Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 27; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 754, with the time until 11 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote, and that all votes after the first vote in each series be 10 minutes each.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 313 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 639 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 297, submitted earlier today.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wisconsin and other Members who are here on the floor to talk about the Perkins Loan Program. It is a really important program. It serves the needs of many of the students in our States, and it serves a unique need. It provides flexibility that other programs don't provide, and it also allows the colleges and universities to actually contribute to it. I hope we can get this 1-year extension done, and I hope that the objection will be overridden by the common sense of doing something that the House has already done. By the way, the House of Representatives did it for 1 year also at no cost to the Federal Government because there is no reason to pay for a 1-year extension of a program that is a loan program where the colleges and universities take the payments that are made--the repayments--and put them back into the program. So this program is at no cost, and it is certainly an important program that we ought to continue. I know there is discussion about broader education reform, and I support that. I know this program is not perfect. There are other ways that we could possibly improve it. I am perfectly willing to enter into that discussion and debate it. We should have that debate. We should debate how to make sure college is more affordable for all students, but let's not at this point stop this program that is working and is providing for young people in my State and around the country what they need to be able to afford a quality education. I was out here a few weeks ago talking about this program, and at that time I talked about some specific schools and the people in my State who depend on this program. It is the oldest Federal program out there that allows students to be able to take advantage of some kind of help in order to get through school, and boy, it is needed now more than ever with tuition costs going up and more and more families feeling the squeeze. When I go back home, I hear from parents and the students themselves. It is tough. Wages are flat, and in many cases declining. Yet expenses are up, and this is one of them, along with health care and electricity bills. This is not the time to stop the program but to continue this really important program. At the same time, we need to engage in the important debate of how we can reform higher education more generally in order to ensure that everybody has access to an affordable education. Since 1958, this program has provided more than $28 billion in loans. It is a program that supports 60 different schools in my State. In the Buckeye State of Ohio, we have 60 schools that have loans under this program. Last year, more than 25,000 Ohio students received financial aid through this program--3,000 young people at Kent State and over 1,700 at the Ohio State University in Columbus. One of those students is an outstanding young woman. Her name is Keri. She is a junior at Kent State. She interned for me last summer. When I talked to Keri about this program, she said that this is something she absolutely needs to be able to stay in school. Keri is a young woman for whom I have a lot of respect because she fought the odds. She was in foster care. She went from one foster home to another while she was growing up. Yet she not only fought the odds. She is now excelling in college and doing a great job, but she doesn't have the resources to stay in college without this program. She is a Pell grant recipient, but she also needs the Perkins Loan Program to be able stay in school. This is not just about numbers, folks. This is about people. This is about Keri. This is about young people whom we want to be able to have the opportunity and to be able to get the education they need to get ahead, because it does provide help for those who are most in need. Well beyond Ohio, of course, 1,700 postsecondary institutions now participate in this program. It shouldn't be controversial. Again, the House passed it for 1 year. It is something that does not require a new appropriation. It is a flexible program. So many of our student loan programs, including the Pell Grant Program and so on, are programs where the schools cannot provide any kind of flexibility. With many of our families and many of our students, Keri being an example, that flexibility is really important. Circumstances change. They may find themselves in a situation where they need a little help to stay in school so they can finish their academic major. They may find they need a little bit of help because of an unfortunate event that they could not anticipate happening in their families, and this program provides that flexibility. Again, the colleges and universities actually contribute to it. It is a matching program where they have to step up and be counted. Let's not allow these students to fall through the cracks, and let's consider what happens if we do allow that to happen. Students who are applying for the winter semester, which starts in January, or the spring semester may well find that they are not able to receive the aid they need. I am told that students can lose their eligibility if they change institutions or if they change their majors. These kids could fall between the cracks even if they have a Perkins loan now. Finally, of course, if we don't act pretty soon, then next fall when there will be up to 150,000 freshman looking for a Perkins loan, they may find they are not eligible for it. This is not acceptable. Let's be sure we do everything we can here to make sure that college is not road-blocked for low-income students who are trying to get a college degree and pursue their dreams. Let's help them get ahead. Let's pass this. It creates certainty for the students who benefit from the loans, it creates certainty for these colleges and universities, and it ensures that students who need this funding are not stopped and blocked by these high tuitions. I wish to thank my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Casey, whom I see is on the floor. I also wish to thank Senator Baldwin, Senator Ayotte, Senator Murphy, and I see Senator Coons and others who are here. This is bipartisan, and it is something we can do here in the Senate, just as the House has already acted. Let's not block this program because this could block the students from attaining the educational background they need to be able to succeed in life. Let's move forward with this while at the same time continuing our discussion on the need to ensure that higher education is more broadly reformed to allow everybody to have that opportunity to pursue their dreams. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I join my fellow colleague from Washington State, talking about the Perkins Loan Program. The House has already acted on this. They extended it for 1 year. All we are asking is that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle allow us to have the opportunity to do that here, probably by unanimous consent. It shouldn't be terribly controversial. After all, this is a program that is working. I am following a number of my colleagues today in talking about this. We just heard from Senator Murray. We also heard from Senators Collins, Baldwin, Ayotte, and Casey. This is a bipartisan effort. It is an attempt on our part to ensure that students are not going to fall between the cracks. They are getting started this fall in colleges and universities, and they are wondering whether this program is going to be here or whether we are going to allow it to expire. We ought to be sure these young people know that, yes, the program is going to be here and, yes, they are going to have the opportunity to get ahead by using this relatively low-cost student loan option that is focused on kids with the most need to be able to get an education. Since 1958 this program has been strong. It has been one that works. By the way, there is no appropriation involved. There is no spending involved here. It is a matter of allowing the program to continue. The program has what is called a revolving fund, where whenever somebody gets a loan and pays that money back, the money goes back to another student. This is an opportunity for us to continue a program that is