Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk and I ask for their immediate consideration, en bloc.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, we had a debate earlier on this. This is the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act. It makes all the sense in the world. Here we have a $16 trillion national debt, now exceeding $130,000 per household in America. We are told by the Congressional Budget Office that there is $9 trillion more coming over the next decade. We have to make this difference here on this bill. We have to take this opportunity to ensure that we are, in fact, beginning to reduce spending, getting this under control, as we once again are asked to extend the debt limit. This would not apply to this particular short-term debt limit, by the way; it would set up the discipline for the next debt limit, which is anywhere from 3 to 6 months from now. Now is the time for us to come together as Republicans and Democrats and determine how we indeed reform the entitlement programs, put tax reform in place, go through regular order in the Finance Committee, as the chairman and others have called for, to ensure that we can get this under control. It is a commonsense proposal. We did it 2 years ago. Most Democrats and most Republicans here on the floor supported it in the past. About 95 Democrats in the House have also supported it. It is a dollar-for- dollar reduction over 10 years as we raise the debt limit.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Theodore ``Ted'' Harbison Gardner. He was a devoted husband, father, a proud veteran of the U.S. Navy and a consummate community volunteer whose contributions will have long lasting impacts in the Greater Cincinnati community, and beyond. Born and raised in Hillsboro, OR, Mr. Gardner was the only child of Vesey Gardner, a prominent community leader and a lumber company owner, and Ruth Gardner, a popular singer. He is a graduate of Oregon State University. A proud and decorated veteran of World War II, Mr. Gardner withdrew from college to serve in the U.S. Navy the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He survived one of the largest and most brutal battles in history--The Battle off Samar--earning his unit aboard the USS Kalinin Bay the Presidential Unit Citation, one of the Navy's highest honors. Ted was an active member of the U.S. Navy League, The Hornet Foundation, and was a member of the advisory board of the Warbird Museum. He was passionate about the importance of oral history and personally interviewed over 150 World War II veterans and recorded and videotaped their stories for the Cincinnati Public Library and for the U.S. Library of Congress. Following his graduation from Oregon State University, Mr. Gardner got a job with a lumber distributor in Columbus, OH and then later moved to Cincinnati, where he and his wife, Naomi, raised their three children. Mr. Gardner changed careers in the 1970s and worked as a local art dealer until he retired. Ted was a 30-year member of the Cincinnati Rotary Club, where he was involved in programs to welcome international students studying at area universities and where he participated in events benefiting children with disabilities and youth in government. A talented musician, Mr. Gardner shared his vocal talents as a member of the Rotary chorus, the choir of the Church of the Redeemer and the Cincinnati May Festival Chorus, where he served as a board member. For 25 years, he sang all four verses of ``Taps'' in his rich bass voice on Veterans Day at the public library. Ted was an historian, a lover of art and literature, a musician and an avid sports enthusiast. He is greatly missed, and his extraordinary legacy and giving spirit will not be forgotten.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us and in support of the comments my Independent colleague from Connecticut just made which had to do with the Magnitsky provision, which I also support. I heard my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, talking about it passionately earlier. It is an important part of this legislation. But with regard to the trade part of the legislation, I would like to say that I think this is also a great opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Maryland here who, along with Senator McCain, has taken the lead on the Magnitsky provision encouraging better human rights in Russia, and I think we will see over time that this will have an impact globally. With regard to the trade side of this debate we are having today, I hope we all recognize that one of the great, untapped opportunities for our economy and for adding jobs is to expand exports. We have a great, untapped potential here because America still is not exporting at the level it should be. We do face stubbornly high unemployment. We do have stagnant growth rates. We are looking at some tough economic numbers even as we head toward the fiscal cliff which could make it even worse. So we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers have access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. That adds jobs. When companies consider whether they are going to get into the export business or not, which again creates opportunity here, they want to know if they are