Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. This is simply an opt-out, it is not a mandate. It gives the States the discretion to do it. The States would be required to support the highway system. It is a different vote from the previous amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense approach to make sure we get more money into our roads and bridges.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is about States being able to control what happens at their rest areas. It is a very important amendment. It is supported by a number of different groups: the National Governors Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Citizens Against Government Waste, a lot of private sector entities, as well as other organizations. It goes to a mandate that was put in place back in 1956 that is a typical one-size-fits-all Federal mandate--unfunded--that does not allow States the flexibility to decide what they do at their rest areas. This amendment would lift that mandate from 1956. Incidentally, 26 of us represent States that already allow some commercial activity at rest areas because those rest areas were grandfathered in before the 1956 mandate. It makes a lot of sense, and it will save States hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It takes that money and provides for the needs of the State in the transportation areas, including putting more money into roads and bridges. This amendment does not direct or mandate States to do anything. They do not have to commercialize a single rest area. They do not have to change the way they are doing anything, but they would have the opportunity to do so. It gives States the much needed flexibility they want.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Bishop Timothy Clarke of Columbus, OH for his 30 years of dedicated leadership and service to First Church of God. This past Sunday, March 11, 2012, marked both Bishop Clarke's 30th year as Pastor and First Church of God's 75th Anniversary. Bishop Clarke began his work in January 1974, serving as Associate Minister at First Church of God in his hometown of Far Rockaway, NY. In November 1977, Bishop Clarke began his pastorate at York Avenue Church of God in Warren, OH, where he served for 4 years. In February, 1982, he became the Senior Pastorate of First Church of God in Columbus, OH. He was later consecrated to the office of Bishop in September 2001. Bishop Clarke is a respected community leader in central Ohio and is the recipient of many honors and degrees for his service. He has served on the boards of various community organizations, and he has authored seven books. Having worshipped with him and his congregation, I can attest to his significant impact on the community, and I am honored to call him a friend. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Bishop Clarke for his dedicated service as he and his congregation celebrate this joyous occasion of his 30th year as Pastor and the First Church of God's 75th anniversary.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendments Nos. 1736 and 1742 and ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support these amendments. The first one gives the States the freedom to keep their gas taxes. For decades, Washington has collected State gas taxes through its highway program, taken its cut off the top, and then attached burdensome mandates to the funds before sending them back to the States. It hasn't worked. Since 2008, the highway trust fund has been bailed out three times from the Treasury's general fund to the tune of about $35 billion. During that time, the Federal Government has required that 10 percent of all surface transportation funds be spent on wasteful ``enhancements,'' which has included archeological planning and research, transportation museums, and scenic ``beautification'' along highways, and so on. The GAO has found that between 2004 and 2008, at a time when our bridges and roads have been in disrepair and have needed all the help they could get, the highway trust fund spent $78 billion on projects not related to the support of our Nation's network of highways and bridges. With the economy struggling, we need to provide States with the ability to move quickly and innovatively to implement their transportation priorities instead of a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington. Ohio's gas taxes should not be watered down, shouldn't be wasted by costly Federal mandates, regulations, and bureaucracies that Ohio doesn't think are necessary. Rather, States should have the freedom to use the revenue collected from highway users within their own States in the way the State sees fit to get more money into infrastructure. This amendment will give States the freedom they need to do that, while ensuring that States maintain the current Interstate State Highway system in accordance with current standards. We need to pass this amendment today so that States can get back on track. Let me give you an example I recently heard about over the weekend. This comes from Jeff Linkous, who is the Clinton County, OH, engineer. It is an example of how the Federal Government sometimes gets in the way and escalates the cost of projects. Todds Fork there is a local stream. It is crossed by two roads, Prairie Road and Starbuck Road. For each of the roads, Clinton County has built a bridge over Todds Fork. The same firm designed both bridges. They are the same length, but there was one major difference. The bridge for Prairie Road was built using Federal money, while the bridge for Starbuck Road was built using Ohio funds. According to Jeff Linkous, the federally funded bridge cost about 20 percent more than the State-funded bridge. I hear this all over the State, as I am sure my colleagues do as well. It took more time from design to bid, so it was more expensive and took more time, and was more costly in both respects. The Federal project costs more in a lot of areas, including Federal bureaucracy, more environmental studies, more historical and archaeological studies, more right-of-way expenses, more design and review costs. The stakes have never been higher. The Federal Government cannot continue the current course of wasting our State's gas taxes. Since the last transportation authorization bill, called SAFETY-LU, back in 2005, the outlays have exceeded revenues from the gas taxes every single year. We have to get back on a fiscally sustainable path, eliminate the waste, and allow the States the flexibility to maintain their roads, bridges, and highways. This amendment would do that. It is an opt-out, not a mandate. States could choose to opt out or not. The second amendment also is a fiscally responsible one that helps the taxpayer. It lifts an antiquated one-size-fits-all government mandate that dates back to 1956, and it would allow the States the freedom to make their own decisions on how to manage their rest areas, which the Federal Government forces States to pay to maintain and improve. The current approach would set up a patchwork of exemptions, acceptance, and special permits that allows some States to commercialize rest areas, while prohibiting other States from doing the same. Under this amendment, States would have the freedom to commercialize interstate and noninterstate rest areas, as long as they don't impair the highway or interfere with the full use and safety of the highway. At a time when America's core transportation infrastructure--highways, roads and bridges--needs all the help it can get, the Ohio Department of Transportation spends $15 million a year on rest area upkeep in Ohio alone. The high cost of maintaining and improving these rest areas is