Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Anomatic Corporation as it celebrates its 50th anniversary of supplying anodized aluminum to companies around the world. Anomatic was founded in 1965 by William Rusch when he developed an idea for a continuous motion machine for anodizing aluminum. Today, Scott Rusch and his brother William B. Rusch continue the legacy their father started 50 years ago. The company is headquartered in New Albany, OH, with manufacturing facilities in Newark, OH and around the world. Anomatic creates products in the fields of automotive, beauty and personal care, consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and spirits. Anomatic's in-house capabilities include full package design, high volume anodizing, rapid 3D prototyping, metal stamping, screen printing, double anodizing, laser engraving, and assembly. Anomatic also features the world's largest anodizing capacity, producing more than 1 billion units last year alone. I have had the opportunity to work on issues important to the growth of Anomatic and its employees and look forward to the company's future expansion in Ohio. I congratulate Anomatic Corporation and everyone involved in making its first 50 years a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the Licking County Chamber of Commerce as it celebrates its 100th anniversary of service to the residents of Licking County and to the State of Ohio. The chamber supports around 1,000 businesses of all sizes throughout the county and strives to enhance the quality of life in the region. The chamber was initially created ``to advance the economic well- being of the area and its citizens'' and it continues to do so today. The organization focuses on growth opportunities and advocacy for its members so that businesses may have a positive impact on the community. The chamber has helped Licking County build a vibrant workforce, pro business attitude, robust infrastructure, and great industrial parks like the Central Ohio Aerospace and Technology Center campus. These efforts have helped the chamber achieve numerous successes, including an accreditation through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I have had the opportunity to work directly with the chamber during my time in the Senate, and have seen firsthand its commitment to economic development and serving the business community. I congratulate the Licking County Chamber of Commerce and all who were involved in making its first 100 years a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Texas. I thank him for his leadership on this legislation, along with Senator Klobuchar and others, in bringing this to the floor. Senator Grassley, the chair of the committee, is with us. I appreciate the fact that these two bills which we have worked on over the last few years are included in the legislation the Senator mentioned. Sadly, some of the most vulnerable youth are those who are missing or are in foster care, kids who end up being, unfortunately, exposed to human trafficking, sometimes sexual trafficking. So the idea of the missing children legislation is really very simple. It says: Let's help find these children as quickly as possible by having better information on them. I will give one example of that. In Ohio we have had 71 kids who have gone missing since January 1. These are 71 children who are out there somewhere--minors. For those 71 children, we only have 22 photographs. This is since January 1. One thing this legislation does is it says: Let's get the data, including photographs, so all of us can have an opportunity to find these young people before they become subject to human trafficking. In Ohio we, unfortunately, have this issue in all of our regions, including in some of our smaller communities as well as our bigger urban centers where we have sex trafficking. They say the average age of children who are getting involved in this is between 11 and 13 years old. We have talked a lot on the floor over the last several days. I have been out here talking about these issues. These are the most vulnerable among us. These are crimes against children. This is in the bill, and if we can pass this legislation, getting this additional information and better awareness and training of child welfare agency officials and better training for law enforcement is all part of this. The other legislation the Senator mentioned is about increasing the penalties on those who are involved in trafficking. That is important because we haven't had a major bill on this for 15 years, and we have learned a lot in this process. What we have learned is there are better ways to give prosecutors and other law enforcement the tools they need to be able to take these cases, prosecute them, and stop this heinous crime. There are some really good provisions in this legislation that I have worked on, on a bipartisan basis. As was said, one is with Senator Feinstein with regard to increasing the penalties, and the other piece of legislation is with Senator Schumer on bringing children home. There are also a couple of amendments we would love to offer. In fact, we offered them, but we haven't been able to get votes on them because this week we haven't moved forward on the legislation. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow us to move forward with the process. Let's go ahead and start having votes. There might be disagreements on some parts of the bill. I thought because it had gotten out of committee by a unanimous vote that there wouldn't be disagreements, but if there are, let's have that discussion and debate. Let's not let the most vulnerable among us wait for us to work this out. Let's move forward on this legislation in a way that allows everybody to have their views heard. Some of the legislation I talked about comes out of meeting with folks back home on this issue and talking to victims who have been through this horrible process and gone through the very difficult process of recovering from it. Some of the amendments we are going to offer would help with regard to that issue, help to respond to these young people--often children--who are involved in this. It also comes out of the work that has been done right here in the Senate through a caucus we formed about 2\1/2\ years ago. Senator Blumenthal and I cofounded this caucus, we cochair it, and we meet every month and bring people in from around the country who are experts on this issue. Some are experts on child welfare, law enforcement, people who are involved in trying to stop this. Others are experts because, unfortunately, they found themselves in very difficult situations. Among others, some have come forward and talked about how as a young girl they were taken in by a trafficker. Increasingly--this is true in Ohio, unfortunately--drug abuse is part of this, so they become dependent on the trafficker. It is, to me, a form of bondage because these are young people who become addicted. In Ohio it is typically heroin now. So it is keeping these young people trapped in this dependency. The drug treatment and the drug recovery are tough, but so is the recovery from having been trafficked. This is an opportunity for us to take the information we have received through this caucus we have formed. I think the Members who are involved in that caucus, including the Members here today, would agree it has been a good experience for our staff and for us to raise the awareness and consciousness on this issue. Now we have taken some of this information and put it in this legislation. Let's get it passed. We will have plenty of time for politics around here, trust me. We will have lots of that next week and the week after and over the next couple years. That is part of the process; we understand that. But there are certain issues where we should be able to move forward on not a bipartisan basis but I would say on a nonpartisan basis, and this is one of them. I thank my colleague from Texas for allowing me to speak briefly and my colleagues from South Dakota and Illinois who are here to