going to be treated with certainty, predictability, and fairness in the marketplace. Exporters need to know that if a country doesn't play by the rules, then that country will then face consequences. Those consequences really are what the World Trade Organization is all about. That is why this discussion is so important, because by today or tomorrow, voting to authorize permanent normal trade relations with Russia, we then can take advantage of the World Trade Organization rules as they relate to Russia and to our trade with them. Russia joined the WTO on August 22, and the United States was a big part of that accession. We worked with Russia for 18 years to ensure that they were willing to go along with certain fairness provisions on trade to be able to enter the WTO, and we need to be sure now that we can take advantage of those provisions. Without passing this legislation, America and our farmers and our workers could get left behind. By joining it, Russia did agree to abide by a certain set of common rules, and when they break those rules, other countries can then take them to court--the World Trade Organization--and help hold their feet to the fire. It means Russia will be required to better protect intellectual property rights, which is a major concern for U.S. companies. It means Russia must treat fairly the highly technical services sector where the United States has a great opportunity, including telecommunications, insurance, energy services, and retail services. There we have a lot of competitive advantages and we are looking for a level playing field. It means they have to give rules-based treatment to our agricultural exports so they are not trumped by internal Russian agricultural politics. It means Russia has to improve its transparency and the rulemaking process so regulations are not taking place without an adequate comment period and input from job creators, including American companies that want to do business in Russia. These were all concessions that were secured, again, over this 18-year period by the United States and other countries, but primarily the United States took a role here--Republican and Democratic administrations alike--in ensuring that as Russia entered the WTO, we had the opportunity to have a fair trading system with them. By the way, I was part of that as U.S. Trade Representative negotiating with my Russian counterpart. Secretary Johanns--then Secretary, now colleague from Nebraska--was part of that as U.S. Agriculture Secretary. Others here in the Congress have been part of that as members of the Finance Committee. So currently we have these trade rules that apply to the rest of the world but not to us because Russia is part of the WTO but we haven't granted this important PNTR status. So of the more than 150 countries in the World Trade Organization, we are the only ones that are outside of this agreement at this point. American exporters will only receive those benefits with total certainty if we pass this bill to provide these normal trade relations with Russia. If we fail to do so, we really hold back American workers and businesses from growing in the Russian marketplace, which, by the way, has 140 million consumers. Our European and Asian competitors would have that reliability and certainty that we would lack. When Russia doesn't play by the rules, our competitors around the globe would be able to take them to the world trade court, but we wouldn't. If we think about it, in a way we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't move forward with permanent normal trade relations with Russia. Russia is now the ninth largest economy. Unfortunately, we are underperforming in the Russian market. The United States, the world's greatest exporter, now only accounts for less than 5 percent of Russia's imports. Our competitors in Europe have a 40-percent share of the Russian market. China holds a 16-percent share of that market. So, again, it is a growth economy; it is an economy where we have tremendous opportunities. I know Chairman Baucus talked about this earlier today. I watched him on C-SPAN where he talked about the opportunities in this market and about the need for us to help our exporters here in the United States by opening this potential market for our workers and our farmers. We can do much better if we pass this PNTR bill. This is certainly true in my home State of Ohio. Ohio already exports about $200 billion a year in goods to Russia, and we want to retain those sales and add even more. This bill impacts a number of businesses with a large Ohio footprint. Caterpillar, the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, is one of them. Caterpillar employs nearly 1,000 Ohioans, including in the Miami Valley in Clayton, and is a great example of the certainty the PNTR bill will bring. With Russia's entrance into the WTO, tariffs on American-made Caterpillar trucks exported to Russia will fall from 15 percent to 5 percent. That allows Caterpillar to be much more competitive in the Russian market. For Caterpillar's off-highway trucks, the tariff reductions exceed $100,000 per truck. That is a real difference. It is a substantial margin. But if we don't pass this bill, we have no idea how Russia will treat our U.S. exports and we