handcuffing the ability of Ohio and other States to spend more money on core infrastructure, roads and bridges. This is a fiscally conservative pro-taxpayer amendment that would help States such as Ohio recover some of these losses or maybe even break even or maybe add some revenue, by allowing restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, or other entities to lease spaces at rest areas. It is a commonsense approach that is supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and by a lot of the private sector as well. This amendment is a way to give core infrastructure projects more funding, while enacting a proposal that actually helps the States to be able to make the decision. In Ohio alone, if you take out $50 million a year cost for rest areas and calculate it over the next 20 years, that is $1 billion that could go into highway infrastructure. This amendment doesn't direct or mandate States to commercialize rest areas or commercialize in any specific way. It leaves it up to the States, and it gives States the flexibility they want to be able to make their own decisions on how best to use those rest areas. I urge colleagues to join me in voting to lift the Federal mandate and give States the freedom to develop their own underused and expensive rest areas. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to remember Dr. William Schubert of Cincinnati, OH, for his many years of outstanding leadership and service to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and our Greater Cincinnati community. Dr. Schubert, a Cincinnati native, died on February 25, 2012. Bill Schubert graduated from Walnut Hills High School and then went on to attend the University of Cincinnati. Shortly after his arrival on campus, he was drafted into the U.S. Navy. After his service in the Navy, Dr. Schubert graduated from the University of Cincinnati and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Bill Schubert's 33 year career at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center included 13 years of service as the center's president and chief executive officer. Under his leadership, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center was ranked within the top 5 best pediatric medical centers in our country and was also designated as a Level 1 pediatric trauma center. Some of his other notable career achievements include establishing new clinical and research divisions for the center and overseeing the opening of the hospital's first two satellite outpatient centers. In addition to his service to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Bill Schubert remained active in the Cincinnati community through his involvement in various local and national organizations. In 1993, he was named a Great Living Cincinnatian by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. He left a legacy of leadership and kindness, and his devotion to his community serves as an example for others to follow. I would like to remember Dr. William Schubert for his dedication to Cincinnati Children's Hospital and for the extraordinary impact he made on our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise with my colleague Senator Brown, who has just spoken about this terrible tragedy that occurred in our State on Monday at Chardon High School in Geauga County. I was calling into a radio program in the Cleveland area on Monday morning when the first reports started to come in. Frankly, it was unbelievable that there could be a shooting anywhere but certainly in a high school and in this community that I visited that Senator Brown and I both know. Unfortunately, the rumors ended up being true and the tragedy is--as Senator Brown has just described so well--that lives were cut short and these were lives full of promise. We will never know those young people Senator Brown was just talking about as adults, but we will always remember them, and now they are memorialized in the Congressional Record. My wife Jane and I have been keeping the families in our prayers, and for that matter the entire Chardon High School community. We continue to pray for the healing of those who were injured in flesh and in spirit through this terrible act. As the parent of a high school student who is about the same age as these young people, I cannot imagine what the parents have gone through over the last 4 days. Chardon is a beautiful community. It is almost a New England-style town on the Western Reserve, with a beautiful town square. It is a place of certainty, and that certainty, of course, now has been shattered. It touches so many people around Ohio. One of my staff has two cousins who attend the school, and along with two other cousins who have already graduated from the school, fortunately, their family members are all OK. But it shows that despite being a big State, all of us in Ohio are tied together. We have been in touch with the Chardon officials offering to help where it is appropriate. I know Senator Brown has made a call, as has the Governor, and the President has made a call. We all want to be there and help in any way we can. We can draw some hope from the heroism of the day. Unbelievably, the assistant football coach and teacher, Frank Hall, chased the shooter with his gun and showed a lot of bravery. A math teacher, Joe Ricci, rescued one of the injured students. We draw hope from the rank and leadership of Principal Andy Fetchik, Chardon schools Superintendent Joe Bergant, Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland, Chardon Police Chief Tim McKenna, and the first responders who responded as they always do, and we appreciate and commend them for their reactions and their ability to deal with a very difficult situation. The community has received a lot of support and will need it as they come together to grieve and to heal. The reports I have heard about, the vigils and gatherings over the last week have been moving. I am told as students returned to school for the first time today, they gathered in that town square I talked about and walked together in unison. We need to make sure we continue to pull together and continue to support the community and school. For the parents to heal is a journey, and the journey has just begun. I have been moved by the expressions of support from other local high school students too. Apparently, other students of the Cleveland area have gone Hilltopper red and black, which is the mascot, to show their support for other students. We are in the Chamber with some of our pages who are about the same age as these students and that show of support and love is appreciated and it shows the character of our State. We pull together in Ohio. We pull together in times of tragedy, through tears and through pain. We will get through this. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with my colleague about the tragedy and to be sure that in the Record we are memorializing this event and ensuring that those students whose lives have been cut short will all be remembered. God bless Chardon and the Chardon community. I yield back the balance of my time. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. It does. I think most people get it. Because even if you do not have a degree in economics, and I do not, we understand the law of supply and demand works. So if you are going to cut the supply, as has happened, you are going to see prices go up. Let me give you an example. In 2010, the President cancelled leases in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic. In 2011, he put forward a 5-year lease plan that reinstitutes a moratorium in the Atlantic, Pacific, halves the number of lease sales in the old plan. So, again, if supply is going down, you are likely to see prices go up. That is exactly what has happened. He slowed down permits for deepwater and shallow water drilling in the gulf. He is now set to impose severe new regulations on oil refiners. That is going to further raise prices. Speaking of oil refineries, that is a big part of the cost of gasoline. About 11 percent of the cost, according to the American Petroleum Institute, of the price of gasoline comes from refining. By putting more and more regulations and costs on refining, you are going to have an impact on prices as well that is negative and hurting our families. The EPA, the cap-and-trade regime, did not get through the Congress. So they are moving ahead through regulations, causing a lot of uncertainty, a lack of construction of refineries. The first new refinery in a generation, in fact, has been delayed because of it. This actually brings us to the second problem, I say to my colleagues from Missouri and Texas. This is not just about gas prices, as important as that is; it is about jobs. Because by stopping the construction of a refinery, we are putting new regulations on not allowing the kind of drilling we want to do in the State of Ohio to bring jobs, and you are hurting the very jobs Americans need to be able to pay their gas bill. These are good-paying jobs. They tend to be jobs that pay well, have good benefits. So a progrowth energy strategy does not just result in a more secure energy source, more reliable energy, it also results in more jobs, which we need desperately. The President seems to be saying he is going to reverse course. In his State of the Union Address, he says he is for an all-of-the-above strategy. By the way, a week after that, do you know what he did? He rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, which--talk about all of the above-- we certainly should be from our strong ally to the North getting oil we need for our refineries to get the cost down. By the way, that pipeline also picks up American oil. I bet you that our colleague from North Dakota is going to talk about that in a little while, because he has been Governor of North Dakota and understands the importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline. So whether it is the offshore drilling we talked about, moving ahead with drilling onshore, and exploration that can help create jobs and energy security, whether it is the Keystone XL Pipeline, whether, as I talked about in terms of the regulations on our refineries, there are things we can do and should do and do immediately, if we do these things to have more domestic energy production, yes, we will begin to see these prices go down and stabilize. I come from Ohio. As the Senator from Missouri said, we have a tradition of producing oil and gas. It goes back to the turn of the century, the last century. Then we kind of got away from it for a while and people in Texas started producing a lot more oil and gas. We are back in the business, thanks to these shale finds. The Marcellus shale--it is the Utica shale, it is natural gas. But it is also oil and what they call wet gas, which is very valuable. I will tell you, having spent a lot of time in eastern Ohio over the last several days, people are excited about this. It is bringing back good-paying jobs, allowing people to stay in these communities and be able to raise their families with not just a living wage but real hope for the future. It also will have an effect on our gas prices. We have an opportunity, before things get worse, to come up with a different solution, a sensible national energy policy that stops our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and leads to more domestic production and therefore prices we can afford at the pump.

Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator is absolutely right. I say to my colleagues from Texas and Missouri, they are right on in terms of the impact on Ohio families. I was home last week. In fact, I drove from Ohio to Washington last night. I had to fill up a couple of times on the way, and the price was over $3.70 a gallon. According to AAA, the average price now is over $2.70 a gallon. This is impacting families. I have met with people who were in the trucking business and small operators who are trying to make ends meet. They are saying: Rob, I do not know how this is going to work because our gas prices keep going up at a time when our expenses are going up as well. They are getting squeezed out. Of course, higher prices for gas affect all of us as families, they affect everything we buy, because that cost is embedded there. So this is hurting our economy in very fundamental ways. Record levels for this time of year. This is not just a seasonal issue. This is a longer term failure of an energy policy by the Obama administration. That is something we all need to focus on, not to just be critical of bad policies which have gotten us here, but how do we get out of it? What do we do? That is what I wish to talk about for a minute today. Let me give you a couple of interesting numbers. The price of gas has increased by 94 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years, during the Obama administration. So you are talking about almost a 100-hundred percent increase in the cost of gasoline. There was an all-time high last year of $2.53 a gallon, and again over $3.70 this year already. By the way, last year the average amount spent by a family in America for gasoline at the pump--over $4,000. So this is a big part of people's budgets. We have been hit hard. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling amid a continuing weak economy, it is particularly tough because budgets are already stretched thin. We need to produce more, in my view. If you produce more, you are going to see prices come down. It is sort of the basic law of supply and demand. So right now we have demand around the world maybe picking up a little bit, and yet we are not producing as much as we should be. And, frankly, we are producing less than we have. Let me give you some interesting numbers here that actually surprised me in terms of what the President is saying versus the facts. The President says we are producing more than we have in the past. The production of natural gas on public lands and waters went down 11 percent last year; decline in oil production, 14 percent. In the Gulf of Mexico, there was a 17-percent drop from 618 million barrels in 2010 to 514 in 2011. The Senator from Texas talked about this. We are not seeing an increase; we are seeing a decrease. This is at a time when all of us, I hope, realize that we have to be focused on producing more here at home, one, so we can get prices down, and, two, so we can get less dependent on these dangerous and volatile parts of the world. If we do not do that, we are going to be subject to what happens in Libya or Iran and see gas prices spike up as we are seeing now. We have got to produce more and we have got to produce it here at home to get away from the OPEC cartel. Washington wastes time by not acting now to immediately expand that production. The White House says you cannot immediately expand production because it takes some time. Well, all the more reason to get started with it, as the Senator from Texas has said. If we had started a few years ago, we would be in much better shape. But also the price of gasoline reflects what people think it is going to be in the future. So even if we made a commitment today to get busy on more domestic production, oil and natural gas, it would affect the price because it would affect what folks are thinking about what the future prices are going to be.