talk about this issue. My hope is that even today we can begin the process of having votes, moving forward with amendments, and getting this good work done to help the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple of amendments on the legislation that we are considering this week, which is the human trafficking legislation. Up to this point, this has been a bipartisan exercise. In fact, Senator Blumenthal, the Senator from Connecticut, and I started a caucus here in the Senate on human trafficking about 3\1/2\ years ago, understanding that there was an increasing concern and awareness about this issue around the country, and we wanted to bring colleagues together to talk about the issue. We now have many other Members of the Senate who are a part of that. We had monthly meetings--holding up people who were doing great things around the country--describing the problem so that all of us, Members of the Senate and their staff, understand the seriousness of this issue and why we need to address it. That has always been nonpartisan--not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. I think it is time for us to move forward with this debate and to have these amendments offered and to actually vote on this legislation that would help to deal with this problem all around the country, and unfortunately it is everywhere. Often people think that this is an international issue, that the only human trafficking concern we should have would be in Africa or Asia or other countries. But it actually happens right here, and it happens in my home State of Ohio. I first became involved in this issue when a school outside the city of Toledo came to me and told me their concern about it and how these young people were getting involved and engaged in it. The more we learned, the more I looked into it, and the more I realized this is something which is very real in the communities I represent in Ohio, and unfortunately I believe the same is true in every State represented in this Chamber. We have had an interesting debate so far. Sometimes we have gotten a little sidetracked, such as the issue we saw a moment ago, but for the most part I have been pleased that over the last few days we have talked about the scope of the problem, talked about some of the solutions to it, and we talked about some of the good legislation that is in the underlying bill. There are two pieces of legislation that I offered that are part of the underlying bill, and I am happy about that. They are both bipartisan amendments. There are also a couple of amendments that I think would be helpful for us to include in the legislation. I offered those amendments earlier this week with the hopes that they would have already been considered. They have not been considered yet, but I hope to move forward with this legislation. The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes for us to move forward. I hope we can resolve whatever differences there are and go ahead and start voting on amendments and moving this legislation forward so we can actually help those victims of trafficking who are looking for our support. Again, if we are not going to act here in the Senate and are not going to move this forward in the House and get it to the President for signature-- every day more and more people are in danger, particularly children, of falling into the hands of human traffickers. Amendment No. 270 I have a couple of amendments I wish to talk about briefly today. The first amendment is called Ensuring a Better Response for Victims of Sex Trafficking. This amendment contains a piece of the legislation I actually offered a couple of years ago with Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Wyden's legislation and my legislation called the Child Sex Trafficking Data and Response Act was partly enacted into law last year, and that was the data part of the bill--in other words, the part of the bill that relates to how we needed to improve the information we are getting on sex trafficking so we can better address the problem. Law enforcement officials have been looking for better information around the country. They want to know what the best practices are and how to deal with it. It is important to understand the problem in order to come up with solutions. Now we need to get to the second part of the legislation that was not enacted last year, and that is on the response portion. The amendment does just that. The response portion of the bill changes the way we treat victims of sex trafficking. Right now many of these victims are falling between the cracks. Currently children are only eligible for help through the child welfare system if they are abused by their parents. Currently, because children are only allowed to be eligible for help in that category, some kids just cannot get the help they need. This legislation ensures that all children who are trafficked are considered victims of sexual abuse and can be eligible for services as they go through what is sometimes a long and arduous process of recovery. Amendment No. 271 The second amendment I wish to include gets at some of the underlying problems that make it more likely that a child will be trafficked. We heard a lot about this on the floor the last couple of days. I have talked about it in terms of our missing children. One of the elements of the underlying bill is a bill we put forward in the last couple of years on how to identify missing children. Why? Because those children who are runaways or go missing tend to be some of the most vulnerable to sex traffickers. So the idea is to get the best information we can on those kids as soon as possible so we can find them. As an example, there have been about 67 kids who have gone missing in Ohio in the last month and a half. Yet we only have records for, I believe, 26 kids in terms of photographs. This legislation would require photographs for all of these kids so that the kids who are not currently able to be found because we can't find a photograph of them can be more easily found--not just by law enforcement but by citizens who are being vigilant and diligent. There is another issue, too, and it is something that is addressed in this amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Feinstein. The first one is one from a Wyden-Portman amendment, and this is from a Feinstein-Portman amendment. These are bipartisan bills. It currently is true that there is an over-narrow definition of ``homelessness'' by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that does not enable homeless kids to get the help they need. That is current law. We are trying to change that to ensure that we can expand that definition to include the kinds of children who unfortunately many times are vulnerable to trafficking. I will give an example of the scope of this problem. During this last school year--2 years ago, 2012 to 2013--there were 24,236 kids in Ohio who were homeless at one point during the school year; however, the Federal Department responsible for preventing child homelessness counted only 4,700 cases. So we have over 24,000 kids who are homeless; yet this Department says only 4,700. In other words, the very program meant to help these kids undercounted by a factor of five. So the amendment simply updates the definition of ``homelessness'' to ensure that these kids are not forgotten and do not fall between the cracks. We know this action alone will not end child homelessness, but it will help deal with this problem and will help to put a roof over their heads, for thousands of these kids and their families, and prevent some of the long-term emotional, developmental effects that are caused by homelessness, as well as keep these kids off the streets and hopefully away from these traffickers so they are not vulnerable, as I said, to being sex-trafficked. We hope for a day when every single child in America is protected, when every child is able to follow their dreams and can live in a home with a family who is protecting and watching over them. We know that if we are going to see that hope realized, we have to fight for it. In the meantime, we have important work to do here on the floor of the Senate to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect these kids. These two amendments will help make this underlying legislation even stronger. I hope my colleagues will support both of them. Again, I hope we can now get over whatever is holding up movement on these amendments, get the amendments enacted into law, and get the bill over to the House of Representatives. And I believe they will pass it and get it to the President for his signature so we can indeed begin to address this horrific practice of human trafficking. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I call up my amendment No. 271.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the homeless and youth amendment I spoke about a moment ago. I thank everyone for their indulgence. I am pleased to have these amendments offered, and we will have an opportunity to speak on these amendments and another amendment I plan to offer later. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 271.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the underlying legislation we are considering on the floor today. This is the most significant antitrafficking legislation to come before the Senate in over a decade. As I said earlier when I offered a couple of amendments, I am very pleased to be in this body on a nonpartisan basis, not just a bipartisan basis, to be able to address this issue, and I would like to thank the Senators who have worked hard in their committees to make that possible. I thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar for their work. I see Senator Wyden is here, Senator Leahy is here, Senator Grassley is here, and others who have been involved with this. They and their staffs are to be commended. It has been a good process. It is an issue a lot of us care about. Why? Because it is one that affects our States and our constituents in very significant ways. Last year I cofounded and I now cochair the Caucus on Human Trafficking with Senator Blumenthal, and we have had a number of good meetings and conferences here on the Hill bringing experts together and raising awareness of this issue. Unfortunately, this horrible crime affects every single part of our country. In Ohio this came to my attention initially because in parts of Ohio, along the I-75 corridor, particularly in Toledo, there were higher incidences of prosecutions of human trafficking. A school group actually brought this to my attention several years ago. The more we looked into it, the more we realized that this affects so many of our constituents, and it particularly affects the most vulnerable in our society--children, runaways, the missing. In the greatest country on the face of the Earth, almost 300,000 of our American children are at risk of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, more than 1,000 each year in Ohio alone. In 2000 I did support the last major bill that directly addressed this growing problem of human trafficking. It was called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And I supported the reauthorization in 2011. But since that time we have learned a lot more about the problem. We now know more about how to eradicate what is really a modern form of slavery. Our new legislation, which is called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, builds on what we know works, and it strengthens protections for the victims. I would like to take a moment, if I could, to talk about two of the bills that are contained within this underlying legislation that are the product of a lot of bipartisan work that exemplifies some of the finest traditions of this body. The first is the Bringing Missing Children Home Act. The Bringing Missing Children Home Act is something I coauthored with Senator Schumer on the other side of the aisle, and we did it because we know there is unfortunately a strong correlation between victims of sex trafficking and children who have recently been in and out of the child welfare system. We also know that children who have run away or who are missing are the most vulnerable to being abused, trafficked, and exploited. In 2014 an FBI sting recovered 168 children who were victims of sex trafficking. Nearly each one of those children--nearly all of them had been involved in some kind of foster care or the child welfare system. Many of them had been reported missing--by the way, with insufficient information to find them. It is a strong correlation, and it is one that any effort to stop human trafficking must also address. That is what my legislation does. The Bringing Missing Children Home Act strengthens law enforcement reporting and response procedures, making it easier to communicate and work with child welfare agencies. It accomplishes this in a number of ways. First, it amends the current Missing Children's Assistance Act so that Federal law makes clear that children who are trafficked or sexually exploited are treated as victims and not as criminals. You will hear this in this debate, and this is one of the great underlying aspects of this legislation, we are changing the way we look at this, to understand that there is simply no such thing as a child prostitute. Second, this legislation requires law enforcement to update their records of missing children within 30 days with all the relevant information obtained during the initial investigation. This is very important because this new information will allow us to find these children more easily and more quickly, to avoid them falling into the trap of sexual trafficking and traffickers. Specifically, the bill requires new dental and medical records, as well as photograph, if available. For almost all of these children, there is a photograph available if you take the time to try to find it. I can't stress this last part enough. It is so hard to find these kids, and without having a photograph, it is made much more difficult. Yet in most instances we apparently don't. We tracked this in Ohio. Let me give an interesting statistic. Since January 1 of this year there have been 87 children reported missing in the State of Ohio--87 kids. We only have photographs for 21 of them, so for 66 of these young people we have no photographs. It is tough to find them when you don't know what they look like. This bill will help change that. Third, it requires law enforcement to work directly with State and local child welfare systems after someone is reported missing so that all the relevant information can be obtained as quickly as possible. Finally, it removes all the roadblocks that prevent State attorneys general from modifying records in the National Crime Information Center. We want these records to be updated constantly as new information is provided. To put it simply, we think it is a commonsense bill that streamlines how missing children cases are handled. It makes it easier to share information that could lead to recovery. The second bill I wish to talk about that is part of this underlying legislation is called the Combat Human Trafficking Act which I coauthored with Senator Feinstein. The Bringing Missing Children Home Act is about helping victims. This legislation, the Combat Human Trafficking Act, is about punishing the traffickers. We start by giving prosecutors expanded tools to put traffickers behind bars. Our legislation enlarges the number of charges Federal prosecutors can level against traffickers and those who conspire with them. It also makes those engaged in trafficking strictly liable for their crimes. We also expand the training available for our Federal law enforcement tasked with investigating and prosecuting traffickers, and we require that the Bureau of Justice Statistics prepare an annual report detailing our success in this fight. Just as importantly, this bill strengthens victims' rights by providing more information to victims on ongoing prosecutions, requiring them to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreements or prosecution agreements in cases in which they are involved. The legislation we are considering passed out of the committee unanimously for a reason. There are things that do divide us in this place. We talk about those a lot, and everybody reads and hears about them. But this is an exception. This is about bringing us together, in this case to protect our kids from human trafficking. Human traffickers and sexual trafficking are issues on which we should not have any divide. This is legislation both Republicans and Democrats can enthusiastically support. Earlier today I joined with some of my colleagues in introducing some amendments to the legislation because although I support the underlying bill--it is a good bill--it can be made even better, and I am looking forward to the debate. In the process, I hope we will raise awareness about the issue, raise consciousness about the issue not just among our colleagues and around Capitol Hill but around the country because ultimately, if we are going to solve this problem in our communities, everyone needs to be part of it, everyone needs to be vigilant, and everyone needs to understand that this happens in your community, it happens in your State, and it happens, unfortunately, in our country. If we can raise awareness about this wicked practice of human trafficking and sex trafficking, that would do a lot to try to curb it, to reduce it, and eventually to stop it. This is what we came to Washington to do--to pass legislation that actually helps back home. With this legislation, we can stand together to protect the most innocent among us from the most heinous of crimes. I thank you the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the amendment I spoke about a moment ago to ensure a better response for victims of child sex trafficking. Amendment No. 271

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer has other places to be, and I am going to be presiding in the chair in a moment. I will not offer amendments because my understanding is that even though we are on the bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want me to offer noncontroversial amendments. So I will wait until they are ready for that just to keep the peace on the floor, but I will talk about the amendments because they are incredibly important to the underlying legislation. We are talking about the human trafficking legislation. This is something that as cochair and cofounder of the Human Trafficking Caucus, as a father, and as someone who represents the citizens of Ohio, who are directly affected by this, I have a strong interest. I am delighted the Senate is taking up this legislation. I do hope it will be not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. I do not see any reason for it not to move forward in the Senate, changing some of these laws that are in desperate need of changing to ensure that this horrific practice of human trafficking and sex trafficking can be curbed. It can be minimized by legislation that this Chamber should have taken up, in my view, some time ago. We really haven't been at this subject for a decade. We know a lot more about the problem now. We know, unfortunately, that about 300,000 of our youth are subject to human trafficking--about 1,000 in my home State of Ohio alone. The amendments I will offer--once someone on this side comes to the floor who will allow me to offer them--have to do with human trafficking in the broadest sense. The first amendment has to do with those people who are, unfortunately, trapped in sex trafficking being treated not as criminals but as victims and with ensuring that those victims get the proper care they need and the help to be able to get back on their feet. These are young people--we are told many times--who are between the ages of 11 and 13 when they are first exposed to human trafficking, in this case sex trafficking. In fact, that is the average age, we are told. Having talked to some of the victims at home, having talked to some of those who are in the trenches working, trying to help these young women, girls, young men, and boys, this legislation is badly needed to ensure we are looking at this--not again as a criminal matter but--as victims who deserve our support. Specifically, it requires that every State put together a plan to improve child protection services--containing, among other things, provisions and procedures requiring identification and assessments of all reports involving children known or to be suspected victims of sex trafficking--with better information and better data, a description of efforts to coordinate State law enforcement, child welfare agencies, and juvenile justice agencies such as runaway and homeless youth shelters to help serve these victims. Finally, this legislation calls for an annual State report on the number of children identified as known or suspected to be a victim of sex trafficking. The other amendment I am going to offer will be an amendment with regard to homeless children and youth. As has been discussed on this floor before, the HUD definition of homelessness practically excludes the most common situations for families and unaccompanied youths--and that would be staying in motels or temporarily with others because there is no place else for them to stay. Even if local communities identified these families or youth as having the most pressing unmet needs, communities can't use the HUD homeless assistance funds to serve them except in extremely limited or near-impossible conditions. This is related to human trafficking and also to sex trafficking in that, unfortunately, many of these young people involved in these situations--where they are homeless, where they are not on the street but are going from house to house or perhaps staying in a motel--are targeted by these traffickers. I believe these two amendments, which are not only bipartisan--and they are; I have support on both sides of the aisle--but are also nonpartisan and are ones that would be appropriate to include in the legislation. At the appropriate time I will offer those amendments.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 270.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish I could rise today to talk about the underlying legislation we are supposed to be talking about, which is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and also address the President's Executive order on immigration, which went around the Congress but also went around the American people. A judge in Texas agrees with those of us on this side of the aisle who look at this as an illegal act. Instead, the President ought to work with us. The President should work with the House and the Senate and the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass a law to help fix what is broken in our immigration system. We are not able to get on that legislation, and it is not because we have differences about the bill that we could talk about. We could have votes on amendments and debate this issue, but there are those on the other side of the aisle who have decided they don't even want us to have the opportunity to hash out those differences so we can vote. I think the constituents I represent in Ohio expect us to have that debate, and they want us to have that debate. I hope those on the other side of the aisle will let us have that debate, and we could have a good, honest discussion about this and address both of these problems-- the need to fund the Department and also the need to address this Executive order. I think it is another example where Washington has let down the people I represent. In the meantime, this is no time for political games. It is a dangerous world. We have a real problem, not just here at home in protecting the homeland, but also with fires burning all around the world. It is time we showed some leadership both here in this Chamber and down the street at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is time for Presidential leadership. If you turn on the TV tonight, what you will see is those