will have no way to hold them accountable. Other Ohio businesses that will benefit include Procter & Gamble, which sells more than 50 brands in Russia, including detergents, shampoos, and diapers. They have the leading market share, by the way, in 75 percent of the categories in which they compete. Eaton, which is a company in the Cleveland area and has thousands of employees in northeast Ohio, exports industrial clutches and brakes to Russia and looks forward, again, to the certainty this bill will bring when working with our customers in Russia. They need that certainty. GE Aviation in Ohio employs about 9,000 people in Cincinnati and has a great opportunity to compete as Russia acquires over 1,000 new civilian aircraft over the next decade. Ohio's cattlemen strongly support this legislation. Russia has made some important concessions in the negotiations that will help meet the growing demand for U.S. beef in Russia. Russia is currently the fifth largest export market for U.S. beef. According to the USDA, over 48,000 head of U.S. live cattle were sold to Russia just this year. In 2011 Ohio exported over 3,000 cattle to Russia, and we expect that number to rise dramatically. The bill also contains some items the Russian Government opposes, including the human rights provisions which were discussed earlier here on the floor, inspired by the treatment of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Senators Cardin, McCain, and others have put the spotlight on the corruption and the lack of transparency in Russia. These provisions will clamp down on human rights abusers, denying them visas and putting them on notice that their corruption won't be tolerated by freedom-loving countries such as the United States. The House passed this bill last month on the anniversary of Magnitsky's death, and it is time the Senate does the same. We also have some provisions in this legislation that will ensure that our trade negotiators keep Russia's feet to the fire in implementing all the various commitments Russia has made, particularly with regard to agriculture. Russia has not always played by the rules. It has been a point of friction between our countries. We need to be sure they do the heavy lifting back home to bring their laws into compliance, including their pervasive use over time of non-science- based standards to discriminate against our U.S. agricultural exports. I also wish to note my strong concern with Russia's involvement on another front; that is, their involvement in the continuing Syrian conflict. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have watched the Syrian situation with alarm, particularly as we have seen it unfolding this week. Russia has been anything but an ally in this case with the support of the Asad regime. They vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at imposing tough sanctions on the Asad regime. When Russia isn't using their veto power to support their Syrian friends, they are arming the Asad dictatorship with over $1 billion, we are told, in weaponry, including attack helicopters, that they are using to continue their terror against their own citizens in Syria. Let me be clear. While I fully oppose Russia's actions in Syria, this bill is no gift to Russia. In fact, this bill has teeth. It brings Russia into a rules-based system. It is good for America and our economy and our jobs, and I think it strikes a critical balance by giving critical assistance to American companies that want to export their products to Russia's growing middle class, supporting good-paying jobs here at home, while forcing Russia to play by the rules and, again, providing binding penalties if they fail to live up to these international standards. While I am pleased we are finally moving forward on this bill, I am also disappointed we haven't made more progress over the last 4 years on trade. We didn't make opening new export markets a high priority in the President's first term. I am hoping that will change over the next 4 years because helping U.S. job creators export shouldn't be a partisan issue. Over 100 bilateral trade agreements are being negotiated today as we speak here on the floor. The United States is a party to none of them. We are a party to one multilateral trade agreement which I support, but we need to get back and engage in these bilateral agreements and open markets for our products. We have been sitting on our hands on the side lines in an increasingly global and dynamic economy. This is the first administration actually since FDR not to ask for the ability to negotiate export agreements and bring them to Congress under expedited procedures, which is now called trade promotion authority. And this is something unique. This administration has yet to even ask for it over the last 4 years. Last year, we finally passed the Korea, Colombia, and Panama export agreements. Hopefully, our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to Russia will signal a new chapter for us to engage as a Congress and with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade policy. I am pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from Republicans and Democrats in the House, getting 365 votes, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this legislation before us.