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Thomas Culbertson of Fremont, OH, for many years of outstanding leadership and service to The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center. A former college librarian and stockbroker, Mr. Culbertson began his service to the center in 1988 as a manuscripts curator and rose to the position of executive director in 2004. Mr. Culbertson was instrumental in developing two workshop series for educators. The first series, ``History Links: A Partnership to Teach American History,'' helped 300 area schoolteachers implement State standards for social studies that focused on American history. The second series included three workshops for more than 200 community college faculty that focused on America's Gilded Age. Mr. Culbertson also led the effort to gain accreditation for the Hayes Museum from the American Association of Museums in 2002. Of utmost importance to Mr. Culbertson's legacy is the $1.2 million restoration of the first floor of the Hayes home to how it looked when our 19th President and his wife, Lucy, lived there. With the help of the late U.S. Representative Paul Gillmor, the Hayes Center was awarded a $400,000 Save America's Treasures grant through the U.S. Department of Interior. In addition, the center received $500,000 in State capital funding, and Mr. Culbertson helped raise $300,000 in donations to pay for the restoration. The project included replicating wallpaper, carpets, and other features that had been altered over the years. The home renovation will be completed in July 2012. For his commitment to public service and the many contributions he has made to the Hayes Presidential Center, I would like to recognize and thank Mr. Culbertson for his years of service and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. As the Presiding Officer knows, this week the President sent his budget to Congress. This happens every year. The budget is a document that determines what the spending will be and what the revenues will be not just for the next fiscal year but for a 10-year period. So it is a document about what the direction of our country ought to be. It is a vision for the country, if you will. It is being sent to the Congress at a time when we face extraordinary fiscal challenges. We have a record debt of over $15 trillion. We have deficits that have been over $1 trillion a year for the last several years, and it looks as though this year, once again, it will be well over $1 trillion. In comparison to previous years, we have a debt that is now as large as our entire economy, which is larger than at any time since World War II. In fact, as a country, we are spending more money at the Federal level than we ever have before--as a percent of GDP, more than we ever have since World War II. So these are times when we have a true fiscal crisis at our doorstep and we need to handle it. We are borrowing over 35 cents of every $1 we spend at the Federal level. In that context, I have to say I am very disappointed in the budget proposal that was sent to us because it is simply not up to the challenges we face. It taxes too much, it borrows too much, and it spends too much. Unfortunately, it adds another $11 trillion to the national debt over this 10-year period--again, a debt that already tops 100 percent of our country's economy. It does nothing to change the fact that Social Security and Medicare are in trouble--very important programs, of course, but by not addressing them in this budget document it means what everybody knows, which is that unless we do something that will head toward solvency, this will continue to be the case. Remarkably, I thought, the President proposes another $350 billion in a so-called stimulus bill within this budget and pays for it either in red ink, with more borrowing, or by raising taxes. It actually raises taxes by nearly $2 trillion over this 10-year period. This is despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office has told us that by raising taxes, we are going to hurt the economy. In fact, it would result in higher unemployment next year than this year. We all know the long-term driver of these deficits is entitlement spending. These important programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with interest on the debt, are called the mandatory spending part of the budget. That is now a bigger and bigger part of the budget and the fastest growing part of the budget. It is 64 percent of the budget this year. Under what the President has proposed, for the next 10 years, that mandatory spending--which means it is not subject to annual appropriations by Congress; again, important programs but not on a sustainable path--this mandatory spending will grow from 64 percent of the budget--where it is today, which has grown and grown over the years--to 78 percent of the budget in 10 years, under the budget proposal the President has put forward. Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike, we know this is not sustainable. It is not sustainable and, unfortunately, it is going to hurt these programs in a way that is going to make it very difficult for our seniors and others who rely on them. Overall, the President's promise of deficit reduction also does not look like it works. The budget claims $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. However, if we look at it, that $5.3 trillion does not come from spending cuts. Looking at a budget table, table 3--and I ask folks at home to take a look at this--99.9 percent of that $5.3 trillion in so-called deficit reduction does not come from spending cuts, it comes from tax increases--almost $2 trillion--a savings that is considered to be a gimmick of saying we are not going to spend as much in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody knows we are not going to spend as much there. Yet they take credit for that. Already enacted spending caps--remember, the discretionary spending caps were put in place, the so-called sequestration or across-the-board cuts, they take credit for those which have already been enacted and then, finally, the net interest savings from all those policies, which is about $800 billion, they say. So again, almost all that so-called deficit reduction over the next decade comes not from spending cuts but, in fact, from either gimmicks, tax increases or things Congress has already done. That leaves very little--about $4 billion out of the $5.3 trillion--that is truly spending reductions. By the way, on top of that, in the so-called baseline that the President bases his numbers off of--in other words, we have to determine what would the spending otherwise be--in that baseline, there is another $479 billion in new spending on Pell grants, the Medicare doc fix, and so on. So the spending savings completely vanish when we put all that together. That is not the kind of budget we need right now. Last year, the President submitted a budget that I thought was a good political document, also, but did not address our budget problems, and we took it to the floor of this Senate for a vote. In the Senate, last year, the President's budget was voted on by Republicans and Democrats, and it lost by a vote of 97 to 0. I do not know how this budget would do if it came to the floor, but I am not sure it would fare much better because, frankly, when we look at this objectively, it is hard to say it addresses the very real problems we face. These are problems that relate to our spending and relate to the fact that we have these big deficits and debt, but also it relates to what is going on at kitchen tables all over America, which is people are having a harder time finding work, keeping