fires burning. You will see a world more dangerous than the one we had after 9/11. You will see threats to the United States and our allies that seem to grow with every passing day. But even as these threats grow, it seems as though our President is increasingly hesitant to lead. Iran, despite the platitudes of the Obama administration, which seems really eager to find an agreement and make a deal, continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons. ISIS, the group the President once described as the JV team when they were in Iraq flying the black flag of Islam extremism over cities such as Fallujah and Mosul, cities where American marines gave their lives to liberate--the President called them the JV team. Russian soldiers now move freely through eastern Ukraine, and the separatists there are using Russian equipment, they are trained by the Russian military, led by Russian special forces, and they continue to wage war on an American ally, Ukraine. While we all hoped the recent cease-fire would hold, all indications are that Russia and its proxies are taking advantage of that cease-fire in Ukraine to continue their aggression. Across Europe--in France, Denmark, and Belgian--innocent people have been murdered. Some were murdered for opposing terrorists aims, and some for the simple fact they are Jewish. These attacks are not random, as has been suggested by the administration. Unfortunately, they are designed to incite fear and weaken our resolve to oppose Islamic terrorism wherever we find it. We must not allow them to succeed any more than we must stand silent in the face of Iranian threats and Russian aggression. What we must do is take a long, hard look at how we got here and what we must do going forward to change the situation. In my view, a lot of the chaos we are seeing across the globe stems from a lack of leadership. Into that void, chaos ensues. The defining themes in the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy have been a preference for disengagement and an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility of global leadership the way previous Presidents-- Democrat and Republican alike--have done. As the administration itself has said, they prefer to lead from behind. The President has said that ``the trajectory of this planet overall is one toward less violence, more tolerance.'' I don't know about that. I don't think history moves inexorably toward more justice and more peace. These trajectories don't just happen, people make them happen. Leadership is the key. When America is strong, when we stand unequivocally for freedom and justice and the right of all people to choose their own destiny, when we do not back down in the face of threats and intimidation, that is when we see a world that is more stable, less dangerous, and more free. More wars, more conflicts, more threats to our security--these don't typically arise from American strength. They arise from American weakness. When we look around the world--whether it is in Gaza or Eastern Europe or Iraq or Iran or Syria, the increase in violence and instability has coincided with the growing perception that the United States of America is either unwilling or unable to take a stand against threats to international security and stability. Addressing these complex challenges--and many of them are very complex--requires a sustained and proactive American leadership role and American engagement. It requires strategies that seek to shape outcomes, not be shaped by them. There is a lot at stake. Events in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere are a direct challenge to the United States-led international order, which has led to unprecedented global prosperity and stability for both the United States and for the world. Confidence in America's willingness to use our unmatched economic, political, and military capabilities to uphold our system deters potential challengers and incentivizes other countries to play by the rules, which reduces the chances of war. If the credibility of this commitment is in doubt, then the stability and openness upon which U.S. economic prosperity and national security depend is jeopardized and the chance for violence, instability, and economic collapse increases. The world is watching. They are watching to see whether this American-led order can withstand these challenges or if we really are entering into a period of the post-American world. In Ukraine, the administration's response has been incomplete, reactionary, and ineffective. There are many political and economic dimensions of this conflict, and Ukraine needs Western support to implement crucial reforms in these areas. But there is also a military dimension to this crisis that we cannot continue to ignore. Sanctions alone have not worked. The so-called cease-fire agreements have not worked. As President Obama, Angela Merkel, and Francois Hollande debate and discuss cease-fires and timelines, Russia is deciding the outcome on the ground in eastern Ukraine this afternoon as we talk. Unless we help provide Ukraine with the tools they need to prevent that from happening, any future agreements will only solidify this reality. Let's allow them to defend themselves. Russia continues to believe that military force is a viable option to achieve its goals, and unless the United States and its European allies and NATO help the Ukrainians prove otherwise, this behavior is unlikely to change. It is well known by now that the President has refused to adopt policies that actually provide Ukraine with the capabilities it needs. A bipartisan coalition, on the other hand, has emerged here in Congress on the need to do more, and we will continue to advocate for a change in course and pursuit of a proactive, comprehensive strategy that actually works. In the Middle East, proactive American leadership requires upholding our commitment to stand unequivocally with Israel. No other nation in the world would be expected to put up with tunnels into their cities with rockets raining down on people's homes. The press got it wrong last year, and with all due respect, I believe the President got it wrong too. There is no moral equivalence in Gaza. I have made a few trips to Israel. I met with their people. I have walked the streets of Sderot and have seen the remains of missiles that were targeted against innocents with hatred and an intent to kill and maim. I have been out to the bomb shelters and the indoor fortified playgrounds built so children can have a chance to play without fear. I have spent time with an Iron Dome battery crew outside Ashkelon. I can tell you this: From what I have learned, the people of Israel want peace. Unfortunately, we know the biggest winner from this administration's wavering support of Israel is Iran. Iran continues to stall on negotiations meant to end their nuclear weapons program. They continue to ask for more time, and the administration continues to grant it. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to the United States next week to speak of the threat that Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world, and the President seems to be too busy to meet with him. Truly, the world has turned upside down. A key test of U.S. leadership is ensuring that Iran does not retain nuclear capability in their continued march toward weaponization. If it were in my power, I would put the Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill--of which I am an original cosponsor--here on the floor on the Senate today, and, by the way, it would pass. I believe it would pass with over 60 votes because Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that Iran will not negotiate in good faith unless the United States is unequivocal in our commitment to ending the nuclear threat Iran poses. You will recall that this legislation does not impose new sanctions that would be imposed now. These sanctions would be imposed if the Iranians do not agree to halt their nuclear weapons program as required, by the way, by the United Nations. These are leveraged for the White House, and the White House should use that leverage. American leadership is needed for a more stable and peaceful world. I believe the future does not belong to bigotry and hate, but to freedom- loving people of the world, and the United States of America must lead the way.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 245

