Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer for letting me talk about the trade agenda this afternoon. And I appreciate the words of my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, regarding the liquefied natural gas exports and oil exports. This is a discussion about how we ensure that we are accessing the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. For the workers and farmers I represent in Ohio, that is really important. This is how we are going to be able to get this economy back on track. In part, it is to provide more markets--more customers. Already in my State of Ohio, we depend heavily on exports. One out of every three acres that is planted in Ohio--we are one of the top farm States in the country. We are proud of that. It is the No. 1 industry. One out of every three acres that is planted is exported. Of our soybean crop, which is typically our biggest crop in Ohio, 60 percent gets exported. So for farmers, in order to keep their prices up, these foreign markets are absolutely critical. But it is also really important for our manufacturing sector in Ohio. About 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs are export jobs. And, frankly, what has happened over the last 7 years, while America has not been in the business of opening up these markets, is that they are beginning to lose their market share. So it is good for us to expand exports. We have to do that because that creates not only more jobs in my State and in our country, but it also creates better jobs. These are higher-paying jobs with better benefits. Those 95 percent of consumers outside of the United States border deserve to get some products stamped ``Made in America'' because they are great products. They are great agricultural products, great manufacturing products, great services. We should be aggressively expanding our exports. But while we do that, we have to be sure it is fair, too. We have to be sure that these other countries are not sending us imports that are traded at below their cost--that is called dumping--that they aren't illegally subsidizing their exports, which happens. That is when you put duties in place to make sure they are not doing things to make the playing field unlevel, and so that our workers who are doing all the right things--playing by the rules, becoming more competitive, and making concessions to be competitive--are not left holding the bag and don't get the short end of the stick. Instead, they get the ability to compete on a level playing field. If they can do that, they will be just fine. We will be able to expand exports, and therefore, create these better-paying jobs we talked about. That is what this debate should be all about. It is about a balance. It is about expanding exports, at the same time making sure that the rules of the road work for all of us, including our workers and our farmers, our service providers in my State of Ohio and all around our great country. I am delighted to see that we are moving forward with this debate because it is an honest debate we have to have. And for those who just say that we can expand exports but we can't do anything about this unfair trade, I think that is not the right balance. For those who say we shouldn't be doing these exports because somehow that doesn't help our workers because there is so much unfair trade out there, that doesn't work, either. There is a balance in between here. One of the issues I have spent a lot of time working on over the years and looking at is this trade distortion called currency manipulation. Look, I understand it is a complicated area, and some people think we just shouldn't touch it or maybe it is something that only the Department of Treasury can deal with because it is currency. It is not technically products and goods. But I would say that there is not a Member in this body who doesn't believe that when another country manipulates its currency to expand its exports, that that affects trade. It is just obvious. If you are trying in a deliberate way to lower the cost of your exports by lowering the value of your currency vis-a-vis another country, such as us, that is going to help you in trade. I had the fasteners in here this week. These are the people who make nuts and bolts and screws, and they are big in Ohio. We are happy to have a good fastener industry in Ohio. But they will tell you that their margins are pretty tight. Chairman Volcker, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, made an interesting statement. He said that, in 1 week, through currency manipulation, we can do away with all the benefits of years of trade negotiations. Sadly, I think that is true. So while we are promoting exports, we should also make it clear that we do not believe we should distort trade. And for our Republican colleagues, those of us who believe in markets, we should be against distortions--and this is a market distortion. We should speak up about it and not be shy about it and not suggest that somehow, because it is something that traditionally has been handled by the Treasury Department and by the International Monetary Fund and as a currency issue, it doesn't affect trade. It does affect trade. Now, if they were making great progress on it at the International Monetary Fund, I might feel differently about it. But why not include it as a trade negotiating objective? I think it makes all the sense in the world. We are going to have an amendment to do just that, and it will be on the floor next week as we take up the trade promotion authority. I urge my colleagues to take a look at it, objectively. It is very targeted. It does not deal with a country being able to adjust its monetary policy. It explicitly says it does not relate to monetary policy, macroeconomic policy. It has to do with deliberate intervention in currency markets to have this benefit in exports we talked about, again, to distort the free market in order for other countries to be able to sell their products to us at a lower value than they should be and in turn, for our exports to them to be at a higher value, which makes it harder for us to keep jobs here in America. People say this is all about the auto industry. Yes, the autoworkers care about it, and they should--so do the auto companies, so do the fastener companies, so do the steel companies, so does anybody or any group in Ohio that is concerned about ensuring that they get a level playing field for their exports, because currency manipulation does not help anybody. People say: Well, why are you doing this now, because these countries, such as Japan, are not currently manipulating their currency? I agree. Since probably the end of 2011, 2012, Japan stopped manipulation of their currency. They would not fall under these criteria we played out. But they have done it over 300 times in the past. All we are saying is this: Is it not right that when we are negotiating an agreement, we put in place some kind of discipline to say we do not want you to do this in the future because it is not fair for you and for us? Trade ought to be about balance--not just a balance of expanding exports but also having enforcement measures in place to level that playing field I talked about, and balance in the sense that we sell something to you, we get some money from doing that, and we use that money to buy something from the other place. So you have a balance in terms of trade. You do not have these huge surpluses you see in countries such as China, for instance, where they have manipulated their currency. I hope this issue will be one that we can address in an objective manner. Take the politics out of it. Let's decide what is best for the workers and farmers we represent and for the overall health of our economy. If we are going to get back into the business of trade--which I think we should--I think we should be expanding trade by doing good agreements that knock down the barriers to us so that it is fair. If we do that, let's be sure that we can build a consensus for that among the American people, who get it. They understand that we need to have exports. But they also understand that we need to have more fairness. There are other issues as well that we are going to address in the Senate in the trade promotion authority vote next week. I hope some of them will be issues that we actually voted on today in the Customs bill. Some of you followed this closely, but in the Customs bill there were a number of enforcement measures, not just on currency but also on this issue of how do you show when you are injured, as an American company, if there is unfair trade. If another country sells something over here below its cost--meaning they dumped it here--or if they subsidized something illegally, how do you show as an American company that you have been injured by it in order to get the relief that you and the workers you represent deserve? Right now, it is very difficult sometimes to show injury, to the point that some companies tell me: Rob, by the time we were able to go through this process and show that we were injured, it was too late. We had lost too much market share. We were not able to get back on our feet. There is a very simple provision. It is a Brown-Portman amendment that was included in the Customs bill. We voted on it today. I would urge my colleagues to help us get that provision into the TPA bill as well because we know that the Customs bill may or may not make it through the process. We believe that the trade promotion authority bill is much more likely to make it through the process and to the President's desk for signature. I hope we have that provision in there. I asked my own leadership to include it in the substitute that was filed apparently today. I do not know if it is in there. I am told it is probably not. I am sorry to hear that because it was one that we seem to have a bipartisan consensus on in committee. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden because they included it in the committee markup on the Customs bill. We did not have a vote as an amendment because they included it in the markup because they thought it was good policy. Yet, somehow in the substitute, I understand it may not be in there. I hope it is. But if it is not, we intend to offer an amendment to have it included. I hope my colleagues will support that, because, again, if you are talking about trade in a State such as Ohio where we have a lot of manufacturing, you have to be sure to be able to look workers in the eye and say: This is going to be fair for you. Get in this business of trade because we want to access the 95 percent of consumers outside of our borders, but we are going to help you. If somebody unfairly competes with you by dumping their product or illegally subsidizing their product, you know what, we will be there for you. We are going to be able to level that playing field by adding tariffs to their products because it is illegal what they are doing. I have been active on this issue back home, not just on the material injury standard, which is what this is about when you get injured in trade, but also on this issue of being sure that we are opening up more markets for all of our Ohio products. Ohio manufacturers right now in rebar, hot-rolled steel, tires, and uncoated paper are all involved in trade cases such as this--all of them. They all want to know that this is going to be fair. Wheatland Tube is one of the Nation's largest producers of steel pipe and tube products. They have four facilities in Ohio: one in Warren, one in Niles, one in Cambridge, and one in Brookfield. They make products ranging from steel products for the energy industry, pipe for hydraulic tracking, and so on--construction industry. They have been particularly impacted by a number of these trade enforcement cases, including several crucial cases we won last year on pipe and tube from China. We have had some nice victories for them. In fact, given the import concerns they have, I understand the plant in Warren, OH, which has 178 workers, probably would not be in existence today if we had not won these trade enforcement measures. Here is a plant with 178 people in Warren, OH, who would not have a job today if not for our standing up for them and saying we are going to help you when there is an unfair import coming into this country. The workers there understand this issue. They get it because they know it has a direct impact on their jobs. Let me read an email I received this week from Mike Mack. Mike is a maintenance foreman at Wheatland Tube in Warren, OH. This is what he said: As an individual employed in manufacturing, I understand better than most that trade is a key component for economic growth. However, it's important for U.S. manufacturers (i.e. steel pipe and tube producers) to have the tools to challenge unfair trade. . . . I support the adoption of enforcement provisions . . . that will close loop holes in the trade laws to ensure that companies can access these laws to challenge trade distorting practices. I continue with his quote. I also support language in the TPA that prevents currency manipulation and the ``dumping'' of foreign products in the

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to talk a little about the customs legislation that is now before us. As my colleague from Ohio just talked about, there are some very important provisions in this legislation that help to ensure that, yes, while we are expanding exports, we are also ensuring we have a more level playing field for our workers and our farmers. My State of Ohio is a State where we like exports. We have about 25 percent of our factory jobs there because of exports. But we want to be sure we are getting a fair shake. Working with Senator Brown and others, we put together some great provisions that are going to be part of this customs legislation. I am hopeful we can get this passed. It is part of the Customs bill as it passed in the Committee on Finance, but I am also hopeful it will be in whatever provision goes over to the House and also is signed by the President into law. Growing exports, of course, is a top priority--I hope it is a top priority for everybody here in the Chamber--and therefore trade-opening agreements are a good idea because we want to knock down barriers for our farmers and our workers, who are doing everything we have asked them to do to be more competitive and yet still face unfair trade overseas. So we want to knock down those barriers. Some are tariff barriers and some are nontariff barriers. Where we have a trade agreement, we tend to export a lot more. Only about 10 percent of the world has a trade agreement with the United States. We don't have trade agreements with Europe or Japan or with China. But in that 10 percent of the global economy, we send 47 percent of our exports. So, yes, trade agreements are important to open up markets for us. Ninety-five percent of consumers live outside our borders, so we want to sell to them. By the way, when we don't continue to sell to them and expand that, what happens is other countries come in and take our markets, and therefore our economy becomes weaker and we lose jobs here in this country. That is what is happening right now. For the last 7 years, we haven't been able to negotiate agreements because we have not had this promotion authority to be able to knock down barriers to trade. So that is important. But, colleagues, while we do that, we also have to be darn sure this level playing field occurs because otherwise we are not giving our workers and our farmers a fair shake. That is where we ought to be with a balanced approach--opening up more markets to our exports but also ensuring that trade is fair. There are a lot of ways to do that, and in this legislation before us we really help to keep our competitors' feet to the fire to make sure they are playing by the rules. One is with regard to trade enforcement cases. There is language in here that makes it easier for American companies to seek the relief they deserve when another country is selling products into the United States unfairly because they subsidize the product illegally or because they sell it at below their cost, which is called dumping. There are a lot of companies in Ohio that have had the opportunity to go to the International Trade Administration to seek remedy and some help, but often they find that it is so difficult to show they are injured, by the time they get help, it is too late. So what this legislation does is it says that when we have these trade cases, we want to have the ability to actually make our case and in a timely manner get some kind of relief. Otherwise, why do we have these laws? If you can't get timely relief, sometimes you find yourself so far underwater you can't get back on your feet. That is why I am really excited about passing this Customs bill, because if we do that, we will put in place a better way for companies to go to their government and to seek the relief their workers deserve and to get it in a timely manner so it can really help them. I was recently in northwest Ohio meeting with steelworkers to discuss one of these cases that has to do with Chinese tires coming into the United States. These particular workers were at Cooper Tire in Findlay, OH, which, by the way, just marked 100 years in business. We want them to be in business another 100 years, but they are having a tough time because they can't compete with tires being sold at below their cost. In response to the concerns they raised with me, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce and called on the administration to vigorously investigate this case and to stand up for United Steelworkers in northwest Ohio. We now have a trade enforcement case we are working on involving the uncoated paper product made in Chillicothe, OH, at Glatfelter. Again, these are United Steelworker workers who are just asking for a fair shake. They want us to be sure that the paper being sent into the United States from other countries is being fairly traded and not illegally subsidized and not sold at below cost or dumped. So the tire case and the paper case are two examples where the material injury standard would really matter. This is an important time for us because in Ohio we have a lot of other cases too. In 2014, we had a couple of important trade victories. Last year, I worked with Senator Brown to support Ohio pipe and tube workers in Cleveland and the Mahoning Valley who are manufacturing parts to support the energy renaissance taking place in our State and around the country. I visited these pipe and tube manufacturers and met with the workers. By the way, these workers are doing a great job. Again, they