jobs, making ends meet. The economy is tough in my own State of Ohio. We not only have high unemployment, but we have record numbers of weeks where people have been on unemployment--approximately 40 weeks now. We have a lot of people who have given up looking for work altogether. Unless we get this budget deficit and debt under control and add more predictability and certainty to our economy and to what is going to happen with these huge deficits and debt that seem to be taking us toward what is happening in Greece, Italy or Spain--unless we do that, we are not going to be able to turn this economy around and give people the kind of confidence they are looking for to be able to make investments and move our country forward. There are some other folks who are with me in the Chamber today. I would like to ask them if they would not mind talking about their budget perspective, what they see in this budget, the concerns they might have, and the ideas we have to try to improve our fiscal situation, therefore, our economy. I see the ranking member of the Budget Committee is here. I say to Senator Sessions, I know he wants to speak briefly on this issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Toomey. I appreciate his focusing on the progrowth elements because, as I said at the outset, a budget is an opportunity to set the Nation on a 10-year course, both on the spending side--how much should the government spend--but also on the revenue side. That means we are getting into how to grow the economy because the right tax reform will generate more growth. That growth will generate more revenue in the right way. Unfortunately, if we look at the proposal the President has made, it does nothing to help improve our economic growth. In fact, when the dividend tax was moved down to 15 percent, it was done so because, as Senator Toomey has rightfully pointed out, it is a double tax. In other words, it has already been taxed once at the company level. So when we get a dividend paid, we should not have to pay a high tax on it again. In fact, because of that double taxation, as he has indicated, there will be a tax--total tax of over 60 percent. By the way, in the President's budget, the dividend tax was increased from 15 percent to 39.6 percent for some taxpayers. Then, as Senator Toomey has said, we can add the surcharge that comes from the health care bill and get it up into the forties for the individual. Most people did not expect that. It is an example where this budget actually went further in terms of trying to, again, tax people more and therefore have less growth than anyone expected. Most people thought it would go from 15 percent to 20 percent or 25 percent, but not all of the way to--almost tripling the tax on dividends. So it is an example where, in this budget, there was an opportunity to lay out a pro-growth path that included tax reform. Instead, we are building on our current antiquated, inefficient tax system and just lopping more taxes on top, including taxes on capital gains and on dividends that will make it more difficult for us to have the kind of investment we need to get this economy moving again. The President, when he ran for election in 2008, pledged to reform entitlements. Senator Toomey talked about the fact that he has continued to talk about that, the need for it. I certainly agree with that, as do, by the way, most of my colleagues in the Senate, Democrat and Republican alike. The budget, of course, does nothing to help. In fact, it increases the cost significantly on entitlements, as Senator Toomey has said, an 8-percent increase on average for these important programs. But that puts them on an unsustainable footing when the economy will not be growing nearly that fast. Instead of doing something to reform these programs, making them work better, the President is just continuing to pile on more entitlements. But in 2008 the President also said he was going to cut the deficit in half. At that time the deficit that first year of his administration was $1.4 trillion. He proposed to cut it in half over the 4-year term. So now we are in 2012, the final of his 4 years--fiscal year--and their estimate for the deficit this year--from the Office of Management and Budget, from the Congressional Budget Office--is that we will be over $1.3 trillion. So it does not sound like he has cut the deficit in half. Some will say, well, it is less as a percent of our economy. That is true. Our economy has grown some. But it is still not close to cutting it in half. A lot of things happen during a Presidential term. But I would hope that the President, in putting forward a budget, would have put forward a serious effort to reduce the deficit significantly, to get this economy back on track and prepare for, again, this unsustainable growth in entitlements by truly reforming the programs to make them work better and to make them sustainable over time. We still have the opportunity to do that in the Senate. It is an election year, but we still have 8 or 9 months until the election. We should get busy working together as Republicans and Democrats, not follow the President's budget because, unfortunately, it does not provide the guidance we need. But we need to follow what all of us know in our hearts has to be done, which is grow the economy through pro- growth, sensible approaches such as tax reform, regulatory relief, and using more of our own natural resources in this country. We can help grow the economy on the one hand and, therefore, create revenue. Then, second, we ought to do everything we can to reform these programs to make them sustainable, to reduce annually appropriated spending in ways that are responsible--not just to our kids and grandkids, as important as that is, but to today's economy to ensure that we can, indeed, have a strong recovery that all of us hope for and begin to bring people back to the workforce, create jobs, get this economy moving again, and give people that dignity and self-respect that comes from work. I am glad to have had the opportunity to talk about this budget. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson for his perspective, and it is very helpful. We are now going to hear from another colleague who also is a new Member of the Senate but has a lot of experience in what makes the economy work and has been promoting progrowth tax reform and progrowth regulatory relief and other things to actually move the economy to generate more revenue in the right way, which is through growth, Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership on the Budget Committee. I see we have also been joined by one of our new Members, a freshman Member, who comes from the business side of things. He ran a manufacturing company, so he has an interesting perspective on Federal budgeting. I love to ask folks who are in business: Could you see doing business where you were borrowing 35 cents of every $1 you spent? The answer is: I wouldn't stay in business very long. With that, I would like to hear from Senator Johnson of Wisconsin.