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator from New Hampshire said it well. This is a no-brainer. It is three relatively small provisions, one of which is very timely with regard to water heaters, about which we are very concerned. I ask that we move on this amendment in a bipartisan way. It has already passed the House, so it shouldn't be controversial over there either. We hope we will be able to bring the larger legislation to the floor in the future, but this is a good downpayment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Murkowski for giving me this opportunity. She spoke earlier about the fact that we are going to talk about Keystone in an open process, going to allow amendments, which seems very normal, but in the Senate it hasn't been over the past several years. This amendment is one that results to energy efficiency. I strongly support the underlying bill, and we will talk about it in a moment, but I also support the strategy of saying let's produce more energy, but also let's use the energy that we have more efficiently. I believe those are complementary, and I believe it is consistent with creating more jobs in this country, making our businesses more competitive, and improving the environment. So I appreciate her willingness to allow us to move forward with this amendment. This energy efficiency amendment we are talking about is a key part of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy that a lot of us discuss, whether it is nuclear, renewable, oil, coal or gas, efficiency ought to be a part of it. It is an amendment that is the result of a lot of years of work by Senator Shaheen, who was mentioned earlier, myself but also Senator Hoeven, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, and many other Members of this body. Our cosponsors this afternoon are Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, Senator Bennet, Senator Collins, Senator Gardner, and Senator Manchin. This is legislation that is clearly bipartisan and legislation that shouldn't be controversial. It takes part of the broader Portman- Shaheen legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives and brings it to the floor. This is also legislation that has passed the committees in the Senate and the committees in the House--energy committees--with wide bipartisan margins. Also, it was on the floor of the House last year and passed with a vote of 375 to 76, including with the support of the Presiding Officer. I thank the Presiding Officer. There are four provisions and they are all pretty straightforward. None of them has a mandate, none of them has a cost curve. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has told us they don't score. All of them are voluntary. The first one is an important one. It is called Tenant Star. It establishes a voluntary market-driven approach to try and align the interests of commercial business owners and their tenants. This is important because a lot of the real estate folks would like to have the ability to say this has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. It is like an Energy Star seal of approval that enables people to know it is an energy-efficient building. This is broadly supported in part because it is voluntary. It is not a mandate, but it will help us in reducing energy consumption. The second provision is one that is very timely. This is one that a lot of us have worked on over the years. Senator Hoeven has talked about this. We talk sometimes in the Senate about the unintended consequences of regulations. This would be a great example. Here we have the Department of Energy promoting a regulation that if we don't stop it now will actually make our country less energy efficient. It is unintended, perhaps, but it is something we need to deal with legislatively now. If we don't, then we are not going to be able to help save these particular products, which are water heaters. Around the country there are hundreds of electric cooperatives that operate voluntary programs and use what we call electric resistance water heaters. They use them to store energy at night, and then during a peak demand period they don't have to turn on these electric water heaters. So it is actually an energy efficiency effort. It is the kind of grassroots, on-the-ground innovation we want to see more of. But this regulation that we have to stop--from the Department of Energy--establishes a new standard for water heaters that effectively undermines this program. How? Because it makes it impossible for these companies to produce these kinds of water heaters that the co-ops are using. So the legislation exempts these water heaters from business standards, allowing these co-op programs that are good for energy efficiency to continue. People probably heard from their rural electric co-op--if they are a Member of this body--on this issue because it is important to them that it be handled and handled now. If it is not, then these companies will stop producing these water heaters and they will not be able to continue these programs. The third provision has to do with the Federal Government. Basically it says the Federal Government ought to practice what it preaches. The Federal Government talks a lot about energy efficiency. Yet it is probably the biggest energy user in the world and probably one of the most inefficient. This says simply that Federal agencies have to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, with the Department of Energy, and with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices, measurements, and verifications for the maintenance, purchase, and use of energy-efficient and energy-saving information and technology. IT has been a source of great inefficiency in the government, and this legislation simply says let's require these Federal agencies to actually clean up their act so they will be more energy efficient in the area of information technology. Again, it is a nonpartisan approach. It is one that has been supported by both sides of the aisle. Finally, along the same lines, the fourth provision requires that federally leased buildings without Energy Star labels benchmark and disclose their energy usage data. Again, these are not Federal buildings that have to report this information, but these are buildings that the Federal Government leases. So in effect all of us as taxpayers should have an interest in being sure that these leased buildings also have the energy efficiency provision to avoid wasting taxpayer money. I think these are very important provisions. These are not controversial provisions. I think they are consistent with the idea that, yes, let's produce more energy. Let's make sure we have the infrastructure to bring the energy to the consumer, but let's do it in a way where we are using more energy but also using it more efficiently. I hope we will see the kind of strong bipartisan support on the floor we have seen in the past on these provisions as they are part of this underlying legislation. I would like to talk for a moment about the underlying legislation. This is the Keystone XL Pipeline construction. It seems as if we have been talking about this forever. Frankly, we have. This has been going on for almost 7 years now, I believe. Think about that. This is just to get the approval of the pipeline--not to actually build it. Just to get the approval it has taken 7 years. It is time to stop talking about it and move forward on it. The Keystone XL Pipeline has taken almost 7 years. In comparison, we built the Hoover Dam in less than 5 years. The entire Empire State Building was constructed in 1 year and 45 days. In fact, the entire transcontinental railroad was