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Tinkham ``Tink'' Veale II. Mr. Veale was a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist who contributed greatly to the success of numerous businesses and community institutions throughout northeast Ohio and beyond during his long life. The impact and proud legacy of his business expertise and generosity will be realized for many years to come. Mr. Veale was born in 1914 in Topeka, KS and moved to the Cleveland area as a child when his father joined the Eaton Corporation. He attended Heights High School and Case Institute of Technology, graduating with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. Mr. Veale worked for several companies including General Motors. In 1941 he married Harriett Ernst, of the Ernst and Young accounting family, who passed away in 1998. The couple had three children, seven grandchildren and eight great grandchildren. In the 1960s, Veale and his associates formed Alco Standard Corporation. Veale developed the philosophy and strategy he referred to as ``corporate partnership,'' through which his company acquired and financed small businesses while keeping their original management structures in place. His success grew from buying small companies and helping them to succeed through keeping their management in place while contributing with capital and strategic direction. Over the years, the company operated many businesses representing diverse industries including manufacturing, mining, and banking, as well as operating office equipment and paper distribution businesses. Veale served as Alco's president and chairman until 1971 and stayed on as chairman until 1986. By 1987, the company had 175 businesses with 16,000 employees in the United States and Europe. Mr. Veale had a unique spirit and love of life. Over the years he was active in a variety of community organizations, served as a councilman in Gates Mills, OH, and was known for raising thoroughbred horses. Perhaps most significant, was his generous philanthropy which continues to benefit communities, students and institutions in Ohio. He was a notable supporter of his alma mater, Case Western Reserve University, where the most recent pledge of $20 million from The Veale Foundation is being utilized for construction of a new university center, which will be named in his honor. Tink Veale was a role model and a source of inspiration to us all. He will be greatly missed, and his extraordinary legacy and giving spirit will not be forgotten.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Seven minutes.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. PORTMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member for the way they are handling this bill. As we have seen on the floor today, Democrats and Republicans alike are able to offer amendments and have an honest debate on the issues, which is exactly how we ought to be operating. As the fiscal cliff approaches we should not only be working together across the aisle to address issues like we are today with the Defense authorization bill, but we should also be working to address other critical issues, including tax issues and spending issues. That is what I wanted to address. We have a lot of challenges. Instead of pulling together we seem to be pulling apart, and I am specifically referring to some of the suggestions by some in the majority that we consider a controversial and partisan rule change that would marginalize minority Members and in a way that breaks the current rules to change the rules. What I mean by that is it takes 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate. That is a rule, by the way, that dates back to 1917. The reason that is in place is because, obviously, folks wanted to force the majority and minority to work together to make those rule changes. We don't get a two-thirds vote without that. I think it is important that the basic rules are ones that are agreed on. The party in the majority tends to change a lot around here. In fact, we have shifted back and forth between Republicans and Democrats 7 times in the past 30 years. So at one point we are in the majority, one point in the minority, and that is why having these basic rules in place make sense. There are some proposing we get around the 67-vote majority by some procedure where, instead of having a two-thirds vote, we would just have a majority vote to change a rule. Regardless of what rule that might be--some would say it would be on the motion to proceed and other aspects of the filibuster. Of course it would set a precedent that could change the rules for other things as well. I think that would prove counterproductive in the short term. I also think it would prove counterproductive in the long run for the Senate. All of us are focused, I hope, on the serious economic challenges that we face with the fiscal cliff impending. I think this would be the wrong time for us to put this body into an even more partisan environment by changing these rules. Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for what we are doing today because this is an example of how the Senate can work and has worked on several bills in my short time here. But in other cases we have not been able to do that. I think that involves both parties, again, working together to solve these problems. The issue before us is the fiscal cliff, and I also want to address briefly, if I may, the ongoing discussion about taxes and what we should do regarding taxes. I want to take this opportunity to talk a little about why some of us believe that raising tax rates would be counterproductive at a time when our economy is so weak, and that there is another opportunity, and that is for tax reform. The jobs crisis and the debt crisis are linked, and the President has made that point. He has said his priority in the grand bargain discussions, the fiscal cliff discussions, is to ensure that we encourage economic growth and jobs. So we should use this as an opportunity to address the underlying problems that are holding back our economy, an economy that is in tough shape today. Unemployment is still stuck just below 8 percent. The projections CBO has given us for the next year, by the way, are continued anemic growth in the economy and, in fact, unemployment going up, not down. The economic case against imposing higher taxes is overwhelming. We all know if we tax something, people tend to do less of it and that is one reason why smoking is taxed, to get people to quit smoking. So why do we want to raise taxes on working, saving, and investing? Instead, we should encourage policies that create jobs, not discourage them through higher taxes. Don't take it from me. There are others who have commented on this on both sides of the aisle. Christina Romer, President Obama's former Chief Economic Adviser, has written that in most circumstances, a tax increase that equals about 1 percent of GDP actually lowers GDP by about 3 percent. Harvard economist Marty Feldstein has written that a $1 increase in tax rates tends to cost the economy about 76 cents of growth. There is a global perspective on this as well because other countries have gone through these fiscal problems and they have chosen to cut spending in some cases and raise taxes in other cases. There is a Harvard economist, Alberto Alesina, who has recently studied the experience of 17 countries in the developed world, such as the United States. Over the past 25 years, he has looked at how they have attempted to reduce their budget deficits. Based on IMF data, which is the International Monetary Fund, he concluded that ``tax-based deficit reduction'' was, in his words, ``always recessionary.'' By contrast, reducing deficits by cutting spending and enacting pro-growth reforms, including tax reform, actually spurred economic growth, according to the same study. I think that this is consistent with our own economic history. Between 1948 and 1961, a period when the highest income tax rate rose from 82 to 91 percent, we went through some tough times. We had four recessions. Thankfully, our exports that helped rebuild Europe following World War II helped keep the economy moving. Reducing the top tax rate to 70 percent also helped, but the 1970s were still a period of stagnation, recession, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation. It was when Ronald Reagan reduced rates to 28 percent that we saw this impressive period of growth, maybe the most impressive ever. It is something we saw again in 1997 when capital gains taxes that were cut under President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress were followed by a surge of investment and growth into the late 1990s. Again, after the 2003 tax rate cuts, we saw another example of the power of low tax rates. This was the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters before those rate cuts, the economy lost 1 million jobs. In the six quarters after those tax rate reductions, in 2003, economic growth nearly doubled and 2.3 million jobs were added. Some tax increase advocates may assert a willingness to accept slower economic growth in the cause of deficit reduction and that is a legitimate point of view, that we need to have slower economic growth because deficit reduction is so important. But I would also point out some statistics. Slow growth also means less tax revenue. The White House's own data suggests that even a .26-percent reduction in economic growth--which is likely with big tax hikes--would wipe out the entire $800 billion in promised deficit reduction from higher tax rates. Growth is so incredibly important to reducing our debt and deficit and getting in control of our fiscal situation. So tax rate increases are not only bad economic policy, but they tend to be bad budget policy. Tax reform is needed, and through tax reform we could have higher revenues. But both theory and practice make a convincing case that keeping rates low is better for the economy and jobs. Structural spending reforms combined with pro-growth tax reform, in my view, are the right approach and I think historically that has proven to be true. I will speak for myself as one Republican, although other Republicans as well are willing to accept new revenues, but the right way to do it is through reforming our outdated Tax Code and having these structural reforms that everybody feels are necessary. Both the corporate and individual sides of the Code are marked by relatively high marginal rates and a complex