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the President's budget, which he submitted today. In an era of trillion- dollar deficits and historic debt and the greatest level of government spending since World War II, I believe the President's submission today was not a responsible budget. Instead of keeping his campaign promise to cut the deficit in half in his first term, this budget assumes continued deficits this year and next in the trillion-dollar range. Given the promises President Obama made when he came to the White House and how poorly the last budget was received by Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress--in fact, it was voted on here on the floor of the Senate, and it was defeated by a vote of 97 to 0--given those things, I hoped President Obama would step forward and turn the rhetoric into action and put forward a responsible budget to deal with the fiscal problems our government faces--no more punting, no more gimmicks, a real budget that honestly faces the fiscal crisis we have and helps put us back on track. Instead, we see a document today that is really more tailored toward campaign talking points than really addressing the long-term solvency of the Federal Government. The President begins by proposing a new $350 billion in stimulus bill. By the way, that is $350 billion with no offsets--in other words, no spending reductions to pay for it. The President's budget then claims $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. As I have looked at this budget today, it seems to me that only a minuscule amount of this is from new spending cuts. In fact, as I read this budget, 99.9 percent of the claimed deficit reduction consists of the following: No. 1, tax increases, about $1.9 trillion; No. 2, Iraq, Afghanistan war savings, which is viewed by most here in Congress, both sides of the aisle, as a gimmick--in other words, spending money that was not going to be spent anyway--$848 billion; No. 3, already enacted discretionary caps and entitlement changes, primarily from the Budget Control Act, these so-called sequesters or across-the-board spending cuts that Congress has already enacted, and that is $1.7 trillion; and then finally net interest savings from those policies, which the budget says is going to be $800 billion. Out of the claimed $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction, that leaves about .1 percent--$4 billion--of the claimed savings over the decade. So 99.9 percent of the deficit reduction he claims is through tax increases or, again, changes in spending that either have already occurred or they are not going to occur. On top of that, the President hid in his baseline--in the baseline he assumes for his spending, he hides about $479 billion in new spending. Now, this is on Pell grants and on the Medicare doc fix. So the claimed savings--even the $4 billion--vanish completely. Overall, when compared to the current policy baseline, the President would tax $4 trillion more and spend about $2 trillion more over the next 10 years of this budget. The yearly deficit would end the decade in the $600 billion range, even assuming peace, prosperity, and historically low interest rates. The national debt over the next 10 years would rise by $11 trillion, for a total debt of over $25 trillion 10 years from now. The main tax hike would end the 2001-2003 tax cuts for singles making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. There will be a lot of debate on the floor regarding this tax policy over the next year as we come to the end of the year when all of these tax cuts--$5 trillion of them--are scheduled to end, but just with regard to this tax hike, this will result in lower economic growth and more job losses according to the Congressional Budget Office. They have now testified before the Budget Committee as to the fact that this will result in higher unemployment next year. This is in large part because, according to Internal Revenue Service data, 48 percent of small business income would be subject to higher taxes under this budget proposal. I support tax reform. I think it is important. But simply taking the current code and adding higher tax rates is going to have an impact on small businesses and therefore on our economy and on jobs. This is ultimately about jobs. It is about everyday economic concerns people in Ohio and around the country have. In this budget document, we do see some honesty, but it does not make me optimistic at all. Acknowledging the impact this budget will have on the economy, the President's budget actually concedes unemployment rates next year higher than this year, and the year after higher than this year. His prediction is that unemployment rates will be 8.9 percent in 2012 and 8.6 percent in 2013--totally unacceptable and a testament to the fact that Washington cannot continue to rely on short- term sweeteners and budget spending gimmicks to grow our economy and get the country out of this fiscal mess. Again, I am disappointed in the budget we have seen today. I hope the Senate will work its will, put together its own budget, taking the President's budget and other ideas but then coming up with something that actually does address the very real fiscal problems we face, bring such a budget to the floor of the Senate, have it debated by both sides, and work out what we have not done in this Senate for over 1,000 days, which is prepare a blueprint for the fiscal and economic future of our country. Until we get such a budget, I fear we will continue to see this lack of economic growth and job loss that all of us would like to see addressed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity today to recognize the remarkable achievements of a former Senator from Ohio. The State of Ohio is known as the birthplace of aviation, it is the home of the Wright Brothers and the home to 24 astronauts. I have the privilege of calling two of these astronauts, Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, my friends. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to commemorate the tremendous achievement of one of these heroes by celebrating the upcoming 50th anniversary of the historic 1962 flight of NASA's Mercury Spacecraft, nicknamed Friendship 7. Fifty years ago on February 20, 1962, Friendship 7, piloted by John Glenn, performed 3 successful orbits of the Earth at 17,400 miles per hour, and made John Glenn the first American to orbit the earth. While in orbit, John Glenn performed a series of breakthrough experiments to test human ability to function in the weightlessness of space. He then successfully piloted the spacecraft manually after a malfunction in the automatic flight controls, overcoming severe oscillation and a dwindling fuel supply during reentry, and completing the mission by landing the spacecraft safely in the Atlantic Ocean 4 hours, 55 minutes and 23 seconds after initial launch. He returned a national hero. His historic flight inspired scientific curiosity and national enthusiasm for further space exploration, paving the way for America's continued dominance in space operations. In 1998 Senator Glenn again demonstrated his tremendous courage and reentered space at the age of 77, aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery, to examine the effect of space flight on the elderly. Space exploration is not, however, Senator Glenn's only remarkable achievement. He set the transcontinental speed record in 1957 for the first flight to average supersonic speed, flying at an average speed of 723 miles per hour, from Los Angeles to New York. Then in 1996 Senator Glenn set a new record, along with co-pilot Phillip Woodruff, of an average speed of 229 miles per hour in a 367-mile flight from Dayton, Ohio to Washington, DC. In addition to these contributions to scientific exploration and NASA, John Glenn gave 23 years of service to the U.S. Marine Corps; is a veteran of two foreign wars; flew 149 combat missions; was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross five times; and retired a colonel in 1965. Ten years later he began a career in the U.S. Senate, contributing 24 years of service as a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio from 1975 to 1999. In 1998 the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at The Ohio State University was created and Senator Glenn became an adjunct professor in OSU's School of Public Policy and Management in the Department of Political Science. Then, in 2006 the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy merged with the School of Public Policy and Management to form the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, which prepares future generations of public servants. I myself have had the privilege of co-teaching four classes at the Glenn School and have the honor of serving on its board of advisors along with Senator Glenn and his incredible wife Annie. She has been a tremendous partner for Senator Glenn through all of these experiments we have been talking about tonight. Senator Glenn's tremendous achievements have paved the way for future generations to follow in his footsteps by continuing to make the United States a global leader in science, technology, education, military service and public service. I once again commend Senator John Glenn on the success of his historic 1962 flight aboard NASA Spacecraft Friendship 7. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kyl in supporting the balanced budget amendment that Senators Lee and Hatch have crafted. I commend them for their hard work, and I particularly thank Senator Hatch for his principled leadership over the years in this effort. In the mid-1990s he almost got us to a balanced budget amendment to send to the States, and this time I hope he--showing his leadership again--will be successful. Washington's runaway spending and crippling debt burden underscore the need for us to have a balanced budget in this country. If Washington doesn't stop spending more than it takes in, I fear there will be an economic collapse, and, perhaps more profoundly, it will threaten the very foundation of our Nation--the freedom of individuals to thrive and to prosper. There is plenty of evidence to show that the huge debt burden we have is already crippling the economy. There was a recent study done by respected economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that shows that the debt burden of 90 percent of the economy will reduce a country's economic growth by 1 or 2 percentage points. Our gross debt right now is 100 percent of our economy. Growth this year is likely to be closer to 2 percent total, pretty weak growth. So 1 percent to 2 percent more would mean a 50-percent or even a 100-percent growth increase in this country. This means over 1 million new jobs could be created right now if we didn't have these huge deficits building up annually to a record debt that is now over $15 trillion. It is unacceptable that we have the economic growth that we do because it is keeping people from achieving the opportunities they seek at a time when there are almost 22 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, and we need to do everything we can to give the economy a shot in the arm. Part of it is getting our fiscal house in order and stopping this record deficit and debt. We should not condemn people to chronic unemployment through inaction in Washington. However much lawmakers at times want to do the right thing, it seems as though the political system and the budget rules around here create a bias for spending and deficits. When I left the post as Director of the Office Management and Budget in the last Presidential administration--that was in 2007--the budget deficit was $161 billion, which is about 12 percent of today's budget deficit, and I thought that was way too high. In fact, that year I proposed, on behalf of the President, a budget that actually balanced over a 5-year period because at that time we were so concerned about growing deficits and debts. Again, that was only 12 percent of today's deficit. In that time, as OMB Director, I was convinced that we need to have a discipline in Washington to balance the budget because we need to have some incentive to prioritize. Washington, again, seems to have this bias toward spending and deficits that I think can only be resolved through what 49 States have, which, again, is this power to be able to tell the elected representatives that we have to figure out how to prioritize; we have to figure out how, at the end of the day what every family in America does, what every business in America does, which is to figure out how not to spend more than we take in. Study and experience led the Founders of our country to create the best system of government ever devised: a Republic with enumerated powers. Similarly, study and experience should lead us to enact a balanced budget amendment. The times demand it. We need to reverse this system's bias in favor of deficits and debts. We need a balanced budget amendment in order to preserve the Founders' vision of a limited government of enumerated powers. But the fact is, Congress has not been able to get its spending under control through any other means. Some have called for a far higher tax rate. In other words, instead of dealing with the spending that is increasing dramatically--by the way, spending has gone up 21 percent just in the last three years. But instead of dealing with that, people say: Why don't you just raise taxes to catch up with the spending? That way we would have a balanced budget through higher and higher revenues. I guess what I would say is, Congress has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The growth in the entitlement programs, of course, is the long-term driver of this spending problem. The cost of these entitlements, along with interest on the debt, is projected to squeeze out the cost of every other Federal program within the next couple of decades, leaving little to nothing for other government priorities. People say, well, the revenues as a percent of our economy are relatively low now, and that is true. Coming out of the recession, we have not had the growth we had hoped for and that has resulted in lower tax revenues coming in. Historically, tax revenues have been 18 percent of our economy. Today they are lower than that and closer to 14.5 to 15 percent. Spending has been at about 20 percent of our economy historically since World War II. Today, that spending is over 24 percent of our economy. What happens over the next several years, based on the Congressional Budget Office analysis, is the revenues begin to increase as a percent of the economy even if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is not continued. In that case, the revenues increase even more dramatically up to 21 percent or 22 percent of the economy. So the fact is, the spending is on a trajectory to go up from a historic 20 percent to 24 percent now to 30 percent to 40 percent to 50 percent over the decades. We cannot catch that spending with enough taxes. It simply cannot be done and have a viable economy. So we have to deal with the spending side of the ledger. Even if we do raise taxes to chase the trajectory, we will upset that balance between the Federal Government and a free, robust private sector that encourages innovation and gets people back to work. If the Federal Government ends up taxing every dollar of earnings, we will have taken away the space for Americans to pursue and enjoy the rewards of their hard work, risk-taking and innovation. The Founders might have used another phrase to describe what a free economy promotes: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we are talking about how we ensure that we have economic growth so that we can bring back the jobs, and that will not happen through the level of taxation that would be required to catch up to the record levels of spending. To address Washington's natural inclination toward taxing and spending, a