportunities for the nearly 400,000 children in foster care, of which 102,000 are waiting to find forever families through adoption. New data from the Department of Health and Human Services on adoption and foster care suggests that while the number of children in foster care remains steady, the adoption rate continues to climb. Last year alone, 52,000 children were adopted from foster care and for each of those children, being adopted is a positive, affirming, and life-changing event. Through our work, we can provide more of these opportunities for children in foster care, and set them up to have successful lives with forever families.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to repeal corporate tax loopholes that allow the cruise industry to avoid paying its fair share of U.S. corporate income taxes.

These bills change the treatment of the revenue that foreign-based cruise lines earn from ships that embark or disembark nearly 15 million passengers a year in the United States. A string of recent incidents has demonstrated that when cruise ships get into trouble, the companies rely on the resources and assistance of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. The industry also uses the services of over 20 other U.S. agencies to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

The majority of cruise companies are organized as foreign corporations, even though many of their headquarters and executives are located in the United States. By incorporating in foreign countries, the cruise industry enjoys a special exemption under section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that certain foreign corporations are not subject to U.S. taxes on income derived from the international operation of ships, even if the source of the income is in the United States.

Today, I am introducing two bills, S. 1449 and S. 1450. The first would eliminate the section 883 special exemption for cruise industry income derived from passenger cruise voyages that embark or disembark passengers in the United States. This income would be treated as being U.S. sourced and effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, so it would be subject to U.S. taxes at the same rate as other income.

The second bill would impose a 5 percent excise tax on gross income from cruises where passengers embark or disembark in the United States. Funds generated from the excise tax will help fund a national program to make infrastructure improvements vital to the efficient transportation of goods and services.

For too long, the cruise industry has been able to use taxpayer provided services without actually paying for them. It is time the cruise industry begins to pay for the services it uses.

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