constructed by hand in 6 years. So there is no reason we shouldn't move ahead on this. We have learned a thing or two about this Keystone XL Pipeline during this period of time we have been debating it, and everything we have learned leads us to the conclusion it just makes sense to move forward. We know we can do it safely. We know we can do it in an environmentally sound way. We know we can create thousands of good jobs during its construction. Yet as we stand here today, with the Keystone XL Pipeline a source of debate rather than a source of jobs, we are not moving the country forward. I think we have waited long enough. There has been debate before. I have heard it over the last couple of days and last week. Is this going to create jobs? Yes, it will. The State Department has said it will. The State Department is in the Obama administration, and they are the ones who tell us it is going to increase our economy by about $3 billion, increase the GDP of America, and also create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction--both through the actual building of the pipeline and through the sourcing of pipeline projects to American manufacturers. By the way, a bunch of those manufacturers are in my home State of Ohio. Ohio produces pipe. Ohio produces the kind of steel--the structural steel--that goes into the construction of the pipeline. Ohio also produces the monitors that go on this pipeline. We also produce other things, such as pumps and compressors. So this will create jobs in my home State of Ohio. I have toured these factories and talked to these workers. They are going to have the opportunity now to roll that steel, build these compressors and so on, and for them this is important too. Some of the critics of the pipeline have attempted to undermine these numbers by claiming the jobs related to the pipeline are not permanent. I don't know what to say about that except are any construction jobs permanent, by that definition? We certainly want construction jobs. This administration--the Obama administration--talks all the time about the need for more infrastructure projects to create more jobs. This is an infrastructure project. By some measure it may be the biggest infrastructure project in America over the next couple of years if we approve this thing. It will create not just jobs but good jobs. This is the kind of work we want to have more of in this country. This is a why a lot of labor unions, including the building trades, are excited about this, because they know it is going to be able to lower unemployment and get the people back to work who have lost their jobs. Others have expressed environmental concerns. Let's look at the facts. Let's look at the science. With every environmental study that has been conducted, the pipeline has passed. In fact, we know the pipeline is safer and more environmentally sound than the alternative. What is the alternative? What is happening now--it is transporting this oil by truck, transporting this oil by train. As we know, and as the CRS report has said, a lot of this oil actually doesn't even come from Canada. It comes from the Bakken. The Bakken is actually in America. It is in North Dakota and in other places. So some of that oil is now being moved by truck and train. It is better that it go by pipeline. It is more efficient, of course, and less costly, but it is also safer environmentally. Let's debate this issue. I am happy to do that, but let's try to stick to the facts. The fact is this thing just makes sense. For those who oppose it, I would ask: Why is it so different from all the other pipelines we have constructed in this country? In all our States we have pipelines. When we build this, it won't be the first pipeline to carry oil across international boundaries, by the way. It won't be the second or the third. It will actually be the 20th--the 20th pipeline to carry energy across international boundaries. It will be the fourth one to import oil--specifically oil from Canada. Just to give some idea of how the permitting process of XL has been, of the three other Canadian pipelines that have been approved, it took the Federal Government 15 months on one, another was 24 months, and another was 28 months. The permitting process for this one--the Keystone XL--has now dragged on for over 76 months and counting. So look, I have heard people on the floor say: What is the rush? Why are we rushing this? I don't think we are rushing. I think this makes sense. Just as we have approved other pipelines, we go through a process, and now we should have the ability to move forward on these jobs and the energy security that it provides. By the way, when this debate is over, we also need to think about our permitting system. To me, this is really an indictment of our entire permitting system in this country. We need to do something about it, where you simply can't get a project approved. And by the way, I am not just talking oil and gas projects. I am talking about other energy projects--solar projects. I am talking about siting windmills. I am talking about hydro projects. I first got involved in this issue because there was a hydro project on the Ohio River, of all places, that was being held up by Federal regulations. The folks who were trying to get this through came and said: We can't believe how complicated it is to get a permit from the Federal Government. As soon as we get one permit from one agency another agency comes in. They require it be done sequentially, and it is taking us forever, and we are losing investors. Those investors are going not just across the Ohio River to another State, they are going to another country because the Federal permitting system is so bad in this country. That is why I intend to introduce bipartisan legislation called the Federal Permitting Improvement Act. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is my cosponsor. We are hoping to bring that to the floor very soon too because the American government shouldn't be standing in the way of good projects, particularly these energy projects that are so important. The American Government shouldn't be standing in the way of good American jobs. That is exactly what is happening. We need to streamline the approval process. It can be done and be done in a bipartisan way. So it comes down to this. We hear a lot about an ``all of the above'' energy strategy in the Senate. Everyone seems to be for it. It is a position the American people support, by the way, overwhelmingly. I have been to the floor many times to express my support for an energy policy that includes everything from nuclear to oil, natural gas, renewables, coal, and of course, increased energy efficiency, as we talked about earlier. We will need all of those if we want to continue to see energy prices fall and to continue to see our reliance on dangerous and unstable parts of the world decline. An ``all of the above'' energy strategy includes the Keystone Pipeline and other projects like it. So if you want to say you support all of the above, you better support Keystone. If you don't support the pipeline, I think you have to explain to the American people why you stood in the way of 40,000 good-paying jobs, why you opposed a project that is more environmentally safe than the alternatives out there now, and you need to explain why you opposed an ``all of the above'' energy strategy that can keep prices low and help secure North American energy independence. That also affects our national security. For us not to be dependent on these volatile and dangerous parts of the world is good for our national security. Let's stop sending the money to the Mideast. Let us keep the money here in North America. Let's stop the delay. Let's make construction of this pipeline a reality. The American people are watching. We have all spent time in our States over the last month. We have all heard over and over again that the American people want us to work together. They want us to cooperate where we can, particularly on issues that relate to jobs and the