maze of tax preferences that distort economic decisions, misallocate capital, and allow some taxpayers to avoid paying their share. Tax reform can kill two birds with one stone. By capping or eliminating inefficient tax preferences, we can avoid raising corporate and individual rates, without adding a dime to the deficit, by the way. In fact, if done right, tax reform will increase revenues by spurring growth, job creation and, therefore, bigger tax receipts. Tax reform is both a fiscal and competitive necessity for our country. It has been more than 25 years since we substantially reformed the Tax Code and twice as long--about 50 years--since we did a bottom- up review of our international tax laws. The world has changed a lot in that time period, yet America has not kept up. The underlying assumptions in our Tax Code are, frankly, out of step with today's complex global economy. This is especially evident in our corporate Tax Code. The United States is now the highest corporate tax country among all the developed countries in the developed world. Canada has lowered its federal corporate rate from 16.5 percent to 15 percent, bringing its combined rate to 25 percent--nearly 15 points lower than the U.S. combined rate. Our rate is 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burden. The Federal burden is 35 percent and the State burden is closer to 36 percent. So right now the average among all of the developed countries in the world is 25.1 percent, and the U.S. rate stands at 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burdens. A similar trend, by the way, has played out with respect to international tax rules, as our trading partners, including Japan and Britain, have moved to a more competitive, territorial-like tax regime over the past 10 years, which encourages movement of investment, capital, and jobs overseas. So there is a simple point here which is, by standing still, the United States is falling behind. The resulting drag on American competitiveness and job creation is real and substantial. The solution is tax reform that broadens the tax base by scaling back tax preferences and cutting the corporate rate. We could cut it to 25 percent and scale back the deductions, credits, and exemptions, and have a competitive, territorial system and have it all be revenue neutral. There is such a proposal by the Joint Committee on Taxation here in Congress. I am not saying it is easy. Some of these preferences, of course, and loopholes are ones that are very difficult to reduce or eliminate, but it would be the right thing to do for our economy. I think we have seen some signs of developing bipartisan consensus on this issue and I am hopeful we will see the same movement for pro-growth individual tax reform, because reforming the entire Tax Code is critical to regaining competitiveness, spurring growth, and producing the revenues we need to pay for important public priorities. The smart way to raise revenue is not through tax hikes that will shrink our economy, but rather through tax reform designed to help grow the economy and help make American workers and businesses more competitive so we can compete and win in the global economy. Again, today as we are approaching the fiscal cliff I hope this Senate works together on a bipartisan basis to work toward tax reform in a way to increase revenues and grow our economy while we look at the important structural reforms we have to make in order to solve the fiscal crisis we face. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I wish to follow up briefly on that and say that in 1997, when we decided to move toward a balanced budget agreement when President Clinton was President, there was also an agreement to cut the capital gains rate. We sometimes forget the capital gains rate cut produced a lot of revenue that was not expected. As a result, we got to a unified balanced budget on a unified basis more rapidly than anybody thought we would. It came 2 or 3 years sooner than projected, in part because there was about $100 billion of new revenue that showed up the next year from the fact that we did reduce the capital gains rates. I understand the need for us to deal with the deficit and to have revenue. There is no question that this is necessary, but to do it by raising rates alone, which is what is being proposed by some people, is going to result in lower economic growth, it is going to result in job loss, and it is not going to have the intended benefit on the revenue side. The alternative is clear, which is, for the first time in a couple of decades, we need to get busy on reforming this Tax Code as Ronald Reagan did with Democratic help, including Democratic Senators such as Phil Bradley here in the U.S. Senate, to encourage growth and to encourage the kind of economic growth that is going to result in more revenue coming in. We should not miss this opportunity to do that. As I said earlier, I believe there is a building consensus around that. We saw it in the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We have seen it in the Rivlin-Domenici work, and other outside groups have looked at this, at our Tax Code. And by broadening the base, we can be more competitive and through growth have additional revenues coming in.