have made concessions to be more competitive. The companies have put a big investment in their training and a big investment in technology, and they can compete if there is a level playing field, and they can win in the international competition. We won two trade enforcement cases just last year, among others against China, where they were illegally underselling and subsidizing their products. These victories brought some relief for Ohio pipe and tube makers and again gave us a chance to get back on our feet. We had another win just last month with regard to extending those tariffs to ensure we do have this more level playing field. That followed trade enforcement wins I supported for workers who manufacture hot rolled steel at ArcelorMittal in Cleveland; AK Steel in Middletown; washing machines at Whirlpool in Clyde, OH; and rebar at the Nucor plant in Marion, OH, but also rebar made elsewhere, including Byer Steel in Cincinnati. I visited both of those plants and talked to the workers. They are working hard. They understand they have to compete. They understand it is a global marketplace. They are willing to compete, but they want to be sure it is on a level playing field, and if we do pass this legislation, it will help them in terms of getting that. Again, I don't think it is fair for American companies to see products coming in here that are being subsidized and undersold and yet they are not able to get the relief they need. So I am hopeful we will be able to pass this legislation as part of the customs law that is going to come before the Senate. That material injury standard is what it ought to be to ensure that, although companies now have access to seek this remedy, that they can actually get the relief they need by having this relief provided more quickly and having the standard be one that can be met by American companies and workers who are being hit with these unfair trade practices. I am pleased this effort is supported by a lot of manufacturers all around the country. Today, I met with the fasteners from Ohio. These are the folks in Ohio who makes the nuts and bolts and so on. They are interested in this case because, again, they see the ability for them to get a remedy when they need it. It is also supported by US Steel, Timken Steel, Nucor Steel, United Steelworkers, and others. Again, it is a classic example of working together to help protect workers and jobs in places such as Ohio. By the way, I hope it will pass as part of the Customs bill, but, again, I hope it is also made part of whatever legislation goes over to the House and to the President for his signature, and that may well be the legislation that includes trade promotion authority. I am also pleased that this Customs bill includes a measure that protects American workers and manufacturers called the ENFORCE Act. It is also part of this package of bills that is in the customs legislation. I have supported and cosponsored this bipartisan bill with Senator Wyden since it was introduced back in 2011. I have been proud to be the lead Republican on this legislation because, just as I talked about how that bipartisan bill with Senator Brown on the material injury standard is so important, we have to be sure that once we win a trade case, countries don't use diversion to go around whatever provisions are put in place. Let me give an example. Sometimes a case is won against one country, but then they evade those higher tariffs by moving the production to another country, and they do it precisely because the trade case has been won. It is kind of hard to keep up with that, and that is why this legislation allows the administration to go after this issue of customs evasion. Sometimes companies are spending millions of dollars a year fighting these evasion schemes. A lot of time and effort is put into it. It extremely concerning that these goods continue to illegally enter the country through illegal transshipment and falsified country-of- origin labeling, sometimes undervalued invoices to pay less for duties, and sometimes misclassifying goods so they can slip through our customs without being subject to tariffs. Let me give an example of this. Workers in Ohio produce prestressed concrete steel wire strand, called PC strand. It is one of our big products in Ohio. We are proud to produce it. It is actually made from carbon wire rod that is used to compress concrete structural members to allow them to withstand very heavy loads. This would be for let's say bridges, parking garages, and certain concrete foundations. There are 250 workers at American Spring Wire in Bedford, OH, and I visited them and talked to them. They are very interested in this provision because it helps them. Along with two other producers, they were a petitioner in a successful trade case against China a couple of years ago. As a result of that action, both antidumping duties and also countervailing duties were put in place. Why? Because this product was coming in illegally subsidized and it was dumped--in other words, sold at below cost. So they went through the right process and were able to get these tariffs in place as it related to China; however, Chinese traders began to approach U.S. producers and importers with proposals even before the case ended to circumvent this so that the trade orders that would be in place with regard to China would be circumvented by sending this product through a third country, where this strand would be relabeled and possibly repackaged to reflect a different country of origin. By doing so, these antidumping and countervailing duties would be avoided. And once these trade orders against PC strand were entered, Malaysia did indeed become a new source--a significant new source of imports through use of this transshipment approach. So that is what this legislation goes after. It says, look, when you do this--these kinds of schemes, the U.S. Government is required to investigate these cases, and requires Customs to make a preliminary determination when they have suspicion of this happening. This is a big step forward. Again, it is going to help companies, not just successfully go through the process and the great cost of winning one of these cases but actually having it mean something to them and their workers by ensuring companies don't evade it by going to a third country. Another way we can support American jobs that is in this customs legislation is called the miscellaneous tariffs bill. I am pleased it includes a bipartisan bill that I coauthored. I authored this bill with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. I thank her, and I also thank a couple of other cosponsors who have been very helpful in getting this legislation into the Customs bill and getting it onto the floor of the Senate. That includes Senator Burr of North Carolina and Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania. Senator Toomey has been very helpful, because under the old way, if we dealt with miscellaneous tariff bills, it was really considered an earmark because it was sort of a rifleshot, where individual Members would take up the cause. He has been very helpful in bringing that issue to the fore and ensuring that under our legislation we are not going to have earmarks. In fact, we are going to be able to have the International Trade Commission be involved to determine what the merits of the cases are, not individual Members of Congress. That is very important to me. Senator Burr has been very helpful to kind of bring the textile interests to bear here, to ensure that as we are looking at this issue of miscellaneous tariff bills, we are ensuring that the textile industry is protected as are our other manufacturers. The miscellaneous tariff bill is interesting. This is for extension of miscellaneous tariffs that suspend or lower tariffs on a product that is an input to a manufacturing facility in the United States, where there is no available product in the United States of America. Right now we are paying tariffs on products coming in here where there is no competition in America. If we can, through these miscellaneous tariff bills, either reduce or eliminate these duties, it will be less costly for our manufacturers to compete around the world and less costly for our consumers. So this is a good thing for our economy. It is something we ought to be promoting, and I thank our leadership for getting this into the customs legislation. Let's deal with this MTB issue. By the way, the old legislation expired back in January of 2013-- January of 2013. Since that time, American manufacturers and consumers have been paying a much higher import duty, which is essentially higher taxes, than they should have to pay. That means they can't put money into raising wages, increasing benefits for American workers, and maintaining our competitiveness. There is a recent study out showing the failure to pass this MTB legislation has resulted in a tax hike on U.S. manufacturers of $748 million--an economic loss of $1.8 billion over the past several years. This legislation is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, along with 185 associations and companies that urge us to quickly act on this, including 8 of those companies and associations in my home State of Ohio. So this is a reform bill that immediately restarts this MTB process later this year, resolves