successful balanced budget amendment needs to do more than just require the outlays be less or equal to receipts. Again, it should include a spending cap because of the problems I have talked about with regard to the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office over the coming years and decades. It should also demand a supermajority should Congress seek to enact antigrowth tax hikes. I think this balanced budget amendment, crafted by Senators Hatch and Lee, by doing that strikes a good balance. It also addresses the concern about a balanced budget amendment limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend in a time of war. If there is a declaration of war against a nation-state, a majority vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. If the Armed Forces are engaged in a military conflict that has not been given a full declaration of war, a three-fifths vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. This is in keeping with the intention of the Founders. In Federalist 34, Alexander Hamilton drew a distinction between monarchies and republics. He said, the chief source of expense in every government was defense spending. But republics, Hamilton counseled, should not use this to live beyond their means. He wrote: There should be as great a disproportion between the profusion and extravagance of a wealthy kingdom in its domestic administration, and the frugality and economy which in that particular become the modest simplicity of republican government. Washington has spent and overspent. This has led us away from that frugality that was the intention of our Founders. A balanced budget is the only way to get back to frugality and to that ``modest simplicity of republican government.'' And that is republican with a small ``r.'' If we don't restrain spending through a balanced budget amendment, we will effectively inhibit and ultimately undermine the liberty of the Americans. We will threaten the American dream, the hope that each generation is able to pass on to the next generation a better life so that they are able to flourish and to meet, again, their achievements, their objectives in life through opportunity that can be created through a growing economy. It is time for Congress to prioritize. It is time for Congress to make tough decisions. We should do it with the discipline of a balanced budget. Time has shown us there is a need for a requirement to make those decisions. My home State of Ohio has that discipline. In fact, over the past year, Ohio has had to make some tough decisions to close a budget gap of about $8 billion. Here in Washington, we have a budget gap that is far higher. This year the government will bring in about $2.2 trillion and spend about $3.7 trillion. This gap is huge and growing, and just as 49 States do, we need to discipline Washington to force Congress to make these tough decisions to prioritize on behalf of the American people so that we don't have this crippling effect on economic growth, so that we can begin to see the kind of robust recovery we hope for coming out of the recession. For all these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of our Nation's nurses and to thank them for their service to patients across this Nation. Nurses are among the largest group of health professionals and are on the front lines of our healthcare delivery system. Each day people with different health needs are served by legions of educated, qualified, and professional nurses. Our Nation's nurses help to ensure that Americans receive quality health care and that our Nation's public health infrastructure remains strong. I recently had the opportunity to meet with nurses who visited our Nation's capital through the Nurses in Washington Internship Program. This group is made up of a coalition of nursing organizations united to promote a strong voice in advocating for the nursing community. In closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the nurses in my home State of Ohio and across the country for their service to the American public.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Mount Notre Dame High School Volleyball team for winning their sixth Ohio Division I State volleyball title on Saturday, November 12, 2011. Mount Notre Dame is an all-girls Catholic school located in Cincinnati, OH. The Mount Notre Dame Cougars prevailed in the championship match by winning three out of four sets against defending State champions Toledo St. Ursula. Led by coach Joe Burke, who has won four state titles with Mount Notre Dame, the team's mantra was ``believe.'' Mount Notre Dame has become one of the most successful programs in high school women's volleyball in the State of Ohio, and I congratulate the Mount Notre Dame Cougars on their hard-fought victory.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Absolutely. That is one of the elements of this jobs bill. It was particularly tough on defense bills because we have our national defense at stake and we have our soldiers and marines and sailors out there, and the bill comes to the President of the United States, and is he going to sign it? If he doesn't sign it, there is a risk there will be at least a gap in funding; if not, as you say, be overturned. So there is a lot of pressure to sign it. What happened, the President signed these pieces of legislation with the earmarks in them, and we have more spending than we should and spending is not going to the priorities. It is not going to the national priorities. So this legislation is simple. It says, back in the late 1990s, 1996, Clinton signed a line-item veto bill. Constitutionally, it was questionable, and sure enough the Supreme Court overturned it. Now we have come back with another way to do this so-called enhanced rescission, but it is basically a legislative line-item veto where Congress would have the right to be able to review what the President rescinded. If they didn't act within a short period of time, it would be rescinded. The Congress could act to overturn the President. We believe it is constitutional, meets all the obligations that were set out in that Supreme Court case that overturned the first line-item veto and yet puts the pressure on the Congress not to put this porkbarrel spending in, and if they do, we would have the light of day shone on it and Congress would have to individually take up these line items, these porkbarrel projects. We think this is a constructive way forward that is constitutional, that meets all the concerns that have been raised, and would help to get the spending down and to prioritize spending at a time when we have record deficits and debt.

Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right, and I appreciate his passion on this issue. He has the whole Senate focused on the idea of repatriating profits from overseas back to America to invest in jobs and growth, and he has now focused us on the need to reform the Tax Code on the individual side and on the corporate side. On the individual side, as he talked about, we have an incredibly complex Tax Code--thousands and thousands of pages. By lowering the rates and broadening the base--getting rid of some of this underbrush-- we will create economic growth. It is a necessary shot in the arm right now with over 9 percent unemployment. On the corporate side, right now we have a corporate rate that is the second highest in the world among all developed countries. The highest is Japan, and they want to lower theirs. This means jobs are going overseas instead of staying here. By lowering the rate, getting them down to the average of these other countries, we will bring more investment back to this country.