Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to support the energy legislation we hope to bring to the floor this week. We are still working through some of the possible amendments on that, as well. This is good legislation that has been on the floor before. Actually, about 6 months ago we took this up on the Senate floor. Since that time we have actually added about 10 bipartisan amendments to the bill, making it even stronger. But it is a bill that is good for jobs. It is good for American energy security and therefore good for our national security. It is good because it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money, and it is also good because it is a bill that actually helps to grow the economy while improving the environment. I have been working on this bill for about 3 years now with Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. We also have other cosponsors on both sides of the aisle--6 Republicans and 6 Democrats--who have been part of this process. We hope to be able to get this legislation on the floor this week because it is a good bill and it deserves to be passed. When we have come to the floor before and we have talked about it, we have talked about the fact that it helps manufacturers in Ohio and around the country to take advantage of energy savings techniques and the best technology, allowing them to save more money so they can invest more in plants and equipment and in people, adding more jobs. That is why, by the way, over 270 businesses and business organizations--from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers--and a lot of other trade groups on both sides of the political spectrum--have endorsed this legislation. We have also come to the floor and talked about how provisions in this legislation will save the equivalent of taking 80 million homes off the grid by the year 2030--a cumulative energy savings, by the way, of up to $100 billion. It is called the Energy Security and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Again, it makes a lot of sense. We talk about how taxpayer dollars will be saved because we require the Federal Government to practice what it preaches; in other words, to make the Federal Government, the largest energy user in the United States, much more efficient in its own energy practices. The time for talking about this legislation, however, has gone. It is now time to pass it. When we do, we can then work with the other body-- the House of Representatives--because they have already passed significant parts of our legislation earlier this year. We can bring together the legislation we would pass here on the floor with the House legislation and send it to the President for signature. At a time when people are understandably concerned about the partisan gridlock here in the Senate, and in Washington in general, this is an example of something we can actually get done. Again, it has been bipartisan from the start. It came out of the committee with a big vote--18 to 3. It is one to which we have added more bipartisan support over the last 6 months by adding more amendments. Let's do something that will actually surprise the American people. Let's do something that will help move our country forward, create more jobs, help the environment be cleaner, also helping our energy security and therefore our national security, and saving taxpayers a lot of money. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are skeptical of any energy legislation they have seen in the past, that this Senate and the Congress have passed some proposals that are top-down proposals that impose mandates on the American people. They have also seen costly legislation that funnels subsidies to preferred industries, companies, technologies, distorting the market and ending up in what have sometimes been some very expensive failures. That is not this legislation. This legislation on energy efficiency contains no mandates. The bill is about giving people access to information they can use, not about making the American people or businesses do something. Not only does it have no mandates, but it does not add to our deficits. Every authorization contained in this bill is fully offset by savings elsewhere in the budget. In fact, the reforms made in this legislation will save taxpayers a lot of money. Some of it can be scored. There is a $10 million savings, for instance, on the mandatory side by some of the legislative changes we are making. A lot of it won't get a score because it is additional savings we will see by having the Federal Government be much more energy efficient, which saves money for us all as taxpayers. Unlike some of these previous energy initiatives which were costly and I think inappropriate, this legislation relies on the market and on the States--not the Federal Government--to drive efficiency improvements. There is a reason this legislation received this strong vote out of the energy committee, 19 to 3. It has been improved since then with the addition of these 10 bipartisan amendments. It is going to create new jobs, it is going to save money for the taxpayers, and it is going to help with regard to the environment. By the way, our economy is going to be helped because we rely on affordable and reliable energy in this country. It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to secure more affordable and more reliable energy by adopting what a lot of people talk about is an all-of-the-above energy strategy. To me, that means producing more energy--yes, including oil and natural gas. In my own State of Ohio, we have a great opportunity there. It also includes being sure that we are using the coal resources we have, nuclear power, and renewables. We should be making it easier to take advantage of these resources and to bring more of these resources to market at lower costs. But at the same time, we should be taking steps to reduce waste. This is complementary. This is not something that should be either you are for producing more energy or you are for more energy efficiency. We should be for both. We should be producing more and using less. That helps grow the economy, create jobs, and makes us more competitive in the global economy in which we find ourselves. Energy efficiency, by the way, of all those energy sources, is the lowest-hanging fruit. Think about it. It is the least expensive form of energy--the energy we don't end up having to use. I think this is a commonsense approach which should be able to be debated on the floor in an honest way, with other energy-related amendments; and then, after that process, to pass it here in the Senate, get it over to the House, work on a compromise with the House with their legislation and our legislation, get it to the President for signature, and actually move on with an opportunity to truly begin the process of putting in place a national strategy that has this all-of- the-above approach--producing more and using less. I look forward to working with my colleagues this week on engaging in this debate, passing this legislation, and helping the constituents whom we represent on issues that are important to them--jobs, saving taxpayer money, making the environment cleaner, ensuring that America has a secure energy future, which is important to our national security. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Columbus State Community College in recognition of its 50th anniversary and the opportunities it has provided to students throughout Ohio. On September 30, 1963, Columbus State was founded in the basement of Central High School in Columbus, OH. Since its inception, Columbus State has grown tremendously by expanding its enrollment and academic offerings from an initial 67 students to more than 25,000 students. The diverse student body has come from more than 130 countries and all of Ohio's 88 counties. The mission of Columbus State is ``to educate and inspire, providing [its] students with the opportunity to achieve their goals.'' This mission is vital to the Columbus community. Throughout its 50 years, Columbus State has provided exemplary educational opportunities through more than 200-plus degree and certificate programs. It has awarded nearly 50,000 degrees and has a nearly $1 billion annual impact on the local economy. The school also provides several transfer options and continuing education opportunities to students. I have visited Columbus State and seen firsthand the excellent education and training it provides to students, including the resources available through the Center for Workforce Development. The center collaborates with companies in the Columbus region to address workforce needs through innovative approaches to education and customized training. It is helping to ensure that students are prepared with the skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century. I am pleased to honor Columbus State Community College and congratulate everyone who was a part of making its first 50 years a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN. I wish to speak as if in morning business. The DATA Act Mr. President, I was not able to be here earlier on the Senate floor when my colleague Senator Warner got unanimous consent to pass the DATA Act. This is the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, something we have been working on over the last couple of years. It is a good bill, and it is about good government and I am glad we were able to pass it this afternoon in the Senate. I now hope it will go to the House for passage and get to the President's desk, because it will help to give all the taxpayers a better view into our government. Specifically, it improves Federal financial transparency and data quality, both of which are going to help identify and illuminate the ways we spend--certainly something we should be focused on with the huge deficits and all the pressure we are facing. It will also ease the compliance burden with the people working in the Federal Government and recipients of Federal funds. At the same time it improves the data that they send to the Federal Government. It is a win/win for the taxpayer, for the government, at getting at the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is an issue that transcends party lines. I want to thank my friend Senator Coburn because he has been a leader in the Governmental Affairs Committee and also the chairman of the committee, Senator Tom Carper. Without their help, Senator Warner and I would not have been able to get this bill to the floor today. We also have a number of other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. We all know that the Federal Government spends a lot of money--over $3 trillion a year. The goal is to know more about how that money is spent so we can ensure it is being spent on the right things. This legislation, the DATA Act, picks up on lessons we learned about how to make it more accountable and more transparent so taxpayers have a better understanding of how the money is being used. This has to do with grants and contracts. I think it is something that is going to help ensure that we are not just spending the money right but also eliminating fraud and abuse that we otherwise would not find. I first got involved in this issue when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. I supported it and then was tasked with implementing a 2006 bill that was introduced by Senator Coburn and Senator Obama at the time. It was called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, FFATA--an unfortunate acronym in my view. FFATA worked in the sense that it led to something which is called usaspending.gov. Back then a lot of Federal agencies thought this could not be done; that we wouldn't be able to improve our transparency up to the standards that were established in FFATA, and we proved them wrong, thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of folks in the agencies and at the Office of Management and Budget where I served as Director. It ended up with the ability of taxpayers to get a wealth of information online, again, about Federal grants and Federal contracts so they could better understand how their tax dollars were spent. It was a good start. It also helped us learn some lessons about how to improve fiscal data quality and transparency even more. We learned that the usaspending.gov can be more comprehensive, more accurate, more reliable, and more timely. By the way, if you have not gone on this Web site, usaspending.gov, I recommend it. If we pass this legislation, you will like it even more because the data you will be seeing will be more understandable, will be more uniform across the agencies, and will enable us all, as taxpayers, to get a better view into the government. What does it do? First, it makes it easier to compare spending across the Federal agencies by requiring establishment of these governmentwide standards, such as financial data standards, which is very difficult to do, as I learned when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. It sounds easy, but it is hard and it pays off. It promotes consistency and reliability in data. Second, it strengthens the Federal financial transparency by reforming and significantly improving the Web site itself. It requires more frequent updates--quarterly financial updates of spending by each Federal agency on their programs and at the object class-level basis. It is basically more specific data and more up-to-date so it refreshes the Web site more to make it more useful. Third, it empowers the inspector general and the GAO to hold agencies accountable. I think putting the inspectors general into this is a good idea because it has another level of accountability. This will make them more accountable for completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data they are submitting to the usaspending.gov. This is new and will make the Web site work even better. Fourth, it simplifies the reporting requirements by recipients of Federal funds, eliminating unnecessary duplication and burdensome regulations. It basically streamlines what people have to provide to the Federal Government. This will actually make it easier for us to understand what is going on with these contractors, again, as taxpayers doing oversight, but it also makes it easier to do business with the Federal Government. It makes it less complicated for them and gives more transparency for taxpayers, so it is another good aspect of this legislation. I think each of these reforms will enhance Federal financial accountability in real ways by allowing citizens to track government spending better, allowing agencies to more easily identify improper payments and unnecessary spending. We have a big issue around here with spending. We spend more than we take in every year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. We have a debt that is at least $17 trillion. It is time to make sure we are not wasting money that could be applied to that debt or it could pay for programs that are a top priority. This bipartisan legislation will help us get there. I am very pleased we were able to get it passed today. Again, I will be working hard with Senator Warner and others to ensure that we get this through the House and to the President's desk for signature so we can indeed begin to help all of us as citizens have a better view into our Federal Government. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor 393 high school seniors in eight northeast Ohio counties for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these 393 seniors from 129 high schools in 106 towns and cities, 91 will enter the Army, 104 will enter the Marine Corps, 47 will enter the Navy, 32 will enter the Air Force, 5 will enter the Coast Guard, 100 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard, and 14 will enter into the Ohio Air National Guard. In the presence of their parents/guardians, and high school counselors, military leaders, city and business leaders, all 393 will be recognized on May 7, 2014 by ``Our Community Salutes of Northeast Ohio.'' In a few short weeks, these young men and women will join 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 full support of this Senate Chamber, and of the American people, who are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. These 393 young men and women are the cornerstone of our liberty. 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 U.S. 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 more importantly the character, the values and the discipline that leads someone to put service to our Nation over self. I would like to personally thank these 393 graduating seniors for their selflessness and the courage that they have shown by 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 393 high school seniors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 10th anniversary of the Martin de Porres Center in Columbus, OH. Named after the Dominican Saint Martin de Porres, and sponsored by the Dominican Sisters of Peace, the center was founded in 2004 as a place for spirituality, education, arts, and ministry outreach to the people of central Ohio. Over the last decade, the center has become a pillar of the central Ohio community, bringing people together and helping them reach their full potential. For example, through the Dominican Learning Center, members of the community are able to participate in the adult literacy program, which provides free one-on-one tutoring. The center also serves the Columbus region by connecting youth to its older population through discussions and study groups. I have visited the Martin de Porres Center and have seen firsthand the excellent work of the Dominican Sisters of Peace. The positive contributions made by the center are countless. Its outreach and dedication to the region in spiritual, mental, and artistic growth have been commendable. I thank everyone involved in making the center's first 10 years a success and wish them the best of luck in the coming decades.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I applaud my colleagues who are here tonight. I think this is the right message to send. It is a sensitive time, so therefore we need to stand and be counted. I hope the House will act swiftly on this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise tonight at a time when we face a quiet crisis in this country. President Obama and many on the other side of the aisle tell us the economy has improved, we have turned a corner, we are out of the woods, but I can tell my colleagues too many Americans are being left behind. In fact, historic numbers of Americans are disconnected from work. It is a quiet crisis. It is affecting them and their families. It is affecting our economy in very fundamental ways. It is one of the reasons we haven't seen the economic growth we had hoped for because not enough Americans are involved in active work because so many are out of work. The unemployment numbers, by the way, don't show the degree of the problem. An unemployment number around 7 percent doesn't show the fact that a lot of folks have left the work force all together. This crisis includes also 3.7 million long-term unemployed. These are people who have been out of work for 6 months or more. This is also at historic levels. During this recent recession and during this weak recovery over the last 5 years, we have had numbers of long-term unemployed, over 6 months, at historic levels. In fact, the number of long-term unemployed right now is higher than it has been during any recession in our Nation's history, except for the most recent one 5 years ago. Second, we have a lot of people who have left looking for work all together. So a lot of these folks were long-term unemployed, and they have now given up looking for work. Some 10.5 million Americans aren't even counted in the unemployment numbers because they have given up looking for work. The economists call this the labor participation rate. It is at historic lows for men, going back to the 1940s. In other words, more men are out of work--and that means not working or not even looking for a job--than we have ever had as a percentage of our population since we started keeping track of these statistics in the 1940s. For men and women combined, we can go back to the 1970s--the numbers are so low for the participation rate in work. That goes back to the Carter era, when we had double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, and double-digit interest rates. We have to go back to that economy that was cratering in order to see the numbers of people who are out of work, not looking for work, and not even trying. So we have a real problem in this country, and we are not addressing it. To make matters worse, people are saying: Well, Rob, this is actually the baby boomers, and it is people retiring early, so it is not that bad. That is not true. To make matters worse, it is a lot of young people. There was a recent Brookings study that came out a couple weeks ago which indicates that actually a lot of the problem is young men, single men, who are choosing not to work or cannot find a job and, therefore, they drop out of the workforce altogether. Again, this is not reflected in the unemployment numbers. This is not even reflected in the long-term unemployment numbers. Disappointment after disappointment for many of these workers leads them to give up looking for work altogether. These Americans feel as if what we are doing here in Washington does not really affect them and their lives. They feel as if we are not dealing with this issue, so the underemployed, the unemployed, the long-term unemployed--the folks who are so disconnected from work that they are not even looking for a job--they are looking at us in Washington saying: What are you going to do to help? They are the reason I supported tonight this extension of unemployment insurance. Now, this was not exactly the legislation I wanted. But, also, it is not exactly the legislation that was brought to the floor. The other side of the aisle, the Democrats, brought legislation to the floor that was a long-term extension on an emergency basis. This is for people who have been out of work for over 26 weeks. This is the Federal addition to the State unemployment insurance that generally is in place for people for up to 26 weeks. The Democratic version was long-term--over a year. It also was not paid for, which would take us further into debt and deficit, which would hurt the economy. It also did not have any reforms. The legislation that passed tonight with my vote--and some other Republicans--had three things. No. 1, it is short term--5 