these earmark concerns that we had previously, and allows us to preserve Congress's traditional and constitutional role in trade policy. It is the right balance. I am excited it is in this Customs bill, along with the other provisions I talked about. Next week, I plan to talk more about another issue. It is not in the customs legislation, but it will be in the legislation debate regarding trade promotion authority. We talked earlier about the importance of expanding exports through trade promotion authority but also ensuring we had this level playing field. Part of the level playing field is ensuring that countries do not manipulate their currency, which takes away so many of the benefits of a trade agreement. Chairman Volcker of the Fed has said something I think that is interesting in this regard. He has said that in five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish. We will talk more about this next week as we talk about trade promotion authority, because I do intend to offer an amendment that is targeted, that is not going to be a poison pill in any respect because I think it will actually help us get more votes for trade, which is an important thing, and it is also something that, frankly, does not affect the TPP countries immediately because none of them are violating the provisions of the IMF--International Monetary Fund--which is what we use for our definition of currency manipulation, but they have in the past, and we don't want them to in the future. We don't want them to take away the very benefits that American workers and farmers get from these trade agreements. I appreciate the time today to talk about this customs legislation. I am excited to have it on the floor tomorrow and have the chance to vote on all these very important enforcement provisions, to ensure that our workers and our farmers are getting a fair shake. Then, next week, I hope we will have the opportunity to take up trade promotion authority and move that forward, again, in a way to ensure that we are lowering these barriers overseas for our farmers, our workers, our service providers, so we can access those 95 percent of consumers who are outside of our borders and send more stuff stamped ``Made in America'' all around the world, adding jobs in Ohio and America. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a couple of issues, one with regard to Iran. I would just make one point that I think is pretty obvious to most Members on this floor, which is that these sanctions really matter. In other words, regardless of what we end up doing with regard to the Iranian nuclear agreement-- and I am very concerned about what I see in the framework agreement--we have to be very careful about relieving sanctions because Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That is based on our own State Department. With us providing them sanctions relief, it frees up resources that they can then use for some of their terrorist activity in the Mideast and really around the globe. I returned from Israel a couple days ago and got some great briefings that were very troubling about what is happening with regard to Iran's support of Hezbollah--additional and more sophisticated missiles with guidance systems--and what is happening even with the other groups in the region, including a Sunni group, Hamas, in providing rockets there, and certainly what they are doing in Syria and what they are doing today in Yemen and even in Libya. So this is not just about the nuclear arms agreement, if that, in fact, does come to some conclusion. It is about a broader issue, about ensuring that we do not provide this funding for Iran to continue its aggression in the Middle East and around the globe. I want to speak about something closer to home, and I appreciate my colleague from Oklahoma giving me a chance to talk briefly. This is about a piece of legislation that actually passed a committee today that helps create jobs and helps to encourage more construction projects and would make a huge difference in getting people back to work. I will say I am glad Senator Carper is on the floor because I want to talk about him too. He was part of this project. We have worked on this the last few years. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri is my cosponsor, but today in the committee, with the help of chairman Ron Johnson and Ranking Member Carper on the floor today, we were able to get people working together to move this permitting reform bill forward. This is about regulatory reform. It is about ensuring we streamline to make our system work better. But ultimately it is about jobs. That is why both the business community and the labor unions representing the building trades--the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council supported this legislation today. They want to see people get back to work, and so do I. If we look at what has happened over the past year, our economic growth has been anemic. Even in the first quarter of this year, we find just 0.2 percent growth is now the number out there. Employment numbers from last month were disappointing. We need to give this economy a shot in the arm, and this will help do it. Unfortunately, what we have now is a permitting process that is full of uncertainty, unpredictability, it is out of date, it hinders investment, it stifles growth, and keeps jobs from being created at a time when too many Americans, particularly in the construction trades, are looking for work. This is a real problem in getting investment in America too. There is a World Bank study done every year about how countries line up in terms of their ability to get things done, the ease of doing business. With regard to green-lighting a project, permitting, the United States of America now stands No. 41 in the world--41. That is unacceptable. That means that capital is going elsewhere, and one reason is because of the delays; one reason is because of the liability risk; one reason is because people are worried if they put capital here, it is not going to be able to come to fruition quickly enough because of our permitting system. So this is about not just global rankings but helping Americans go back to work. I learned about this first when constituents came to me; that with regard to Federal permitting, particularly on energy projects, sometimes there are as many as 35 different Federal permits, we are told. American Municipal Power came to me. They were trying to put together a hydro plant on the Ohio River--something we should all be for--and it was taking too much time. They were losing investors. Folks came to me from Wellsville, OH. They wanted to put together a $6 billion synthetic fuels plant there. It was a coal-to-liquid plant that would convert coal into clean diesel and jet fuel that would create jobs, employing up to 2,500 workers just to build it. Unfortunately, permitting delays and lawsuits interfered with the project and the plant was never constructed. We need that in Ohio. It would have been a win-win for us. So this is an urgent issue we should address, and this is just a couple of examples of it. The bottom line is it is not unheard of for some projects to have dozens of different Federal permits. So this will help. This bill does a few things. One, it does strengthen coordination and deadline setting. It creates an interagency council that identifies best practices, deadlines for reviews and approvals of important infrastructure projects, strengthens cooperation between State and local permitting authorities to avoid the duplication we see too often now in trying to get a permit to build something. The bill also facilitates greater transparency, more public participation, with the creation of an online dashboard so you know where a project is to see who is holding this thing up and how to get it moving. The bill requires agencies to accept comments from stakeholders early in the approval process, with the goal of identifying public policy concerns early on so it doesn't end up stopping the project. Finally, the bill institutes some very sensible litigation reforms. Again, I thank my colleague from Delaware because he helped us to work through this. This reduces the statute of limitations on lawsuits, challenging permitting decisions from 6 years, where it is now, down to 2 years. This is legislation that can unite both our parties. It is something that will help to get the economy going. It is something the President's own jobs council has called for. It is something that also the business groups have called for, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. Again, it is commonsense reform where we were able to bring together groups that normally don't see eye to eye, including the labor unions. Here is a quote today from Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions. He said: If there was ever an issue that could be considered a no- brainer for Congress, the Federal Permitting Improvement Act is it. . . . Any way you slice it, this is a jobs bill, and it is critically important to the economic interests of the skilled craft construction professionals I represent. I agree with Sean. This is a bill that makes sense. It is one all Americans can agree on. We need to be committed to these serious reforms and get them done. This is going to help turn our economy around, help bring back some of