working. If we don't pass it, we are going to have a situation where new loans will not be awarded. College tuition is already too tough. I hear it all the time from families back home and from students back home. One of the biggest concerns they have--we had a tele-townhall meeting last night, and one of the biggest concerns that people have, of course, is the cost of education. This is a way to ensure that young people can pursue their dreams, despite the fact that college tuitions are too high in many cases. This is a tool that is incredibly important. It is also a matching program that hasn't been talked about much on the floor today. The fact is that the program is administered by the schools, and the schools actually match so that they are providing some of the funding for this. That is another reason why I like this program. There are 67 colleges and universities in the Buckeye State, my State of Ohio, that participate and take advantage of this. I have gotten interesting correspondence from some of the schools and students. Last year there were 25,000 or so Ohio students who received Perkins loans. I heard from Kent State. They have 3,000 students involved in Perkins. I have heard from Ohio State, which has 1,700 students there. I have also heard from other schools. I have heard from the University of Toledo, Oberlin, and Ohio Wesleyan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some of the correspondence because it describes the needs of the program so well.

Mr. PORTMAN. It is not just about Ohio. It is about the entire country. There are 1,700 postsecondary institutions that take advantage of the program. Allowing it to expire is going to affect all those institutions and all those many thousands of students. Tuition is far too high. We should be making it easier--not harder-- for students to be able to pay for college. I have heard concerns from some of my colleagues that we shouldn't extend this and not allow a unanimous consent agreement to occur here because they would like to improve the program to make it better and even more targeted, updated, and modernized, and make sure the funds are allocated properly. I don't disagree with that at all. I agree that this program, like every other program in the Federal Government, could be improved. That should be part of our work. We should be improving these programs so they are more cost effective and efficient and getting to the folks who really need the program the most. While I agree we need to look at it and make changes, I don't think we should take this step of allowing it to expire. Why? Because, in effect, what we are doing there is we are saying that it is going to be at the expense of the students who need the aid. It should be on us. We should be doing our work. So I hope that we will go ahead and allow this extension to occur, and then let's work on those solutions. I think that it may be easier to have these reforms take place if we are not working under the gun--in other words, allowing this program to expire. Letting something lapse and trying to figure out how to bring it back is not the way the American people and the people of Ohio whom I represent expect Congress to work. I think we can get this done, and I think we can do this with the extension. The Department of Education already indicated to us that they may start to recall funding in October from colleges and universities if this program is not extended. By the way, not extending Perkins won't help with the Nation's budget problems, because, again, it is a revolving fund. The way it works is one loan is paid back and another loan is extended. This is the right thing to do. As we ensure that government continues to operate, let's ensure the Perkins Loan Program does as well. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their discussion today on this issue. I want to urge leadership on both sides of the aisle to focus on this issue. Let's be sure and do what the Senate should do along with the House. The House acted already with a 1-year extension. Let's simply do what the House has already done. Let's ensure we are providing loans to students who need them while we continue our efforts to reform this program and make it even stronger going forward. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about an amendment I plan to offer in a little while, once somebody comes from our side or the other side because they would like to be here to talk about it with me, as I understand it--maybe even to object to it, maybe to agree with it. But I wish to speak about the amendment, if I could, for a moment. Right now, we are debating the continuing resolution. This would be to continue a level of spending from now until December 11. There are a bunch of changes in that from last year's spending, but it is basically a continuation of the previous year until we can work out our differences. It is not the way to govern around here. What we should be doing instead is having individual spending bills come up. There are 12 different appropriations bills. The ideal way to handle this is the way it used to be done, which is that the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees deal with these individual spending bills. For instance, one is for Commerce, the State Department, and the Justice Department. One is for the Department of Health and Human Services, and one is for the Department of Defense. When we do that, what happens is we have oversight hearings, and we have Congress playing its rightful role of saying: Are these agencies doing the right thing? Are these programs working or aren't they working? We might increase spending with a program that is actually working well, decrease spending from another program, and eliminate a third program that is not working well at all. That is what Congress is supposed to do. That is our job here. Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power of the purse, meaning that every dime has to be appropriated by the Congress. What has happened over the years--particularly in the last several years--is that Congress has not moved forward on these appropriations bills because they have been blocked. In this case, this year we have been trying to bring up appropriations bills and the other side, the Democrats, have been blocking even considering an appropriations bill. We have had this debate here on the floor. Many of us have heard it. But the bottom line is the committees have actually done their work and reported out 12 different appropriations bills. So 12 bills are ready to come to the floor. By the way, most of these bills have been reported out with huge bipartisan majorities. I saw one the other day. It was 24 to 3, for instance. I know the Presiding Officer has been involved in some of these issues over the years. It is typical, actually, that appropriators do their jobs. Senator Mikulski, Senator Cochran, and others work out the differences, but we simply can't get them voted on on the floor. People may say: Why can't you? Well, because it requires 60 votes. We have to overcome a 60-vote hurdle in order to even proceed to the legislation. So we haven't been able to vote on a single appropriations bill before September 30, which is the fiscal year-end and which is coming up this week. It is no way to run a railroad, much less a government--by the way, the government that has the biggest budget of any government in the world, the government of the greatest nation in the world. We can't even bring these individual spending bills up here for a debate and a vote. It is just wrong. Again, when we don't do that, what we don't have is the oversight. I would think both sides would want to have oversight over these agencies and departments so we understand what is working and what is not working and so that those tax dollars are spent wisely. That is the kind of stewardship that we are responsible for. As taxpayers, as representatives of taxpayers, we should want to be sure those dollars are spent in a way that is most effective. Yet, without having these appropriations bills, it is just impossible to do. Instead, we are faced with this possibility of on September 30 not having any of what is called discretionary spending, which is not all of the spending of government, but it is the spending that Congress appropriates every year, and having the possibility of parts of government actually not being able to operate because September 30 is the fiscal year-end. It is just the wrong way to do business. So the amendment I am going to offer later this afternoon is an amendment that simply says: Let's adopt a new bill, new legislation that says: Let's end government shutdowns. How