months instead of a year. No. 2, it is paid for, so it does not take us further into debt and deficit. No. 3, it does have some reforms to try to make the unemployment system work better to help these people who are long-term unemployed who otherwise have very little prospect of getting gainful employment, being productive members of our economy. In fact, there are some studies out there saying that only 10 to 15 percent of them would normally be likely to get a job once they are out of work for 6 months or more because of the resume gap, because of the skills gap. So we have in this legislation--that I will talk about later in more detail--some reforms that add some skills training for the long-term unemployed. The notion here is that there are jobs available out there, and there are a lot of people, as we talked about, who are out of work--or the long-term unemployed, in this case--but they do not have the skills to match the jobs that are out there. So the notion is to bring the skills and the jobs together to deal with the skills gap. Most on my side of the aisle--all but, I think, six of us--were against this unemployment extension because they argued that, instead, we need progrowth policies to get this economy moving. I totally agree with them about the progrowth policies. The ultimate solution here is not another extension of unemployment insurance; it is to reform the program rather than just have another check, to add the skills training, which we will talk about in a second. We need to do more there, but we also have to do what Jack Kennedy used to talk about. President Kennedy said, famously: A rising tide lifts all boats. We need a rising tide. We need to create more economic growth and opportunity, and there is a plan to do this. It is called the Jobs for America Plan. The Senate Republicans have all signed off on it. It has seven elements, all of which make a lot of sense. One is to ensure, on health care, we actually reduce the cost, increase choice. The economy is hurting now because the costs are going up, not down, and sometimes dramatically. Another is an all-of-the-above energy strategy, to use the energy here in the ground; having an all-of-the-above energy strategy to get America's economy going, moving our economy forward. We can do a lot more there. Another is living within our means. The reason this unemployment insurance extension was paid for is because we Republicans insisted on it. Why? Because the debt and deficit are like a wet blanket over the economy. We do have to keep ourselves from going further into debt with our $17 trillion debt. Another is having Tax Code reforms that are necessary to spur economic growth. Both on the individual side and the business side our Tax Code is antiquated and inefficient. It will help to give the economy a shot in the arm if we can reform the Tax Code. Another deals with regulations, unshackling job creators, helping to ensure that regulations are sensible, that they are not making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and opportunity. This is something we should be doing on a bipartisan basis. Another is increasing exports. That means jobs. This President, this administration, has not been able to move forward with any export agreements because the President has not been able to get trade promotion authority. In fact, some on the other side of the aisle have said he will not get it. That would be tragic for America's workers, for America's farmers, for the people who provide services, who want to push for more exports because they create good-paying jobs and good benefits. Then, finally, and significantly, part of this Republican plan for jobs is to create a competitive workforce to close the skills gap. That is what we are talking about here with the unemployment insurance issue. We need to ensure that our workforce is meeting the needs of the 21st century--meaning a lot of technology jobs, even in manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, bioscience jobs, information technology jobs. Those jobs are out there, as I said earlier. But, unfortunately, the Federal Government has not done a good job in providing the skills, giving people the tools to access those jobs. So we have made some steps in this legislation. The legislation we passed tonight ensures that job training reforms are part of long-term unemployment insurance. The reforms require officials to connect with the unemployed early in the process and provide important information they are now not getting about the skills and credentials that businesses in their area, in their region, are looking for. We have also included provisions to strengthen the skills assessment process to ensure that the long-term unemployed have a better idea of the specific skills necessary to become more competitive in the job market. That assessment is really important. A lot of these folks are starting to give up hope. The assessment is important for them to understand where they are and where they can be. These measures are intended to give the unemployed the opportunity to attain critical skills and credentials that are regionally relevant and nationally portable so they can access not only available jobs in their area but so that they can find other jobs around the country. There are some States, as you know, where you have unemployment as low as 3 percent, and other States where unemployment is as high as 9 percent. So people do need to know what the opportunities are, should they be able and willing to move. So that is part of this unemployment extension we did tonight, and that is something that was put in place because of negotiations between Republicans and Democrats alike to ensure that, yes, it was paid for, and, yes, it was not long term--it was short term--and, third, that we did put some skills training in place. I want to thank Senator Jack Reed, Senator Dean Heller, and others who worked with us to ensure that was part of this package. But, folks, that is just the beginning. We have to do a lot more in terms of ensuring that our workforce programs in the Federal Government are meeting the needs of the 21st century. So part of the Republican jobs plan is to say: Let's take the next step. By the way, there is a commitment from both sides of the aisle, from the people who worked this out, to work during this short-term extension to try to increase the opportunities to provide people the tools they need. We have big problems, as I said. We have a lot of people who are long-term unemployed. It is at historic levels. We have historic levels of people who are disconnected from work altogether, and yet we have jobs that are out there and available. They say there are 3.9 million jobs around the country currently available and unfilled--3.9 million jobs. That means about 25 percent of those who are out of the workforce could have an opportunity for a job if they had the skills and had the ability to meet the requirements for those jobs. In Ohio, we have over 100,000 jobs available. You can go on the Web site and see them. These are not just part-time or minimum-wage positions. According to a recent study, Ohio is third--behind only California and Texas--in skilled factory job openings, full-time jobs with benefits that often turn into long-term careers. The problem of chronic unemployment is holding back our economy. By not having the people to fill those jobs, the economy is not reaching its potential. In fact, some of those jobs are going overseas to find those skilled workers. The Manufacturing Institute recently concluded that 74 percent of manufacturers are experiencing workforce shortages or skills deficiency that keeps them from expanding their operations; 74 percent of manufacturers are not expanding plants and equipment and creating more jobs, as they could, because they do not have the workforce. So I view this unemployment insurance debate as an opportunity--an opportunity to talk about this issue, an opportunity to put in place some initial reforms, some first steps for more skills assessment, more training, to encourage people to get the credentials they need to get a job. But it is only the first step. We should do much, much more. The Federal Government is already very involved, by the way, in work retraining--not in a very productive way but very involved. There are 47 different Federal workforce training programs spread over 7, 8 or 9 departments and agencies, often overlapping. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. It costs us, by the way, as taxpayers about $15 billion a year. So about $15 billion a year is going into worker retraining. Yet look at the results--again, record numbers of the long-term unemployed, record numbers of men disconnected from work. Something is not working. The Government Accountability Office found that very little is known about the effectiveness of these 47 programs. They have said, unbelievably, that only five of these Federal programs have conducted an impact study of their efforts since 2004. So 47 programs and only 5 have conducted the kind of performance measures you would expect the government to do to be sure the taxpayers' money is being spent right and that you certainly would be doing in the private sector. The GAO is kind of generous in its assessment because those millions of unfilled jobs and millions more struggling workers are as incriminating an indictment of our worker training programs as any impact study could ever be. This is the story I hear all the time. Back home in Ohio, when I talk to workers, when I talk to businesses, when I talk to educators, people are frustrated. People are seeing these Federal dollars being spent but not for actual training. What is unbelievable to me is recent data shows us that the number of credentials people are getting through these Federal workforce training programs is actually going down, not up--at a time when it is clear that credentials are a key way to get a job. It is unfair to employers who have open positions that they cannot find qualified candidates to fill them. It is unfair to taxpayers who send money to Washington believing the government is going to be a good steward of those funds, and it is not. And, of course, it is unfair to the millions of Americans who want to build a better life for themselves and for their families, but they need the tools. A lot of jobs were lost in this last recession. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of them are not coming back. But other jobs are being created. But, again, they are jobs that require a higher level of skill. We have to be sure we are doing a better job providing people with those tools to get the skills they need. It is part of the plan that Senate Republicans are talking about. A small step was taken tonight with the unemployment insurance extension. I do not think we necessarily explained it very well to all of our colleagues, but it was part of what happened tonight on the floor of the Senate. I am hopeful over the next few months we will take the next important step, which is actually to change the way these Federal programs work so they are more effective at dealing with this crisis. I have a specific proposal that I like. It is called the CAREER Act. The CAREER Act--you can look at it on line. Go to portman.senate.gov. My cosponsor is Michael Bennet, who spoke here earlier tonight. He is a Democrat from Colorado. He is a former education superintendent. He understands we need to change these programs to make them more efficient. To incentivize success, we have performance measures in our proposal, for instance. We do need to streamline and consolidate these programs. We also need to be sure we are rewarding job training providers that produce measurable results in actual job placement. It seems it is a pretty simple concept, but it is not happening now, as the GAO told us. The unemployment extension, in my view, buys us a couple more months. But that is time where we ought to be doing the hard work to ensure that workers have the skills they need to compete in this global economy. Again, companies look globally for workers these days-- particularly larger companies. If we are not providing the skilled workforce here, our economy is not as productive as it could be, not meeting its potential, the rising tide is not lifting all boats because it is not rising. But we are also going to lose jobs overseas where there is more focus on the STEM disciplines, on engineering and math, on skills training. We have to do a much better job at the Federal Government level, working with the States, working with the private sector. One thing we do in the CAREER Act is we connect the Federal funds with the actual private-sector jobs that out there to ensure we are getting a better result--not training people for jobs that are not even available. So let's spend these next few months working on more strategies to help folks get jobs. Let's work on all of this because we need to have a growing economy. But with regard to the training part, let's fix a system that is not serving the unemployed. It is not serving the taxpayer. Let's deal with this crisis. Let's restore hope and opportunity to America's workers. With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Myles Eckert, an 8- year-old boy from Waterville, OH, whose simple act of generosity has led to national attention. Myles found a $20 bill in a restaurant parking lot and, rather than save it for himself, gave it to Ohio National Guard Airman Lt. Frank Dailey, who was there having dinner with his family. Myles wrote a heartfelt note about his father, Army SGT Andy Eckert, who was killed in Iraq just 5 weeks after Myles was born. The note read: Dear Soldier, My dad was a soldier. He's in heaven now. I found this 20 dollars in the parking lot when we got here. We like to pay it forward in my family. It's your lucky day! Thank you for your service, Myles Eckert, a Gold Star kid. This story of Myles Eckert's thoughtfulness was covered by news organizations across the country. Myles was a guest on a national talk show and asked that any donations be given to the Snowball Express, a national military children's charity that hosts a weeklong vacation around the holidays for Gold Star children--the military name for children who have lost a parent in the line of duty. An initial $20,000 donation to the Snowball Express was made in Myles' name, and a Dallas, TX, company offered to match every donation up to $1 million made through Memorial Day, 2014. Myles Eckert did a simple act of kindness and found out just how far ``paying it forward'' can go. Today, I would like to recognize him for his heartfelt and noble act.