these good-paying jobs, and it is an area where we can find common ground. Again, I thank Senator McCaskill for her partnership over the last 3 years on this. I thank the members of our committee for voting for it today. Again, to the chairman and ranking member, including Senator Carper, who is on the floor today, thank you for moving this through the committee. Now let's get it to the floor. We had a strong vote today. I think the final vote was 12 to 1. Let's get this to the floor and actually get it done, have a vote on this legislation, get it through the House, get it to the President for his signature, and start to bring back these jobs and start to build these projects right here in the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise as we are talking about the budget, and I want to talk a little bit about that today, being a member of the Budget Committee and someone very concerned about the fiscal direction of our country. I also want to talk about a trip I took to Israel. Over the last weekend, I was in Israel having meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu, members of the Knesset, the Minister of Intelligence, the Deputy Foreign Minister, and others, and part of what I want to talk about in the budget relates to that. This budget, by the way, is the first time in 6 years that we have had the ability for the House and Senate to come together and have a congressional budget. During that 6 years, by the way, I think there has been $8 trillion added to the national debt. During that 6 years, there has not been adequate oversight of the departments and agencies of government, partly because there hasn't been a budget. Without a budget, it is very difficult to go through the appropriations process, which means that not only has spending been high--more money being spent than coming in, in terms of revenue year after year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars--but also we haven't had the ability to have the appropriate checks and balances, oversight of the various agencies we have in the appropriations process. So, after 6 years, it is about time. My constituents, when I say it is the first time in 6 years we have been able to pass a budget, they say, well, what took you so long. Why is it that I have to have a budget in my family, have to have a budget in my business and in our community, the county, and the State, and Congress can't get its act together? So we are, this afternoon, I believe, going to pass this budget, and it does provide this framework for going forward. What is that framework? Well, it is a balanced budget over 10 years. Although it is the first time Congress would come together in 6 years to have a budget, it is actually the first time since 2001 that there has been a budget that gets to balance that is presented and passed by this Congress. That is important. Earlier, one of my colleagues was talking about everything that was cut by this budget. Actually, those decisions are going to be made by the Appropriations Committee. That is appropriate. They are the committee responsible for defending every dime. Congress has that responsibility. They are the ones who should look at the priorities. They are the ones who should decide which program is working and which one is not working, which ones should get less money, which ones should get more money, which ones should be reformed and changed. That is the process we are going to be undertaking, and it is exactly what we are hired to do. Is it an easy vote? No. Yet we see this afternoon we will get the necessary 51 votes to pass this budget and begin to move the country forward. It not only balances the budget in 10 years, it does it without raising taxes. It does it in a way that actually strengthens Medicare, protects Social Security, supports a healthier and stronger economy that we need in this country. We just had the economic growth numbers come out for the first quarter and, boy, are they disappointing--0.2 percent. We just had some weak numbers in terms of jobs numbers last month. We have to do better. We can and should do better. Part of it starts with better policies here in Washington, DC. We need policies that encourage people to get out there and work hard, take a risk, and let people know that if they do play by the rules and work hard, they can get ahead. There is so much more we can do with tax reform and regulatory relief and coming up with smart ways to deal with health care. That is what this budget does, by the way. It also improves the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of government. This is very important. It has a particular provision that I feel strongly about, as the Presiding Officer knows. He has done a great job of shepherding us through the Budget Committee to make sure we could have the information on the floor of the Senate to decide the best tax reform to pursue. We will now have not just what is called the static analysis but also an analysis, that takes into account that tax policy does change people's behavior. We all know that--everybody knows that--but we haven't had that information until now. This macroeconomic scoring of a tax provision is going to make it more likely to come up with good tax reform that will help give this economy the shot in the arm it needs to get moving. I am pleased with the fact that we are finally going to move forward on a budget. It is discouraging that it took this long--6 years--but with the Republican majority we committed to do this, and I am very pleased that this afternoon we are going to finally see, for the hard- working taxpayers whom I represent, the opportunity to actually have a budget around here and to get individual appropriations bills done. One other part of the budget that relates to the trip I just took is our defense spending. The budget helps to provide more avenues for increasing defense where needed, and in this dangerous world in which we live, we do have to ensure that we have a strong defense that is up to the challenges we face. Israel Mr. President, I just returned from a trip to Israel, where I had very productive meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with the Secretaries, the Ministers of Intelligence, the Deputy Foreign Minister, other Israeli officials, as well as our Ambassador over there and his team. The reason for going to Israel was the same as with the previous visits; that is, to learn firsthand from those on the ground about the best way forward in a very volatile and dangerous region of the world, to show support for our ally Israel and, finally, to report back to my Ohio constituents and to the Senate as we face these challenging issues we have in the region. I saw when I was there, again, how since its independence in 1948, the people of Israel have not only learned how to survive, how to make do in sometimes a very unforgiving strategic and natural environment, but have also learned how to thrive. They boast the region's most dynamic economy now. It is also the region's most vibrant democracy, with an open society that promotes the values of freedom, tolerance, and equality. It is a small population. They have very little land and very few natural resources, and they are faced with aggression from all sides. Throughout its history, Israel has faced these challenges through both the power of the head and the heart--knowledge, innovation, grit, and determination--to build and defend the world's one and only Jewish State and the one democracy in the region. It is against this general backdrop that I wanted to talk to the Prime Minister and other leaders about some really important topics that we face in the Senate; one is the ongoing nuclear talks and how to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, as well as how to address Iran's current aggression all throughout the region. Second, I wanted to talk about the insidious campaign going on around the world. It is a campaign to delegitimize Israel through boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. I have been involved in this for years. Ten years ago, I worked on this as the U.S. Trade Representative. Most recently, I joined Senator Ben Cardin in a bipartisan effort that was successful in adding an amendment to the trade bill that is working its way through the system, to tell our trading partners you cannot boycott, divest, and sanction Israel if you want to do business with us. Third, I want to talk about the myriad of challenges that face this region and the destabilizing of it right now: ISIS, the civil war in Syria, the immediate challenges Israel faces with the terrorist activities of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and in Syria. Finally, I wanted to talk about the Israel-Palestinian dialogue, the opportunity for peace and a two-state solution. Of all these threats, I suppose Israel's greatest threat lies in Iran. Iran has been described, by the way, as a regime that is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Let's remember that, remember whom we are dealing with. This has been true since 1984, when they put Iran on the terrorist list. I think there are only four countries on it, and one is Cuba, that I am sure the administration would like to remove from that list. So this is a small list of countries. According to the administration, the Iranian regime is able to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon in sometime between 3 months and 1 year, depending on which testimony you hear from the administration. They also acknowledge that it supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. It funds other Shiite militias as it seeks regional dominance in Iraq. We have seen this in Yemen most recently, but also in Syria and elsewhere. They also have supported a Sunni group, Hamas, as they lobbed rockets into Israel. Many of those rockets have been provided, apparently, through Iran. Of course, we should not forget that this behavior comes from a regime that has pledged to ``annihilate,'' ``destroy,'' and ``wipe Israel off the map.'' Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I have serious concerns about the framework of the nuclear agreement and what may follow in a comprehensive deal. Given the importance of this issue, I feel strongly that Congress should play a role in analyzing any agreement and approving or disapproving it. Our negotiating objective, in my view, should be an enforceable agreement; one that contains concrete and verifiable steps to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. For years, the international community demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear program--most notably by halting all enrichment activity. If you look at the U.N. resolution and the activity around that, it is pretty strong language. From what we know, it appears that the so- called framework agreement is still a great distance from that. I hope that can be improved. We are looking at a model of an agreement that aims to freeze the nuclear program but somehow doesn't dismantle it. I certainly would have preferred the dismantlement model, and with the tough sanctions we put in place, I had hoped that was doable. But given where we are and given Israel's expertise and focus, I wanted to learn more about why the Israelis think the framework agreement is inadequate and whether it can be turned into a better agreement. There are many important questions that remain, and sadly only a few of them have satisfactory answers in the current framework agreement. In fact, the Iranian version and the U.S. version of the text seem to differ on some of the key details. If you hear from them, they say one thing and we say another. In particular, I returned from this trip continuing my focus on what I think is perhaps the most important issue of all, which is the sanctions relief. The U.S. Congress put these sanctions in place, encouraging the administration. If we give the Iranian regime sanctions relief on day one before they have kept their word on any deal, we will be contributing a cash windfall to Iran's ongoing efforts to further destabilize an ever-growing list of countries--think about it--Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, and so on. Whether it is sanctions relief or whether it is releasing frozen oil revenues in banks that are all around the world, getting the proceeds from sales of oil that are now frozen in banks, if that becomes something the Iranians can use, that kind of financial relief would be a step to fuel war, not peace. So these are the right areas to focus on when it comes to Iran, not just for Israel's sake, of course, but for the sake of peace and stability in the region and for our sake, our national security, and the world's sake. I am hopeful we can pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and safeguard Congress's role. I hope we can move to a bipartisan consensus on the floor of the Senate. But what constitutes a good deal? I believe consensus could provide a measuring stick to determine what kind of an agreement would produce a lasting peace and also provide the administration some leverage, give them some leverage to be able to negotiate a more effective agreement by having that debate on the floor of the Senate. Attacks on Israel, of course, don't always come from rockets, missiles, or other violent means. Increasingly, opponents of Israel are using economic weapons to target Israel. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement--also called BDS--is an effort to undermine Israel's sovereignty and further isolate it from the international community, really delegitimize the state. Senator Cardin and I recently authored the United States-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. It has a very simple purpose. It says that the United States will leverage trade to stop efforts to delegitimize Israel, especially when, as I look at it, having just been there, some of these BDS efforts actually harm the Palestinians in the West Bank, whom I think some of these efforts are meant to help. Our legislation leverages ongoing trade negotiations to discourage our trading partners from engaging in this economic discrimination. I have seen how it works. I know trade can be effective. We did this with Oman when I was in the U.S. Trade Representative's office, as they wanted to negotiate a trade agreement, and the same with Bahrain. Both of those agreements ended up removing their boycotts of Israel. I talked with Saudi Arabia when I negotiated for their accession to the WTO, where again we were able to make progress in providing, in that case, equal treatment to Israel. I am very proud that the Cardin-Portman amendment was the first and one of only three amendments to pass out of the Finance Committee when we took up the trade promotion authority bill. In my meetings with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, the Foreign Ministry, Israeli national security officials, and in my discussions with the Prime Minister, I gained some additional insight into how BDS actually works in practice, and I came home more resolved than ever to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we don't have this discrimination and painfully obvious double standard with Israel. For instance, its advocates only insist on isolation and penalties for Israel--not other countries--over territorial disputes and turn a blind eye to other territorial disputes around the world. Finally, I talked to officials at length about general turmoil in the Middle East and Israel's relationship with its neighbors. This deteriorating regional security environment includes Egypt's battle against Hamas and radicalism in the Sinai, the brutal civil war in Syria, the destabilizing role of Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon and Syria, threats and challenges to our ally Jordan, the brutality of ISIS, and the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. So I returned from my trip with my concerns reinforced over the threats to the region, but I also returned with hope because whether I was touching the ancient stones of the Western Wall, walking the Stations of the Cross in the Old City, amidst the Old City Market, standing amidst the worshipers in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or marveling at the modern hustle and bustle of Tel Aviv, I saw a remarkable phenomenon up close. A small but determined country that carries within its narrow borders the ancient wisdom of our great faith, the cutting-edge innovations, and the can-do spirit of the modern State of Israel--all of this combines to bring me back to this floor with a greater resolve to meet the challenges we talked about today for our own national security but also for that of our steadfast ally, Israel. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to honor 423 high school seniors in 8 Northeast Ohio counties for their decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 423 seniors from 120 high schools in 105 towns and cities, 97 will enter the Army, 127 will enter the Marine Corps, 42 will enter the Navy, 24 will enter the Air Force, 3 will enter the Coast Guard, 123 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard, and 7 will enter the Ohio Air National Guard. In the presence of their parents/ guardians, high school counselors, military leaders, and city and business leaders, all 423 will be recognized on May 6, 2015, by Our Community Salutes of Northeast Ohio. In a few short weeks, these young men and women will join with many of their classmates in celebration of their high school graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, or are uncertain about their future, these young men and women instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our rights, our freedoms, and our country. They should know that they have the full support of this Senate Chamber and the American people, who are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. These 423 young men and women are the cornerstone of our liberties. It is thanks to their dedication and the dedication of an untold number of patriots just like them that we are able to meet here today, in the Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a dangerous world. We are grateful to them, and we are grateful to their parents and their communities for instilling in them not only the mental and physical abilities our Armed Forces require, but also the character, the values, and the discipline that lead someone to put service to our Nation over self. I would like to personally thank these 423 graduating seniors for volunteering to risk their lives in defense of our Nation. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 423 high school seniors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I honor Monroe County, OH, as it celebrates its bicentennial anniversary. On January 29, 1813, an act to form the County of Monroe made up of parts of Belmont, Washington, and Guernsey Counties was passed by the Ohio Legislature. Although Monroe County had already been established, it did not function as a county until it was officially organized in 1815. On February 3, 1815, an act was passed by the Ohio Legislature to attach another part of Washington County to Monroe County and to organize Monroe into a separate county. The act went into effect on March 1, 1815, which was when Monroe began to formally function as a county. Residents named the county in honor of James Monroe, who at the time was U.S. Secretary of State and eventually became the fourth President of the United States. However, the official bicentennial celebration begins this month since the first Monroe County officials were elected in April of 1815. I congratulate the citizens of Monroe County and all who are involved in planning the yearlong celebration, which will feature a variety of events recognizing 200 years of history and heritage throughout Monroe County.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express strong support for the underlying bill and also my appreciation to the managers of the bill for including the en bloc amendments. One I offered is entitled the ``Ensuring a Better Response for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking,'' part of a larger bill we passed last year. This one ensures all children who are sex-trafficked will be classified as child abuse victims for purposes of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Currently, sex trafficking of a minor is not considered child abuse unless a parent or caregiver was directly involved in the child's exploitation. This amendment clarifies that a child victim of sex trafficking is a victim of child abuse and, therefore, can be eligible for the services as they recover. Over the past couple of days, we have made some great progress, including putting aside partisan divides in coming together to combat human trafficking, a heinous criminal industry that all of us want to stop. I am proud my bringing missing children home legislation with Senator Schumer, as well as my Combat Human Trafficking Act with Senator Feinstein is on the floor and have been included in the underlying bill. We have made a lot of progress, and we are a few steps closer to actually ending trafficking for once and for all. I particularly congratulate Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar for their hard work in bringing this to the floor and doing something important to fight human trafficking.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation that this afternoon the Senate is finally getting back to legislating on the important issue of human trafficking. It is critical we pass this legislation to combat one of the world's most heinous crimes and one that threatens thousands of innocent people every year. I am the cochair and cofounder of the human trafficking caucus. Our opportunity is not only to raise awareness of this issue but also to pass important legislation to address the problem. We learned that human trafficking is now a $32 billion worldwide industry, leaving it only second in size to the drug trade for criminal activity. Many view this as an international problem. They think, well, this happens somewhere else or on another continent, such as Africa or Asia. The fact is it happens right here. Of course, every country around the world has a responsibility to fight back against traffickers and stop their acts of violence. But while this industry has a global reach, the reality is that human trafficking is a major problem not only in my home State of Ohio, it is a problem in every State represented in the Senate. The Justice Department has told us that the average age of victims getting involved in trafficking is 12 to 14 years old. Think about that. These are children. These are kids. The number of American children at risk of sexual exploitation and human trafficking is estimated to be about 300,000. These children represent the most vulnerable among us, and we should make sure we are doing everything we possibly can to protect them. Every American life has value and every child deserves a chance to live a bright future. Today, however, we can take comfort in knowing we are fighting back against human traffickers and making it harder for their criminal activity to continue in a couple of different ways, both of which are very important. First, our legislation makes it easier to find some of these vulnerable children. Missing children are particularly vulnerable, and the legislation I am about to talk about enables us to find those children more quickly and helps to get them into a nurturing environment. Second, it will strengthen law enforcement's ability to find and punish those who are committing these crimes. We accomplished the first goal with the Bringing Missing Children Home Act. It is a bill that I authored with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. We know there is a strong connection, unfortunately, between sex trafficking victims and children who have been in and out of the child welfare system. We also understand that kids who are missing or who have run away from home are the most vulnerable to trafficking, exploitation, and abuse. The FBI sting in 2014 recovered 168 sex trafficking victims, and nearly all of them had spent time in the child welfare or foster care system. While many of these children had been reported missing, the information obtained by authorities was not sufficient enough to be able to find them, and that is what this legislation gets at. The Bringing Missing Children Home Act will make it easier to find these children in two different ways. First, it amends the Missing Children's Assistance Act by replacing the term ``child prostitution'' with ``child sex trafficking.'' This reinforces the fact that children who are exploited are victims, not criminals. Secondly, the bill requires law enforcement agencies to update their records of missing children within 30 days of an initial report with additional information that could include medical or dental records or even a photograph. Having this new information, particularly a photograph, is incredibly important when searching for a missing child. I know this because this has been a big problem in my home State of Ohio. We started looking at this legislation and considering this bill on the floor on March 6. Since March 6, 60 children have been reported missing in my home State of Ohio. Yet we only have photographs for 14 of them. It is hard to find these children, and not having that information makes it even more difficult. Our legislation will help to get those photographs and will help ensure that all of us can play a role in helping to find these missing children. The bill also makes it easier for law enforcement officials on the State and local level to coordinate with child welfare services, and it allows missing persons units and State law enforcement agencies to modify and improve missing children's entries to include important information that was uncovered during an investigation. That is not currently the case. It just makes sense to be able to have better records. While we are making it easier to find trafficking victims, we will also make it easier to find and punish perpetrators of these crimes with legislation I have authored with Senator Dianne Feinstein. It is called the Combat Human Trafficking Act and is part of this underlying bill we will also be considering here on the floor. This act focuses on those who commit these crimes. It increases the penalties for those who buy acts from sex trafficking victims. It requires new training by the Justice Department on targeting. It expands reporting on trafficking prosecutions and strengthens victims' rights. A lot of this comes out of what we have learned over the past decade since we have really taken up this issue at the Federal level. It improves Federal law to take into account the information we now know. Through better enforcement of laws against buyers, we will be able to reduce the demand for sexual exploitation and ensure that criminals are prosecuted to the full extent, preventing further trafficking crimes from ever happening. As the cochair of the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking, it has been a priority of mine to get this legislation passed in an effort to help victims of trafficking and to prevent the number of victims from increasing. I also hope we can add an amendment I authored entitled ``Ensuring a Better Response for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking.'' This amendment contains a piece of legislation I authored last year with Senator Wyden of Oregon called the Sex Trafficking Data and Response Act. It will help improve the information law enforcement officials have about the scope of the trafficking problem. This was signed into law last year, but there is additional information we would like to provide in terms of getting the response part of that bill passed. The bills I have spoken about are important steps to one day ending human trafficking and putting