would we do it? We would say that as of September 30, if there is any bill that is not passed, any one of the 12--remember that this year none of the 12 were passed--none of them. But on any year, if any one of those were not passed, then we would simply continue the spending from the previous year, but there would be a reduction in that spending over time. After 120 days there would be a 1-percent reduction, giving 120 days to work with the Appropriations Committee to say: OK, we know you don't want to see the spending cut, and we know you have priorities you would like to fund, but it is going to be cut 1 percent after 120 days, then 1 percent after the next 90 days, 1 percent after the next 90 days, and 1 percent after the next 90 days. So we get to a point where we have to see a reduction in spending every year, which is not necessarily a bad thing because Congress spends more than it takes in every year. But if appropriators and others here in Congress don't want to see that, they would have to get their act together and actually pass appropriations bills. Once an appropriations bill is passed, the End Government Shutdowns Act would not apply. This seems to me to be a really logical bipartisan commonsense solution to the problem that we are facing here. Again, the problem is Congress is not doing its work. We are not getting these appropriations bills done. It is not for lack of work in the committees this year. Again, all 12 bills were reported out of committee. I believe the same is true in the House. Yet we cannot get here on the floor of the Senate the 60 votes needed to come up with the ability to proceed to these appropriations bills. It is called a filibuster. They are being filibustered. We are not even debating them. This is just wrong. I think, again, the way to get around that is to say: OK, if you want to try to block these bills, what is going to happen is we are going to have automatic spending from last year with no increases--in fact, decreases--and decreasing more over time, until Congress gets its act together and actually passes this legislation. This idea is so commonsense that when we had a vote on it a couple of years ago, when I was able to bring it up for a vote--and we will see tonight whether I am permitted to do that--we actually had 46 Senators support it. Now, not everybody supported it on the Appropriations Committee. Some of them obviously had concerns about it. Not every Republican supported it. There were a few Republicans who didn't support it. By the way, one Republican who didn't support it last time is now a cosponsor of the legislation because she has looked at it, she has understood the system is not working, and she has been persuaded it is the right way to go. It was bipartisan last time. Senator Tester and I were the two cosponsors of it. So I hope I will have the opportunity to offer that amendment here this afternoon because I think it makes all the sense in the world. As we are debating a continuing resolution again, the so-called CR--which is the wrong way to govern--let's also pass as part of that a new discipline, a new idea, a new approach that says: Let's not do this again. Let's not ever have the threat of a government shutdown hanging over us. Instead, come September 30, if an appropriations bill isn't done, fine, continue the spending from last year, with a slow ratcheting down of that spending. I think that makes all the sense in the world. It takes away this political football that is being thrown back and forth. It takes away the specter for our economy, for our businesses, and for our families of not knowing whether they are going to have this government operation continue after September 30 in whatever area is affecting our economy or those businesses or those families. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I think it provides an incentive for Congress to get its work done. And Congress should be doing every year all 12 appropriations bills--doing the oversight that goes into that, deciding what gets more money, what gets less money, what gets thrown out altogether. It doesn't make any sense. In the huge bureaucracy of the vast Federal Government, not every program is perfect. Let's be honest; a lot of them need reform. If we don't have this process of the power of the purse--the leverage of the power of the purse to be able to say ``Prove this program is working,'' and when it doesn't, ``We are going to pull the funding away''--you lose the ability for Congress to be an effective partner with the executive branch and the judicial branch the way our Founders set it up. Again, Congress alone has the power of the purse. Every dime has to be appropriated by this Congress, and Congress is not doing its job. This amendment, if we put in place this new practice, would be a tremendous help to get Congress back on track. It wasn't too long ago that this happened. I have been here almost 5 years now or 4\1/2\ years. We haven't had a single year where all the appropriations bills were done. In fact, very few appropriations bills have been voted on at all. This year not a single appropriations bill--zero--has come to the floor of the Senate because they have been blocked. They have all come out of committee now, but not a single one is allowed to get voted on here in the Senate. I do hope that my own leadership on the Republican side will keep bringing these bills up. At least then we have an opportunity to talk about them--what is in the bills and why it is a good idea for us to have the oversight. Again, the reforms to these programs--the spending cuts, the spending increases for programs that are working well, the elimination altogether of programs that aren't working--we should at least have the opportunity to discuss them and talk about it. I was hopeful we would see a colleague from the other side of the aisle show up or a member of the Appropriations Committee. I was told I could give this little talk at 5, and I had the opportunity to offer this amendment. I will have to come back later and offer it again. I don't know if my colleague from Iowa is planning to speak----

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, earlier I had the opportunity to talk a little about the amendment I am about to offer. This is an amendment to the underlying bill, which is a continuing resolution. The amendment has to do with a piece of legislation called the End Government Shutdowns Act. Excuse me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 5 minutes in order to finish the conversation that we started earlier this evening.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I talked about the fact that here we are, once again, without the appropriations bills done and forced to do a continuing resolution from now until December 11, and that is because later this week, on September 30, when the fiscal year ends and comes to a close, we will not have done the appropriations bills. It is not that we haven't done one or two or three; we haven't done any of them, and there are 12 of them. I think it is time for us to take a new approach; that is, to have an end government shutdowns discipline put before this Congress which says: Any time you get to this point with any of the appropriations bills--including now where we have all of them--that we instead have a continuation of last year's spending but that it ratchets down over time to provide an incentive for all of us in Congress--Democrats and Republicans alike, the Appropriations Committee, and all of us--to get our work done and to do our job under the Constitution. The power of the purse is exclusively delegated to the Congress. It will help us to get our job done if we had this by having the end government shutdowns discipline in place. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 2702, the end government shutdowns amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I hadn't planned to have a debate on this, but I am happy to have one. Let me just be very clear. This is about putting the Appropriations Committee in business, not out of business. This is not about cutting spending; it is about forcing Congress to get its work done. Here we sit about to pass a continuing resolution because none of the 12 appropriations bills has been voted on because each of them has been blocked in the Senate. The committee has done its work. Yet we can't get them to the floor. Yet we have the other side saying: Gosh, this would somehow hurt the process. How can the process be hurt any worse? We want the process to work, and that is why 46 of us, on a bipartisan basis, have supported this idea. What it says is, if at the end of the day, on September 30, appropriations bills have not been passed, then we would simply continue the spending from last year, and, yes, over time we would ratchet it down, giving 120 days for the committee to get its act together that it did not in the previous year when it was supposed to, to get these bills done, to do the oversight, and to make the decisions about NIH, as the Senator has said, and to make the decisions about our veterans. If we truly want to help our veterans, a CR is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to let the VA bill come to the floor, have a debate, and take the committee's good ideas--and, by the way, it came out of committee with a large bipartisan vote. That is how we should be legislating. That is our job. The power of the purse resides exclusively with us. Yet once again this year we are not doing our job. It is not that we are just doing a couple of appropriations bills; we are not doing a single appropriations bill. I think it is time for us to change course and that is what this legislation is about. I am simply saying that in the process of passing the CR, which we now have to do, set up a discipline for the future that provides an incentive for us to get our work done so the good work being done by Senator Cochran and others--including Senator Mikulski--in the Appropriations Committee can come to the floor for a vote, and we can get back to governing. I yield back.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I look forward to talking to him more about this. As I said earlier, 46 Senators supported this in the past, including all but two or three Republicans, by the way, and one of them is now a cosponsor of the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived with respect to today's cloture vote.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I am rising in strong support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is an opportunity for all of us to give voice to the unborn. The fight to preserve the sanctity of life is something I have consistently and proudly supported. I am proud of my record with regard to supporting the sanctity of life. I am proud of my 100-percent pro- life voting record by supporting legislation in the House and now here in the Senate. Earlier this year I reintroduced the Child Custody Protection Act. It prevents the transportation of minors across State lines for the purposes of eluding parental notification laws. This is a big deal in my State. The legislation simply says that parents have the right to be involved in their kids' most important decisions. It is supported, by the way, by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Parental notification laws are key to reducing the number of abortions in this country and should be supported. We should not allow parental notification laws to be circumvented. I understand that there are raw emotions that are evoked by these issues, and I know there are fundamental disagreements on the issue of abortion. However, I hope there are steps we can take to promote a culture of life, and I think passing the Child Custody Protection Act is certainly one of those. I hope the Senate will take up that legislation soon so that we can indeed come together as a group and promote the sanctity of life. I think another way to do this is to support the pain-capable legislation I will talk about in a moment. Along with millions of other Americans, I have watched these deeply disturbing Planned Parenthood videos that were recently released. The videos graphically show how some at Planned Parenthood view the unborn as something to be exploited and not as precious life that deserves to be protected. Because of the shocking nature of these videos, congressional committees of jurisdiction are properly now investigating. Beyond that, I call on the Obama administration to begin a criminal investigation into this matter to determine if employees of a federally funded organization have violated the law. These acts must not be tolerated. Last month I cosponsored and voted for legislation that would end Federal funding for Planned Parenthood while ensuring that taxpayer dollars would continue to be offered to community health organizations to continue to provide health services to women across my State of Ohio and across America. By the way, there are seven times more community health organizations in the State of Ohio than there are Planned Parenthood clinics. So this is an opportunity for us to shift that funding to where women can get the health care support they need. These health care issues for women are a national priority and should continue to be. We need to strengthen women's health initiatives without having to fund Planned Parenthood from the paychecks of American workers. The pain-capable legislation that is currently being debated here on the floor is really about science, and it is about advances in medical technology. Scientific evidence now tells us that at the age of 20 weeks post fertilization, an unborn child can feel pain. It is time to recognize this fact and take the necessary steps to protect unborn children and welcome them to life. I believe this legislation is a very important part of that overall goal. I have visited the neonatal units at the great children's hospitals in my home State of Ohio. I have seen the amazing work that is done there by our doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. It is incredible. I encourage all of my colleagues to make visits in their own States. I have seen firsthand this amazing work. I have seen as they help babies who were born extremely premature come to life. It is inspirational to see what they are doing. These newborns represent the miracle of life, and it is our duty to make sure they are protected. We have seen advances in neonatal care to allow these babies to survive and to live to their full potential. Just a few years ago this was not necessarily the case, so these medical advances have been really exciting, and it is one more reason to pass this legislation. As we continue to enhance our medical technologies, more and more people are able to see that we are not talking about unviable fetuses, but unborn children who could one day grow up and become part of our American family. As a result, increasingly, the American people believe that ending a child's life should be as rare as possible and that we should work together to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. That is progress. The debate on this legislation is not just about morals or values or religious views. It is about protecting innocent life from a painful act that they do not deserve. We have a responsibility to protect unborn children and give them the chance to succeed. This legislation and this vote before us here tomorrow in the Senate is an opportunity to make that happen. The United States of America is only one of only seven countries in the world to provide and allow for elective abortions after 20 weeks. Think about that. On that short list, by the way, are North Korea and China. What does that say about our national character if we know these unborn children are feeling excruciating pain, yet we choose not to act? When our Founders declared our independence, they wrote of certain unalienable truths endowed by our Creator, they said, and among them, of course, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the very first one. So let's stand together today and take a unified step toward protecting life. This is a commonsense bill. It has the support of the American people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help provide a voice for those who cannot provide that voice for themselves, to take this important step toward holding up the sanctity of life, and to pass this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his remarks and for joining me here on the floor to talk about our former colleague and friend, Congressman Louis Stokes. He was an amazing guy. He was a true American success story and a true son of Ohio who dedicated his entire life to public service, whether he was in elected office or not. I think my colleague Senator Brown has done a really nice job speaking about his humble beginnings. Lou Stokes grew up without the benefit of having a dad around. He grew up in a poor household but with a lot of pride. His mom pushed him to get an education and to be the best he could, as clearly she did with her other son, Louis's brother Carl. After growing up in Cleveland, he spent a few years in the Army, which had a big impression on him. He then went to Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He was a successful attorney and actually argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. So he had a career in law that was distinguished even before getting into politics. Senator Brown talked about his brother Carl and the fact that when he was elected the mayor of Cleveland, it then became the largest city in America which had elected a Black mayor. Louis Stokes told me he saw that and that is what inspired him to think maybe he should get involved in public service in that way as well. So he ran for office. He got elected to the House of Representatives. He was the first African-American Congressperson from Ohio; that was in 1968. He would later become the first African American to sit on the Appropriations Committee. So a lot of firsts. As Congressman, he served for 30 years. He became a very influential Member. Senator Brown and I had a chance to serve with him there. He represented his district faithfully, but he also played a pivotal role in broader issues well beyond his district. His involvement in civil rights was mentioned, as well as certainly education and justice issues. I was a proud cosponsor of a number of bills with him. We collaborated on one project in particular called the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, where he helped me tremendously. This was in my hometown, not in his town. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, he was critical to getting that freedom center up and going, which is a national center that resides today on the banks of the Ohio River. We also wrote legislation to connect all the Underground Railroad sites around the country, many of which were in disrepair and in danger of being lost, and that is the Network to Freedom Act that continues today to get the Park Service involved in protecting these sites. It was always a pleasure to work with him, and he was a loyal and trusted legislative partner. He then went to the Squire Sanders law firm, and I was honored again to call him a colleague when I worked there after leaving government and before running for the Senate. So we had a chance to get to know each other better outside of the legislative branch. He had a great career, as Senator Brown just said. What I admired about him most was his interest and ability in getting to a result. He was not about giving fancy speeches or rhetoric. He was about coming up with solutions to help the people he represented in Cleveland, and I think in his heart well beyond Cleveland, and that is why he was so effective. He didn't get sidetracked by the partisanship and political attacks. He kept focused, and he made a big difference. He had a meaningful impact on lives in his district and well beyond. All you have to do is go through Cleveland to see his impact. It is hard not to see a landmark named after him or his brother Carl. Among those is the Louis Stokes Public Annex to the Cleveland Public Library, as well as the Louis Stokes Health Sciences Center at Case Western Reserve University. I remember going to his retirement party from the Squires Sanders law firm. I had rushed there from another meeting and had gone through town, and as I arrived I said: Let's just name the town after Lou Stokes, because I was on Stokes Street and went by the Stokes library and the Stokes Health Center. So those were all assessments of the impact he had on his community. He was a very strong family man, a loving husband to his beautiful wife Jay of more than 50 years, and he was very proud of his kids. Each of them in their own right has gone on to distinguished careers. His grandchildren spoke at the funeral where Senator Brown and I were, and, boy, were they articulate. They were just really impressive. He had so much to be proud of. I had the opportunity to visit him just before he passed, and the last thing he said to me is: I am so lucky, Rob. I am so lucky to have had a great family. That is what he talked about to me in our final moments together. He was determined and he was successful, no question about it, but he did it in a gentlemanly way. He had a great smile, a good sense of humor. His laughter could light up a room, and it did. I was just very grateful to call him a friend and to have him as a respected colleague, to watch him as an effective leader. He has made an impression on me, and he has made an indelible impact on the State of Ohio. He will be missed as an effective leader, a great leader for Ohio, and a loyal friend. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his comments. I rise today in opposition to this agreement. I do so because I believe it is bad for our country and bad for the world. There are very few votes we take here in the Senate that have such a profound effect on our national security and the kind of world our kids and our grandkids are going to inherit as this upcoming vote we will take next week on this nuclear deal. Over the past couple of months, I have taken the time to read the agreement carefully. I have attended the classified briefings. I have listened to my colleagues. I have talked to a lot of experts on both sides of the issue. I did take my time in coming to a decision because I was hopeful that we would be able to have an agreement that I could support and others could as well. I have also listened to my constituents back home in Ohio. They have looked at this agreement too. They understand what is at stake. They have strong views on it. My calls and letters and emails are overwhelmingly opposed. Through the process, what I did was I measured the agreement not based on just some abstract concept I might have, I actually based it on the actual objectives and criteria that were set out by the international community, the United Nations, and the United States of America, our government. I looked at it based on the redlines we had drawn. One of my great concerns about this agreement is that those redlines have not been honored. The broad goal, of course, the biggest redline is that Congress, the Obama administration, the United Nations Security Council--everyone was very clear: Iran must stop and dismantle its nuclear weapons program. That is the most basic redline. You have to remember that when Congress on a bipartisan basis enacted these crippling sanctions on Iran, it was not just to bring Iran to the table, which was the result, it was actually to get them to abandon their nuclear weapons program. That was the point. I supported tougher sanctions to give leverage to the Obama administration even though, seriously, they did not want that leverage. They resisted Congress increasing those sanctions. In fact, they initially opposed any role for Congress in reviewing the agreement. The Senator from Tennessee is here, the chairman of the committee, and he will tell you they are somehow reluctant even for Congress to have a role here, even to help them to be able to negotiate a better agreement. That was probably an indication of where we were going. Despite that resistance, serious sanctions were enacted and Iran did come to the table. I had hoped then that with firm U.S. leadership-- leading from the front, not from behind--we would be able to bring the international community along to ensure that we did meet the criteria I talked about earlier, longstanding, U.S.-international criteria. Unfortunately, after reviewing the terms of this agreement, it is explicitly clear that these redlines, these objectives, the criteria we have set out, have not been met. We now have an obligation to reject this deal and begin to restore the consensus, both at home and abroad, that the Iranian Government must be isolated economically and diplomatically until it agrees to the longstanding terms on which the United States and the international community have long insisted. Some will say that is fine, but that is impossible. I respectfully disagree. I respectfully quote President Obama, who has said repeatedly that no agreement is better than a bad agreement; meaning keeping the sanctions in place is better than a bad agreement. I believe that is where we are. This is a bad agreement. Among the many serious flaws of this deal is the fact that Iran can continue research and development on more advanced centrifuges and can resume enrichment in 15 years, providing, at best, only temporary relief. Inspections, one of the most important safeguards we have, are not anywhere, anytime, as was talked about by the administration. Under this deal, Iran can delay the inspection of suspected nuclear sites for up to 24 days--and there is even a process to get to those 24 days. If the Iranians cheat, as they have in the past, we would have to employ a convoluted process to convince the international community to restore