Mr. PORTMAN. Yes. That would be great. I am willing to take a voice vote, and I believe it is going to be accepted.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut in offering this amendment, which is modeled on the bipartisan legislation we introduced in March along with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. We also recently joined to form a Senate caucus to end human trafficking, and I appreciate the chair and ranking member today for allowing this amendment to move forward. The aim of this amendment is pretty simple. This amendment ensures that our contingency contracting dollars are spent in a manner that is consistent, as Senator Blumenthal said, with our deeply held values as a country. This is particularly important in the context of wartime contracting and reconstruction work. This amendment comes from the work that both DOD and State Department IGs have done. The inspectors general have told us we lack sufficient monitoring to have the kind of visiblity we need under the labor practices by our contractors and subcontractors who rely on a lot of third-party nationals to do overseas work. It also comes from the Wartime Contracting Commission, which has reported what is described as evidence of the recurrent problem of trafficking in persons by labor brokers or subcontractors of contingency contractors. The report concluded that existing prohibitions on such trafficking have failed to suppress it. One of the commission members, a former Reagan and Bush administration defense official, testified before our committee, saying those findings were, in his assessment, just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this legislation is appropriate. It directly affects this issue that has been raised now by the IG and by the Wartime Contracting Commission. This is a commonsense approach to it. Broadly defined, we believe this will help to deal with the human trafficking issue that has been identified. It deals with recruiting workers to leave their home countries based on fraudulent promises, confiscating passports, limiting the ability of workers to return home, charging workers so-called recruitment fees that consume more than a month's salary, just to name some of the abuses that have been identified. I think it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of these contractors and subcontractors are law abiding, but we need to be sure these abusive labor practices are dealt with. This legislation will do so. I thank my colleague for raising it today. I am proud to join him in cosponsoring the legislation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 2956.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to expand the opportunities for defense industry employees to attend or participate in Department of Defense educational institutions and programs. Specifically, the amendment will broaden the existing statute that authorizes defense industry employees to obtain a master's degree at Defense Department schools, such as the Naval Postgraduate School, by also allowing them to obtain professional continuing educational certification. Having key members of the defense industry exposed to the unique courses offered at these institutions is a win-win for the Federal Government. The industry pays the tuition and covers all costs associated with their attendance, and in the process our defense industry partners gain greater expertise in the military application of engineering and science, as well as acquisition and program management expertise. Again, I believe this is a win-win for the government, and I ask for a voice vote of the pending amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I do seek recognition.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a pretty simple amendment. It has to do with correcting a problem that we have found in Ohio and around the country. Amendment No. 2956 simply calls on the Secretary of Defense to work to standardize the educational transcripts of separating servicemembers. I appreciate Senator Akaka's leadership and cosponsorship of this amendment. It is an important issue to a lot of our veterans as they are seeking to pursue their educational opportunities after being in the service. If they seek to use the GI bill or other benefits to further their education after taking off the uniform, they sometimes find they have an issue of getting credit for work they have done in the service. Each servicemember is issued a transcript upon leaving Active Duty. The transcript equates military training and instruction to academic credits. Colleges and universities then use these transcripts to award transfer credit to veteran students. Unfortunately, there is a significant difference in the types of transcripts issued by each of the military services. As a result, two veterans from different services who took the exact same military courses could receive significantly different academic credit at the same school. If we multiply that across all the services, all of our veteran students, and across all the colleges and universities in this country, we end up with some real issues. We end up with many veterans losing out on credit they deserve, as well as very well-intentioned colleges and universities spending a lot of time and resources trying to make sense of all these differences to help this process for veterans. It often falls on the Veterans Service Offices in these schools, and as my colleagues know, these Veterans Service Offices should be spending their time assisting veterans with their transition to academic life, which is sometimes a challenge. Ohio has been leading on this issue and has organized public and private schools, our State board of regents, and even the Ohio National Guard to try to bring some sense to this. That has been helpful, but it would be far easier and far better to standardize the military transcripts themselves. It would avoid, again, a lot of the issues, a lot of the bureaucracy. The Defense Department has recognized some of these issues, and I think they have started down the path of developing a joint services transcript. This is an important first step, and through this amendment we seek an understanding of those requirements and their implementation plan for this kind of initiative, should it be in place, in order to see it on a path to a swift and thorough resolution. So I think this is one that, again, as the chairman was asking, could be voice-voted. I hope it will be. So, Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the pending amendment.

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 pending measure be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2995.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

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