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the Center of Science and Industry, COSI, located in central Ohio as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. In 1964, COSI opened its doors as a hands-on center of science education. Fifty years later, COSI has witnessed tremendous growth and expansion as well as national recognition. COSI has welcomed more than 30 million visitors from all 50 States and in 2008 COSI was named America's No. 1 science center for families by Parents Magazine. COSI has collaborated with schools and organizations across Ohio to provide interactive STEM education in order to prepare our children for the future, and inspire the innovators of tomorrow. Part of COSI's mission is to ``motivate a desire toward a better understanding of science, industry, health, and history . . . for the enrichment of the individual and for a more rewarding life on our planet, Earth.'' They accomplish this mission through partnerships with organizations including WOSU@COSI, the only working television station in a science center, the Columbus Historical Society, and Battelle. I have visited COSI a number of times, starting with my children when they were in grade school. I have been able to see firsthand the great experience it provides to visitors. I am pleased to honor 50 years of success as COSI continues to lead the way in science education in Ohio.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for adopting a moment ago an important amendment to this underlying bill. It is an amendment to provide for evidence-based training in efforts that promote early language development and literacy development. This is really important for kids to get them ready for kindergarten, and, again, I appreciate the fact that on a voice vote that was adopted earlier this afternoon. Madam President, I now rise to urge the Senate to support a child safety amendment I have submitted to the child development block grant bill. I thank Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Harkin for all their help on this amendment. I appreciate their working with us. I like the underlying legislation. It is a good bill because it goes a long way to ensuring that our Federal dollars are spent in a way that does keep our children in safe learning environments and care facilities. I believe my amendment makes a good bill even better. Currently, this legislation prohibits individuals who have been convicted of a felony from working in a childcare facility that is funded through these Federal block grants. That is a good start, but by limiting the prohibition only to felonies, we are leaving other people out. We are leaving a pool of individuals who have been convicted of crimes against children eligible for employment in a setting where they could prey on vulnerable kids. So the amendment simply expands to ensure that we are covering those people. It ensures the health and safety of children by clarifying that adults who are convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes against children--child abuse, child endangerment, sexual assault--or of a misdemeanor involving child pornography are also identified in criminal background checks and are not permitted to work in a childcare facility that receives support through these child care development block grants. Let me give a couple examples of crimes that under the bill as currently drafted would not prevent an individual from working in a childcare facility funded by the legislation. In my home State of Ohio, we just had a terrible example. An Ohio daycare worker was accused of sprinkling drugs on snacks to get children to sleep. She was fined $250 and then had her charges reduced to a misdemeanor count of child endangerment after a plea agreement. So she did not get charged with a felony in the end because she pled it down to a misdemeanor. But certainly you do not want someone like this working in one of these facilities. There are lots of other examples. A Utah women pled guilty to two class A misdemeanors recently for child abuse. These charges were reduced from five second-degree felonies for intentionally inflicting serious physical injury on a child. She had been arrested for physically and emotionally abusing her daughter. According to the police report, she hit her daughter with a closed fist and choked her. But she pled, again, guilty to two misdemeanors because of the plea agreement. These are just a couple cases. There are many more, and these are just ones that have been decided in the last few months. Under the legislation as currently written, these individuals would be eligible to work in a childcare facility that receives Federal funds. This amendment is very simple. It only seeks to protect children and to bar individuals who would commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us from receiving these Federal tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment. Again, I thank the authors of the underlying bill for working closely with us on this amendment to improve legislation that is already a good and is doing a lot to protect our kids. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The Constitution grants to the President the power to nominate individuals to head the various Federal agencies and departments, but it falls to us in the Senate to ensure those nominees are worthy of the honor and are ready for such responsibility. I don't make it a practice of opposing nominees. In fact, I generally give the President discretion there. I have voted to give him wide latitude in filling the executive branch with individuals of his choice when I believe they are qualified. I have voted along with the minority Republicans who endorsed and confirmed a number of the President's nominees. But when it comes to a nominee who lacks the essential qualifications to fill one of these high offices, those of us charged with providing advice and consent cannot remain silent. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases. It takes more than a law degree from a prestigious school and an impressive resume to head an agency to support the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Most importantly, I think it takes judgment which cannot be measured by test scores or diplomas. It can only be measured over time through someone's actions. If we look at Mr. Adegbile's record, it is obvious to me and so many of us in the Senate and around the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, who have not opposed an executive branch nomination, by the way, in 17 years, who are taking a strong stand against this confirmation. First, as some of his colleagues and my colleagues on the Senate floor have noted, Mr. Adegbile has a history of taking positions on some of our fundamental constitutional rights that I think are out of step with the views of the American people, the judgments of our judiciary, and our Nation's history. In the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Mr. Adegbile argued that religious institutions do not have the right to hire or fire individuals responsible for conveying a church's teachings, a view that, were it to become law, would severely undermine religious liberty. Mr. Adegbile was so out of step with the Constitution on that issue that his view was rejected by the Supreme Court 9-0, which in today's typical 5-4 split in the Supreme Court is quite an accomplishment. Mr. Adegbile's view on the First Amendment is troubling. So too are his views of the Second Amendment. He has repeatedly asserted that the Second Amendment does not ``protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms.'' If Mr. Adegbile had his way, millions of Americans would lose one of their most cherished rights, just like that. Whenever a piece of gun control legislation comes to the floor of this Chamber, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and, in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--assure us they will always respect