this horrible industry out of business altogether. Trafficking deserves no place in America. I thank Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and others for their hard work on this legislation I have talked about. I would also like to express how grateful I am that Members of this Chamber were able to put partisanship behind us, politics aside, and reach common ground to move forward on this important issue. Ending human trafficking is clearly a bipartisan goal. It is a nonpartisan goal. It is something on which we should come together. The legislation we have before us today will make a profound impact on so many Americans, including some of the most vulnerable. I am happy to see we are a little closer to having these bills become law. I think they will become law once they pass this Chamber, go through the House, and are signed by the President. We still have a lot of work to do. This is just a start. After today, the fight to combat human trafficking will be far from over. Somewhere in America, there will still be children looking to be found, wondering if anybody cares, despite our legislation. Today's legislation will make it easier to find them, but it is still up to all of us. All of us have a role in helping to keep these children from going missing in the first place and then finding and providing them with a nurturing setting and a home where they are embraced and where they can be taken away from the stress of human trafficking and sex trafficking. There will always be traffickers looking to exploit the vulnerable. We know that. But today, if we pass this legislation, we will be sending a warning to those who commit these heinous crimes. As long as you are a perpetrator or an accomplice to human trafficking--folks will know that law enforcement is going to do what it takes to track them down and to punish them. I am glad we have been able to find common ground again and move a little closer to making these positive changes a reality. I am hopeful that we will be able to vote on this today and tomorrow, move this to the House, get it through to the President, and indeed begin to make a difference to my constituents in Ohio and around the country. With that, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the retirement of Jim Scott after nearly 50 years as Cincinnati's familiar voice of morning radio. Jim Scott began his Cincinnati radio career in 1968 as morning show host for the iconic pop radio station 1360 WSAI-AM in Price Hill. He joined 700 WLW in 1984 and for 45 years, Jim has been the familiar voice of morning radio. During his morning time slot from 5am to 9am, Jim interviewed countless dignitaries and celebrity newsmakers from Presidents and civic leaders to top movie stars and sports figures. He routinely talked with news correspondents from around the globe, including those reporting at the White House and from posts in London to Baghdad. Jim is a true public servant and an inspiration to us all. He has been a long-time volunteer leader of the Greater Cincinnati United Way and has served on many boards, including the Wellness Community, Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, the March of Dimes, and Big Brothers and Big Sisters. A stalwart volunteer, Jim is Cincinnati's voice of volunteerism; whether he's hosting Marty & Joe night at the Great American Ballpark, serving as emcee for your favorite animal shelter or welcoming Presidents and foreign dignitaries to the Queen City. Jim has been recognized with many awards, including the Silver Medal of the Cincinnati Ad Club, and the Neil H. McElroy Award from the United Way. In 1996 and 2000, the U.S. Olympic Committee named Jim ``A Community Hero'' and he was thrilled to be a torchbearer in the Olympic Torch Relay. Jim Scott has dominated morning show ratings in every decade since the 1970s and was the winner of the 2002 Marconi Award for Large Market Radio Personality of the Year. In 2013, the Cincinnati Enquirer named Jim the No. 1 radio personality of the past 40 years. Jim Scott will remain on air until his ``favorite day of the year,'' Cincinnati Reds Opening Day on April 6, 2015, when he'll walk in the Findlay Market Opening Day Parade to say thank you to his fans who have supported him throughout his career. Thank you, Jim Scott. Your daily ``good morning and thanks for listening'' greeting will be missed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, in the interests of moving the human trafficking bill forward and with the understanding that these amendments could be offered later in the process, I withdraw my amendment No. 271.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, in addition, I withdraw my amendment No. 270.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment that calls for prioritizing the investments to tackle a very important issue for our cities and towns across our country, especially those hardest hit by the housing crisis. Main Streets, unfortunately, across our country have become littered with abandoned and blighted properties. In Ohio, there are about 80,000 of these abandoned home; hundreds of thousands, of course, across the country. I have had the opportunity to walk the streets in some of our cities in Ohio with some of our farsighted mayors who are tackling this issue. They are looking for a little bit of help. I have been in Warren, OH, Toledo, OH, and Lima, OH. When you walk these streets and talk to the people in the neighborhoods, they let you know how they are feeling about this. They don't like these blighted properties, in part, because it reduces the home values for the whole neighborhood. In fact, there is some evidence out there that these blighted properties can cost neighbors up to 80 percent of their home value. So one of the best things you can do for tumbling home values in America right now in struggling neighborhoods is demolish these abandoned properties. Second, and this is very important, they become magnets for crime, for arson, and for other dangerous activities that put neighbors at risk. It puts first responders at risk. There are stories around the country. Unfortunately, in my home State of Ohio, some first responders, firefighters, have gone to a fire in an abandoned structure, actually been injured, and in one case lost their life. This is something neighbors feel strongly about. When I was in Toledo, with the mayor of Toledo, observing one of the demolitions--it was a house that was about 10 feet away from a neighboring home. The mother was there with some of her young children, and she said: Thank goodness this is happening, because every night I go to sleep I put my head on my pillow praying that the house next door is not going to be subject to the arson attacks that have happened in the city of Toledo in these abandoned structures and praying that my children are not going to be injured by an arson next door to me. It is critical that we provide this help. Land banks in these areas have done a terrific job. Cleveland, in particular, I will hold up as doing a great job. But in States like mine and in other manufacturing States--Florida, Michigan, and other States around the country--these land banks are doing the best they can, but they need additional resources to demolish many of these properties in order to help struggling neighborhoods recover. This has been a bipartisan issue. We have been able to direct some funding there, including from the hardest hit funds. I want to continue to make progress because it is so important, again, for our neighborhoods and for the safety of those people who live in these neighborhoods that are affected most directly by abandoned homes. I hope we can get some votes from both sides of the aisle for this amendment today and make it clear to those local officials across our country, and to those neighbors in these communities, that we are going to do what we can to help provide the resources to be able to deal with these blighted and abandoned structures. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, committees be allowed to file bills and reports on Tuesday, March 31, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 noon.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 125, S. Res. 126, S. Res. 127, S. Res. 128, and S. Res. 129.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, where applicable, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 10, which was received from the House.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, except for the Funkhouser, Jackson, and Savre nominations, 73, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service, Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, April 13, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 23; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without any intervening action or debate on the nomination; that following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 105 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives a veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 8, the message be considered as having been read, that it be printed in the Record, and spread in full upon the Journal, and held at the desk; and that the Senate proceed to its consideration at a time to be determined by the majority leader with the concurrence of the Democratic leader but no later than April 30, 2015.