sanctions, a process I don't think we can rely on. It is also important to note that other than reimposition of sanctions, the agreement does not specify any clear mechanism to enforce outcomes of the dispute resolution process, nor does it identify penalties for failure to comply. This means that the only realistic preagreed punishment for any violation--no matter how big or how small--is full reimposition of sanctions. In a way, as I look at this, this is like having the death penalty as the only punishment for all crimes. I don't think that is realistic. I don't think you are going to get the international community to go along with that. That is why I worry about the compliance and the sanctions. Given that only a full-blown Iranian violation would likely convince enough countries to reimpose all sanctions, I don't think the agreement provides the concrete tools to address less overt but still subversive forms of Iranian cheating that are designed to test international resolve and establish a new baseline for acceptable behavior. By the way, based on past behavior, this is likely. In addition, of course, the inspections regime is subject to side deals between the United Nations, the International Atomic Agency, and Iran that none of us are allowed to see. This is contrary, by the way, to the Iran review act that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by the President of the United States. The language of that legislation is pretty clear. It requires the law to transmit to Congress ``the agreement as defined in subsection (h)(1) including all related materials and annexes.'' Then, when it talks about what that means it means, it says ``including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, guidance, technical or other understandings,'' and so on and so forth. It is all here. That is in the agreement that we had with the President of the United States because it was part of the review act that he signed into law. Based on recent press reporting, of course we are also hearing that Iran will be allowed to self-inspect, use its own inspectors and equipment to report on possible military dimensions of past suspected nuclear activity at one of its most secretive and important military facilities at Parchin. Allowing a country accused of hiding a secret and illegal nuclear weapons program to implement verification measures for a facility where this program is believed to have been hidden certainly undermines the President's claim that the Iran deal ``is not built on trust, it is built on verification.'' Perhaps, most troubling is that this agreement ends Iran's international isolation without ending the behavior that caused Iran to be isolated in the first place. As the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, based on our own State Department analysis, Iran's nuclear program is just one part of a broader strategy that is dangerous and destabilizing. According to some estimates, of course, Iran will receive up to $150 billion in sanctions relief early in the agreement--by the way, with or without sustained compliance--which will encourage the Iranians to cause trouble, to further support terrorist groups they sponsor. National Security Advisor Susan Rice acknowledged something that I think is pretty plain. She said: Iran is sending money to these groups now while they're under sanctions and they'll have more money to do it when sanctions are relieved. Within 5 years, the agreement lifts the embargo on conventional weapons and lifts the ballistic missile embargo within 8 years--a last- minute concession to Iran in the rush by the administration to get to yes. At a minimum, this deal will ensure that Iran remains a threshold nuclear power but with a new set of tools and more resources to hurt our interests and those of our allies in the region, including Israel. I believe it is clear that the deal, as currently written, will set up a conventional arms race in the Middle East. The President says the alternative to this deal is war. In fact, a Middle East bristling with arms will increase the risks of war--increase the risks of war because of this deal. I have been involved in international negotiations. As U.S. Trade Representative, I understand they can be tough. I know both sides have to make concessions, but I also know that does not mean the United States of America concedes on fundamental principles, on the redlines. We have to have the courage to stand behind our legitimate public pronouncements, whether it is with the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria, whether it is the violation of both Minsk cease- fire agreements by the Russians and their proxies in eastern Ukraine or our commitment that Iran must stop and dismantle its march toward nuclear weapons. These are all things you negotiate. These are all things you have to be firm on and tough on. It is not easy, but as Americans that is what we do. There was a speech written that was never given, that was meant to be given on November 23, 1963. It was the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He said in that speech about America's role: Our generation, our Nation, by destiny--rather than choice--are the watch guards on the walls of world freedom. That is who we are. We have to be tough in these negotiations and stand tall. Other countries look to us to be tall, to help build the consensus. That is what we had to do, and I believe we did not do in this what I am sure was a very difficult negotiation. We have to honor our redlines. If we expect them to be effective in promoting peace and stability, we must lead. In particular, we have to say what we mean and mean what we say if we are going to stop nuclear proliferation. The way this agreement developed I think will encourage other countries who are interested in pursuing nuclear weapons to say: I don't care what the U.N. says. I don't care what the United States says. What I see here is everything is negotiable. That is the message, I am afraid, this agreement will send. The administration's position is that the only alternative to this agreement is war. That is what they are saying. As noted, if anything, I think this agreement will further destabilize an already turbulent region, but there is an alternative. The alternative to this bad deal is a better deal. Supporters of this agreement have compared this agreement to Ronald Reagan's arms control negotiations with the Soviets. I want to just touch on that for a moment because I have heard a lot of that on the floor. I take a very different lesson from that analogy to Ronald Reagan. President Reagan succeeded by raising the pressure, not reducing it. He increased the cost of bad behavior until that behavior changed. He didn't strike a deal unless it fulfilled the core goals he had laid out, his redlines. He didn't want a deal for a deal's sake, and he was patient. At the Reykjavik summit in 1986, Ronald Reagan walked away from what would have been a major nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets because he felt the costs to U.S. national security were too high. He was criticized for walking away, but he kept trying. He held firm, and 1 year later he successfully concluded negotiations on the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. This body must not sign off on an agreement that fails to honor our redlines, that strengthens Iran's destabilizing influence in the region, and does nothing to address the behavior that threatens our allies and our legitimate national security interests in this country. We should reject this agreement with Iran and tighten those sanctions on a bipartisan basis. The President should then use the leverage that only America possesses to negotiate an international agreement that does meet the longstanding goals of the United Nations, of the international community, of the United States of America, of this Congress, and of the President himself. We can't afford to get this one wrong, folks. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to get this right. As I noted in the beginning of my remarks, this is about what kind of a world they are going to inherit. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in rejecting the deal and pursuing a better way. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to make an attempt at passing a very important, commonsense piece of legislation that is bipartisan. It helps to ensure that the drinking water supplies in northern Ohio, Lake Erie, and throughout our State, the freshwater reservoirs and other lakes that are providing water--and also around the country--to make sure that will be something the U.S. Federal Government is helping with as much as possible through new legislation to get the EPA more involved. I bring this legislation to the floor for the third time in the last several days to try to pass it. I do so with the hopes that we can get this done tonight. I thank my colleague from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, who has been cosponsoring and supporting this effort. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working with us. We have been working for several weeks to get this cleared. Most recently, we had an issue with regard to legislation the Democrats wanted to add to it. I think we have now resolved those issues. I thank Robert Duncan of the floor staff for working so closely with us on this. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, for working with us. This is legislation which is both important and urgent. This week marks the 1-year anniversary since the water supplies in Toledo, OH, had to be cut off because there were toxic algal blooms in the lake that were going into the water intake system. There were 500,000 people who were told they couldn't drink the water. It was a crisis. I was there. I was given bottled water along with others. Unfortunately, this year we are seeing toxic algal blooms growing again. We are seeing it not just near the water intake valve for the city of Toledo but also near other water intake valves where 3 million Ohioans get their drinking water, from Lake Erie. By the way, about 8 million people from other States get water from Lake Erie, including Michigan and other States represented here in this Chamber. I am also very concerned by the fact that we have other reservoirs in Ohio that are seeing increased levels of toxic algal blooms. This includes Grand Lakes St. Marys, Buckeye Lake, and it includes the reservoirs in Columbus. It is time to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can at the local, State, and Federal level to ensure that we can deal with this issue and that it can be resolved. Finally, I will say this is not just about drinking water; it is also about the recreational value of these waterways, including Lake Erie, which is an incredibly important economic asset for the State of Ohio, our No. 1 destination for tourism. Having been on the lake a couple of weeks ago fishing, I will tell you that toxic algal blooms make a huge difference and create a real problem for the recreational value of fishing but also people being able to use the beaches, people being concerned about having their pets in the water, and people being concerned that their kids may not be safe even being close to these bodies of water. We passed legislation previously to help get the Federal Government more involved. About a year ago, we passed legislation to get EPA but also NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--USGS, and other Federal entities more involved and engaged and working together better. We also passed legislation to try to help with regard to getting EPA to give us what the standards ought to be in terms of the drinking water. Now it is time to pass this legislation that requires the EPA to put out a report on how to mitigate the problem and how to encourage the local community and incentivize the local community to do more in terms of ensuring that the intake valves are in the right place, ensuring that the treatment is done properly, and provide the good science and the best practices that only the EPA can provide to be able to help with regard to the very serious problem we face on Lake Erie and throughout the State of Ohio. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 212, which is at the desk, and that the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I was in support of his legislation. I am glad we got both bills done, and I appreciate the fact that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle realize the urgency of dealing with this blue-green algae issue, which in many cases has become a toxic algal bloom that affects our drinking water, affects recreation, and affects fishing, and it is a significant issue in my State and others.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, if I could, I want to report on something that happened this week. I see that the chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, is here, and he is aware of this. This week we had a bipartisan hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on an issue that is also urgent. It is one that is imminent because right now many U.S. companies are leaving our shores. This means that jobs and investments are leaving America and going to other countries. It is something all of us should be concerned about because it is rapidly accelerating. It is because of one simple reason: Washington, DC, refuses to reform our outdated and antiquated Tax Code. It is Washington's fault. Unfortunately, the brunt of it is being borne by workers across our country. I would like to put into the Record my statement with regard to this hearing. It was a hearing where we were able to hear directly from companies about the impact of the Tax Code. We were able to bring in companies that have left the United States, requiring them to determine why they left. Unfortunately, it was eye-opening to the point that it requires us to deal with our broken Tax Code if we are going to retain jobs in this country, keep investment in this country, and be able to attract more jobs and investment to deal with our historically weak recovery in which we currently find ourselves. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue that is critical to unleashing job creation and boosting wages in this country--and that is the need to reform our broken, outdated tax code. This Congress, I took on a new role as chairman of the Senate's main investigative panel, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, where I serve alongside my colleague Senator Claire McCaskill, the subcommittee's ranking member. Last week, PSI held a hearing specifically concerning how the U.S. tax code affects the market for corporate control. It is a topic that involves the jargon of corporate finance, but the impact is measured in U.S. jobs and wages. We see headlines every week about the loss of American business headquarters-- more often than not, to a country with a more competitive corporate tax rate, it is not hard to find one, and territorial system of taxation. Our tax code makes it hard to be an American company, and it puts U.S. workers at a disadvantage. At a 39 percent combined State and Federal rate, the United States has the highest corporate rate in the industrialized world. To add insult to injury our government taxes American businesses for the privilege of reinvesting their overseas profits here at home. Economists tell us that the burden of corporate taxes falls principally on workers--in the former of lower wages and fewer job opportunities. I am afraid this has helped create a middle-class squeeze that has made it harder for working families to make ends meet. Yet as almost all of our competitors have cut their corporate rates and eliminated repatriation taxes, America has failed to reform its outdated, complex tax code. As a result, American businesses are headed for the exits, at a loss of thousands of jobs. The unfortunate reality is that U.S. businesses are often much more valuable in the hands of foreign acquirers who can reduce their tax bills. I believe that is one reason why the value of foreign takeovers of U.S. companies doubled last year to $275 billion, and are on track to surpass $400 billion this year according to Dealogic, far outpacing the increase in overall global mergers and acquisitions. We should be very clear that foreign investment in the United States is essential to economic growth--we need more of it. But a tax code that distorts ownership decisions by handicapping U.S. business is not good for our economy--and that is what we have today. What is happening is that the current tax system increasingly drives U.S. businesses into the hands of those best able to reduce their tax liabilities, not necessarily those best equipped to create jobs and increase wages here at home. That is bad for American workers and bad for our long-term competitiveness as a country. To better understand the trend and inform legislative debate on tax reform, PSI decided to take a hard look at this issue. Over the past couple months, the subcommittee reviewed more than a dozen recent major foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies and mergers in which U.S. firms relocated overseas. This was a bipartisan project every step of the way with Senator McCaskill, and I am very grateful for that. Last week's hearing was the culmination of that work. And we heard directly from both U.S. companies that have felt the tax-driven pressures to move offshore and from foreign corporations whose tax advantages have turbocharged their growth by acquisition. Among the U.S. business leaders we heard from was Jim Koch, the founder and chairman of Boston Beer Company, maker of Sam Adams. At a U.S. market share between 1 percent to 2 percent each, Sam Adams and Pennsylvania-based Yuengling are actually the first and second largest U.S.