a fundamental right to bear arms. It is unfortunate that despite the words of the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, Mr. Adegbile cannot give us those same assurances. There is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal is a murderer. In 1981 he gunned down a police officer named Daniel Faulkner on a Philadelphia street. In an act of unmatched brutality, Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner as he lay dying and shot him in the face. A mountain of evidence from eyewitness accounts, forensics, to his own words makes it clear beyond any doubt that Abu-Jamal killed Officer Faulkner on that day in December 1981. Still, Abu-Jamal deserved his day in court as would any other American accused of a crime. He got his day in court. He deserved competent counsel, and he got that too. He deserved an opportunity to appeal, and he got it. In fact, after the matter turned from a criminal matter to an issue of justice and to a political cause, he received some of the best counsel in the country and they filed appeal after appeal, all of which were rejected. But that didn't stop Mr. Adegbile from claiming that Abu-Jamal was a victim of racism and a corrupt judicial system. For Mr. Adegbile, Abu- Jamal's case was apparently an opportunity to focus more on a political agenda than the case at hand. Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence was not really the concern. Debo Adegbile is free to make any arguments he sees fit about the First and Second Amendments. He is free to turn the murder of a police officer into a cause to advance a political agenda. When he does so, I think it says something about his judgment and it says something about his fitness to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice and police forces around our country should be working together to ensure that minority rights are respected and that civil rights abuses are punished. In my view, this nominee would only make that work more difficult. As the Fraternal Order of Police wrote in a letter to President Obama, if Mr. Adegbile is confirmed it will serve to ``exacerbate growing division and distrust'' between the Civil Rights Division--which is charged with securing our most basic freedoms--and the men and women of law enforcement who defend those freedoms by putting their lives on the line every day. I think we can and should do better with a nominee who can work with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement around the country in ensuring that our most basic freedoms are secured through the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. For these reasons I oppose the nomination of Mr. Adegbile to this position, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service and the memory of two Ohio firefighters, Private Stephen A. Machcinski and Private James Dickman of the Toledo Fire Department. Like so many of the men and women who serve as first responders in our country, these two men knew that every day, they were putting their lives on the line to keep their community--their friends and neighbors--safe. When things were at their worst, they were at their best. When others needed help, they were there to give it. When others ran out, they ran in. Tragically, Private Machcinski and Private Dickman gave their lives in the line of duty, doing the job they loved, the one they were trained and prepared to do, while fighting an apartment complex fire in Toledo, OH, on January 26, 2014. But although they are gone, we will not forget them. Today, we honor their sacrifice and remember these fallen heroes who put themselves in harm's way for the good of their family, their friends, their neighbors, and the entire Toledo community. Mr. President, for their commitment to saving lives, protecting the public, and willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to recognize Private Stephen A. Machcinski and Private James Dickman. We will continue to keep these two men and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Cleveland native Myron Belkind, who was named president of the National Press Club on January 25, 2014. Mr. Belkind grew up in Lyndhurst, OH, where he began his career in journalism writing as a student and then for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Press. During Mr. Belkind's 42-year career with the Associated Press, he covered many world leaders and headed up Associated Press bureaus in Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi, London, and Tokyo. He served as president of several foreign press associations and as a journalism instructor at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. He has received the Distinguished Alumni Awards from the Ohio State University School of Communications and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. As a foreign correspondent in the 1970s, Belkind covered major international news stories and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the breaking news that Prime Minister Gandhi's government had declared a state of emergency on June 26, 1975, suspending civil liberties, arresting thousands of political opponents, and imposing restrictions on the national and international press. He is the first National Press Club president with an extensive international background in foreign correspondence. In his new role, he has vowed to continue his work promoting worldwide freedom of the press and will continue to strive for professional development and excellence in journalism. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Myron Belkind, a fellow Buckeye, as he begins this new chapter in his distinguished career.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Ashland University for addressing the challenging issue of skyrocketing tuition. After serious consideration, Ashland has dramatically reduced its tuition for the 2014-2015 school year by 37 percent. Ashland hopes this important step will improve access to higher education at affordable prices while keeping the university financially competitive. Ashland University, which is located in Ashland, OH, has a proud history of providing quality education since its founding in 1878. The university offers undergraduate, masters, and doctorate degrees and has been nationally recognized and ranked in the ``Top 200 National Universities'' by U.S. News & World Report for the last 2 years. Madam President, I would like to congratulate Ashland University for addressing the affordability and accessibility of higher education.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Sister City programs in Ohio. The Sister Cities International program was created by President Eisenhower in 1956 with the intent of fostering peace and prosperity through cultural exchanges that promote appreciation through mutual experience and understanding. Through the years, relationships have been formed and strengthened through ``citizen diplomacy'' and person-to-person exchanges between U.S. and international cities. These educational, informational, and cultural exchanges have not only created important diplomatic, economic and trade relationships, but they have also formed lasting personal bonds between individuals and cities. The Sister City programs have positively impacted many cities throughout the United States, but today I would like to specifically recognize the 2014 U.S.-China Sister City Award recipients in my home State of Ohio. The State of Ohio was one of four recipients in the country for the Longest Relationship Award for its relationship that began in 1979 with the Hubei Province. Cincinnati was one of four programs in our Nation to be recognized as a Best Overall U.S.