economy and getting things moving in this country. I think this current legislation can be a model for how the Senate can operate and a sign that we have heard the message the voters sent in November. This final bill will be the model, as I said earlier, of an open process where people can come to the floor to debate, as I have today, and not just on the underlying legislation but on the amendments on energy efficiency. That is good. At the end of this process, it will likely contain some policies that I fully support. And by the way, the final bill will probably contain some policies I don't support, because that is what happens when you have an open process. People will be able to come out here, make their best argument, and people will vote yea or nay, depending on how they feel it affects them, their States, and their constituents. That is what is happening on the Senate floor, and that is a good thing for our country and a good thing for getting to the right policy. When the amendment process is complete, I believe we will have produced a bill that advances this goal of implementing a true ``all of the above'' energy policy, while creating more jobs for the American people and protecting our environment in better ways. That is what we all want, and that is why this legislation is a win for all Americans. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN. I rise and call up amendment No. 3.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am also joined by our colleague from Alaska, the ranking member on the energy committee who will be the chair come January. I want to give her a chance to talk in a moment, but let me state a few things. First, this legislation represents a lot of hard work by a lot of people, including Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who spoke, Senator Shaheen also from New Hampshire, Senator Bennet, and others. It is an example of smart, bipartisan legislation that was worked out with the business community, with folks who are concerned about energy efficiency who are in nonprofits. It has no objection, as far as I know, in the real world; meaning there is no group, not a single group, that has objected to it. On the other hand, there are dozens of people who support it, including business groups, environmental groups, and people who want to have the opportunity on a voluntary basis--no mandates, as the Senator from New Hampshire has said, to be able to know that there is a certification that a building is energy efficient, to be able to have information. Second, I want to make the point that it is part of four provisions, one of which is urgent because it involves a decision we have to make now--tonight--in the Senate in order to keep a regulation from the Department of Energy unfairly imposed on businesses and consumers in America, and this is the water provision. So not only are we objecting to something I don't think anyone objects to in the real world, but also we are blocking something that would be good for our consumers and good for business. Because of our inaction tonight--because we had this objection for reasons we don't know because we have not been able in two nights on the floor to get a reason. All we heard was: We object. No reason. We are stopping the ability for companies to produce water heaters that are then used by rural electric co-ops that are used in an energy- efficient way, because during a peak demand they are turned off. So they could superheat the water and be turned off in peak demand, called demand response. It is an efficiency measure. The regulation doesn't make any sense that bans the production of these water heaters, but it is because of legislation that Congress passed that DOE feels they have to oppose the regulation. So tonight we had the opportunity not only to pass something good on Tenant Star, not only to do other things that are good for the Federal Government to become efficient--the biggest energy user in the world, by the way--but also we have an urgent matter before us; that is, to change this regulation before manufacturers are blocked from producing these water heaters. Rural electric co-ops all over the country are watching tonight, and they are disappointed. Why? Because they use these water heaters, and they use them in an energy-efficient way. They are not going to be able to do that going forward because manufacturers are literally having to stop producing these water heaters because we are not acting. So after the first of the year I hope we will be able to, in regular order, take this forward, and hopefully some of these manufacturers will begin to produce these water heaters again. Once we can take care of the regulations that are onerous on business owners and consumers and does not make sense for energy efficiency. Finally, this is part of what I hope will be the past Congress. I hope in the future Congress, which will start in January, that we do things in a different way. I hope we begin to look at ideas from both sides of the aisle, find common ground, and move forward in legislation to help the American people. This is a small matter. I understand that. It is a big matter if you are a rural electric co-op or if you are one of these commercial buildings that want to use Energy Star or if we care about the fact that we think about $5 billion is wasted in energy inefficiency by the Federal Government that could be addressed by some of the other provisions here tonight. I think this is, unfortunately, symbolic of where we are as a Congress. We can't even get simple things done. This legislation was reported out of the committee in the House unanimously--all four provisions. We are talking about the Republican- led House unanimously on the floor of the House passed by a vote of 375. I think it was 375 to 34, as I recall. We don't see those kind of bipartisan votes often. Then it came over here. It has gone through the energy committee. The energy committee's vote was something like 18 to 3, as I recall. It has come to the floor now for the third time--the fourth time, if we include last night. This legislation has been fully vetted. We have had hearings on it. We have done all the right things. We have played by the rules, and those of us who played by the rules on this legislation again are being stopped as we get to the floor of the Senate. I hope we will see not just good energy efficiency legislation passed in the next Congress but other legislation as well to deal with our Tax Code that is out of date, antiquated, to deal with the overreach and regulations, some of the regulatory reform measures that the Presiding Officer and I have talked about. We can deal with the fact that we are falling behind in terms of exports; that we are not dealing with some of our urgent problems we should be dealing with to get this economy moving. We have to change the way we are doing business around here. We are letting things move only in very incremental and, unfortunately, partisan ways. We are not allowing the process to work. So I am hopeful this legislation will be taken up in January. I am very disappointed it was objected to again tonight for no apparent reason. I am hopeful this will lead us to be able to better represent the people who hired us, the people who said: Go to Washington. I want you to find common ground because there are big problems to solve, not just give speeches. We have had enough of those. There is enough rhetoric. It is time to get things done. This is a small example of what could have gotten done tonight but for an objection with no apparent reason. With that, I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Alaska has stayed late to be able to talk about this tonight. She will be the next chair of the energy committee, and she has the ability. Working with her colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to get some great legislation accomplished, and I hope this will be one of them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2126 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.