-based brewers left. All of the great American beer companies-- Miller, Coors, and Anheuser-Busch--are now foreign-owned. And Mr. Koch testified that if we fail to reform our tax code, his company could be next. He explained that he regularly gets offers from investment bankers to facilitate a sale, at double-digit premiums, to a foreign acquirer who can dramatically reduce his tax bill from the 39 percent rate his company now pays. Mr. Koch said he can decline those attractive offers because he owns a majority of his company's voting shares. But when he is gone, he believes that company will be driven by financial pressure to sell. We also heard from the longtime CEO of the pharmaceutical company Allergan, David Pyott. Allergan was purchased by the Irish acquirer Actavis last year for $70 billion after a year-long takeover pursuit by Canadian business, Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Pyott estimated that foreign acquirers pursuing Allergan had about a $9 billion valuation advantage over what would have been possible for an American company, ``simply because they could reduce Allergan's tax bill and gain access to its more than $2.5 billion in locked-out overseas earnings.'' Mr. Pyott testified that Allergan would be an independent American company today if it weren't for our tax code. Instead, Allergan is now headquartered in Ireland and Mr. Pyott projects that the new ownership will cut about 1,500 jobs, mostly in California. To better understand the tax-driven advantages enjoyed by foreign acquirers, PSI took a look at Quebec-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Over the past 4 years, Valeant has managed to acquire more than a dozen U.S. companies worth more than $30 billion. The subcommittee reviewed key documents to understand how tax advantages affected Valeant's three largest acquisitions to date, including the 2013 sale of New York-based eye care firm Bausch & Lomb and the 2015 sale of the North Carolina- based drug maker Salix. We learned that, in those two transactions alone, Valeant determined that it could shave more than $3 billion off the target companies' tax bills by integrating them into its Canada-based corporate group. Those tax savings meant that Valeant's investments in its American targets would have higher returns and pay for themselves more quickly--two key drivers of the deals. The three recent Valeant acquisitions we studied resulted in a loss of about 2,300 U.S. jobs, plus a loss of about $16 million per year of contract manufacturing that was moved from the U.S. to Canada and the UK. Beyond inbound acquisitions, America is also losing corporate headquarters through mergers in which U.S. businesses relocate overseas. The latest news is the U.S. agricultural business Monsanto's proposed $45 billion merger with its European counterpart Syngenta; a key part of that proposed deal is a new global corporate headquarters-- not in the U.S., but in London. To better understand this trend, the subcommittee examined the 2014 merger of Burger King with the Canadian coffee-and-donut chain Tim Hortons--an $11.4 billion tie-up that sent Burger King's corporate headquarters north of the border. Our review showed that Burger King had strong business reasons to team up with Tim Hortons. But the record shows that when deciding where to locate the new headquarters of the combined company, tax considerations flatly ruled out the U.S. And it wasn't about the domestic tax rates--it was about international taxation. At the time, Burger King estimated that pulling Tim Hortons into the worldwide U.S. tax net, rather than relocating to Canada, would destroy up to $5.5 billion in value over just 5 years--$5.5 billion in an $11 billion deal. Think about that. The company concluded it was necessary to put the headquarters in a country that would allow it to reinvest overseas earnings back in the U.S. and Canada without an additional tax hit. They ultimately chose Tim Hortons' home base of Canada because their territorial system of taxation allowed them to do just that. If there is a villain in these stories, it is the U.S. tax code. And if there is a failure, it is Washington's. Our job is to give our workers the best shot at competing in the global marketplace and yet we haven't reformed the tax code in decades while other countries have. That fact is that if Washington fails to reform our tax code, foreign acquirers will do it for us--one American company at a time. And rather than more jobs and higher wages, we will continue to see a loss of U.S.-headquartered businesses and jobs. With the deck stacked against American companies, I believe the solution is clear. We need a full overhaul of our current tax code. Cut both the individual and corporate rates to 25 percent, pay for the cuts by eliminating loopholes, and move to a competitive international system. Unfortunately, in our current political environment, that is simply not possible to do immediately. However, I do believe that we can take a positive first step towards reform this fall. A big part of that first step is included in a bipartisan framework for international tax reform that Senator Schumer and I released last month. That includes 1) a move to an international tax system that doesn't provide disincentives for companies to bring their money home from overseas to invest in growing their business and hiring more workers; 2) a patent box to keep highly mobile intellectual property and the high-paying jobs that go with developing that property in the U.S.; and 3) sensible base erosion protections that discourage companies from doing business in tax haven jurisdictions. I believe it should also include a tax extenders package that makes a lot of our current tax extenders permanent. I think that we can all agree that temporary tax policy is bad tax policy--and whether it is giving families certainty that there is going to be a mortgage insurance premium deduction, small businesses certainty that there is going to be expanded section 179 expensing, or innovative companies assurances that there is going to be an R&D credit, I believe that making these policies permanent would provide a big boost to our economy. In fact, yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the short-term extenders package passed by the Senate Finance Committee last month would create $10.4 billion in dynamic tax revenue. Imagine the growth if those were made permanent? If we don't start to take steps to reform our code now, I am worried that we are going to turn around in a couple of years and say, ``what happened? Where did our jobs go? What happened to the American tax base?'' If we do get to that place, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. I thank the Chair for his indulgence this evening. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. So this is all about leverage--to leverage me to be able to help you on your bill, which I told you I support, in order for us to get something done that has been on the floor for over 40 days. Look, I am happy to talk to my colleagues. I am the one who started clearing this on our side of the aisle. You guys didn't. I am happy to talk to colleagues who have concerns. But they get a chance to look at it, just as you had a chance to look at our bill over the last 45 days. So if this is all about leverage, you got me. You have leveraged me. You have already done it. You have succeeded. I already started clearing it. I support it. I am happy to help, and I am sure Senator Brown is happy to help also, but let's not block this in the meantime. We will be able to get your bill done; I am sure of it. I am sure, if it is as popular as you say it is, we can get it done in the House too. It has not cleared the House at this point. In the meantime, let's not block this legislation. This is ridiculous. This is not the way this Senate ought to operate. We have a smart bill on the floor that has been looked at over 40 days. It is ready to go. It has been cleared by both sides. There are no substantive concerns. And it is time that we deliver for the people we represent. I thank the Presiding Officer.