-China Sister City program in 2014. This strong relationship between Cincinnati and its Chinese Sister City Liuzhou in the Guangxi Province has existed since 1988. I was honored to be one of the original board members of this special Sister City relationship. In addition, the Columbus Sister City program was one of only three U.S.-China Sister City programs in the country to win a Sustainable Development Award. The relationship between Columbus and its Chinese Sister City, Hefei in the Anhui Province also began in 1988. The U.S.-China Sister City programs in Ohio have been successful in forming relationships that mutually benefit the partnering communities by building global cooperation at the municipal level, promoting cultural understanding, and encouraging economic development. Some of the cultural exchanges made possible through these programs in Ohio include educational student and teacher exchanges, home stays, summer language camp exchanges, art exchanges, and science and medical exchanges. The participants in these programs have demonstrated a commitment to enrich their communities culturally and economically, and I am inspired by the achievements that have been made in Ohio. I would like to congratulate the Ohio Sister City programs on being 2014 U.S.-China Sister City award recipients.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, the Senator is absolutely right. The alternative is not to pass a trade promotion authority and to have continue to happen what has frankly been going on over the last 6 or 7 years, which is these other countries around the world are actively negotiating agreements, as the Senator from Montana says, using their own standards but also opening markets for their workers, their farmers, and their service providers, and cutting us out of market share. So what has happened is the European Union, the Chinese, the Canadians, and others have been actively pursuing agreements while we have been on the sidelines because we have not had trade promotion authority. So not only does this give us an opportunity, with this possible agreement with the European Union--which would be an agreement not like a free trade agreement but would be a partnership on investment, on standards, on being sure there is a harmonization that is more like the beneficial metrics that we use in this country that can help both in our economy and, as the Senator says, globally--none of this can happen without us being able to say we are going to have the possibility of taking trade agreements to the Congress for an up- or-down vote--a fair vote. Every one of these agreements will have to be voted on separately because in these other countries they will not put that last, best offer on the table until they know that. They are not going to be nickeled and dimed and amended to death as they get to the Congress. That is just reality. We have to get off the sidelines. We have to get reengaged. We have to help our economy, our workers to get their fair share, to get their market share. Right now we are losing that market share, as literally over 100 trade agreements have been negotiated while we have been sitting on the sidelines without having trade promotion authority on both bilateral and regional agreements. So the Senator is absolutely correct. This is a great opportunity for us to, frankly, take this anemic economy and give it a little shot in the arm. It is part of an overall effort we ought to be doing to provide the kind of economic opportunity we all want for the people we represent.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Montana. I will say just based on his question that we are going to miss his wisdom and his experience on the trade issue. He takes some political risks sometimes, I know, as he did in coming up with an agreement on trade promotion authority, because there are many on both sides of the aisle--especially his side of the aisle--who take a different view of this issue. He has been willing to help to educate them as to why this is in the interests of Montana farmers and ranchers and workers. Senator Hatch spoke earlier about the impact of trade on the people he represents. My colleague is absolutely right. The trade promotion authority enables us to take that step toward things such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called TPP--a lot of alphabet soup here with TPA to TPP. That is important, as the Senator just said, because this is the fastest growing region of the world--these are the Pacific countries, countries in South American but also in Asia; it is where the majority of the global GDP is now; and it is an area where, frankly, because of China's strong interest in trade, other countries in the region are looking to the United States to provide not only a market but also to help them with regard to their own markets; therefore, more U.S. exports, more of that, as my colleague said. The best technology in the world is in the United States, the best products in the world that are made here--to be able to export to those countries. So they want to have this relationship with us. As a future Ambassador to China, I will stipulate that I think the Senator from Montana understands this issue very well. But what this Trans-Pacific Partnership does is two things. No. 1, it expands trade in an area of the world that again is the fastest growing part of our globe and a place where the tariffs and nontariff barriers are higher, relatively speaking, than they are here. In other words, by lowering barriers we get a relative advantage. This agreement also, I hope, will deal with the currency issue, as my colleagues have negotiated in this trade promotion authority, which I support. This is pioneering work they have done in this area. We have to ensure that currency levels are appropriate, that there are not unfair trade advantages being given by countries that depreciate their currency by interfering in it. So I believe it is about trade, and that is very important for our workers and our farmers and our service providers, but, second, it does have this geopolitical element where those countries in the Asia Pacific area are allies of ours and are looking to us to develop a stronger relationship on the commercial side but also on the intergovernmental side to be able to ensure that the U.S. role continues in that area. I think this TPA that these Senators have negotiated today that they are announcing is incredibly important because it is the first step toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements we can complete, as we just have recently under the old TPA, with South Korea, with Panama, with Colombia--countries where we are seeing expansion of exports as well as a stronger relationship with key countries in the region.

Mr. PORTMAN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to my colleague and ranking member from Utah.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I wish to make two corrections quickly and then yield to my colleague from Indiana. One is that the proposal I did offer had nothing to do with ObamaCare, as I thought the majority leader understood, and others do not, including the amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire. So we do have a number of amendments and a number of good ideas. We had a debate. Second, it is in the President's budget. So if it is such a terrible proposal, I am surprised the President would have proposed it.