Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. By bringing the rate down to 25 percent on a revenue- neutral basis, what we do is get rid of a lot of the preferences, the exclusions, the credits, the tax deductions that enable companies right now to pay little or no taxes. We think everybody should be paying taxes. We think everybody should be subject to a fair tax system. We also think we shouldn't have to spend billions a year in complying with a Tax Code that is so complex. So instead of hiring more tax lawyers, we want people to get out there and hire more Americans to do the work--productive work--to get our economy moving. Tax reform is a way to give this economy a shot in the arm right now. It is one of many structural reforms that is in this legislation that the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona have put together with me. It is very consistent with this idea that America's best days are ahead of her, if we restructure some of these basic parts of our economy: Tax reform, necessary; lowering health care costs, absolutely critical; allowing us to explore for energy on our shores and create jobs and economic opportunity; being sure we are reducing the regulations that are strangling small businesses. These are all structural reforms we can and should do. By the way, there is bipartisan support for every single one of those elements. So I commend the Senator from Arizona for raising these issues, for his passion for them, and the Senator from Kentucky. I hope the Senate will give us the opportunity to vote on this, and it should be a bipartisan vote because so many of these issues are issues that transcend partisanship, and in each case there are Democrats and Republicans who understand the need to move our economy forward by making these structural changes.

Mr. PORTMAN. Absolutely. Let me give an example of where we could come together on something simple, and again it is something the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky have included in their legislation. Everybody knows the Federal regulators are putting more and more pressure on small businesses all around the country. We hear it every time we go home. I can't think of a time I have been home at a plant tour where somebody hasn't raised with me a Federal regulation that is causing them difficulty because it is increasing the cost of hiring somebody. At a time of over 9 percent unemployment, we have to do everything we can to get this economy moving, and one is to lessen that regulatory burden and make sure it is smart. So one of the pieces of the legislation we are promoting is to say to the Federal agencies: Go through a cost-benefit analysis, including looking at what the impact is going to be on jobs. Who could be against that? That needs to be done not just in the so-called executive branch agencies but also in the independent agencies which are not subject to these current cost-benefit rules. It is more cost-benefit rules looking at jobs but also making sure everybody has to comply with it. Then, when they come up with an idea for a regulation, make sure it is consistent with the policy of the elected representatives because too often we will see the regulators go off on their own and come up with ideas that they think might be good for the economy. That is one reason we have--according to some statistics now--as much of a cost on the economy from regulations as from taxes. Finally, it says when you come up with something, it has to be the least burdensome alternative. If the EPA had done this, for instance, in some of the legislation that the Senator is concerned about, the Senator from Kentucky, they would not be able to come up with huge new costs on business because they would have to come up with a cost- effective way to meet the policies set out by the Congress. They don't have to do that now. Who could be against that? So these are specific items that are within this bigger project of getting America back on track, increasing our jobs, dealing with the fact that America's competitiveness is at risk that are commonsense, bipartisan ideas everyone should be able to agree with. I again encourage the Senate to allow us to have a vote. Let's encourage a full debate on both sides of the aisle. Let's have a bipartisan vote on it. Let's show people whom, after all, we are elected to represent that we can come together as Republicans and Democrats and deal with the real problems facing our economy.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, on this week of Veteran's Day, I rise today to recognize SGT Thomas R. Gdovin, of Cleveland, OH, for the exceptional bravery he displayed in combat on March 8, 1968, in Vietnam while assigned to the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division. Earlier today I presented the Silver Star, one of our Nation's highest honors for gallantry in military service, to former SGT Thomas Gdovin here in Washington, DC. SGT Thomas R. Gdovin enlisted into the U.S. Army on July 5, 1966, and served in the 101st Airborne Division. Today, during a ceremony over 40 years in the making, he received the Silver Star for his bravery during the Vietnam war when he risked his own life to save a wounded soldier during combat. I was honored to have Mr. Dan Phillips, the soldier rescued, attend the ceremony alongside Mr. Gdovin's family and friends in celebration of this well deserved honor. I am honored to read the Silver Star Citation detailing Sergeant Gdovin's brave actions into the Record. The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, 9 July 1918, has awarded the Silver Star to: Sergeant Thomas R. Gdovin, 502d Infantry Regiment, 2d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) For Gallantry: in action on 8 March 1968, while serving as Squad Leader with 1st Platoon, Company D, 1st Battalion, 502d Infantry Regiment, 2d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) in support of operations in the Republic of Vietnam. Sergeant Gdovin's squad became the company's lead element during an attack on enemy forces when they received intense automatic weapons and rocket fire. The lead Soldier in the formation was severely wounded and was unable to move in an area open to enemy fire. Sergeant Gdovin placed the squad into defensive positions and suppressed enemy fire. He then left the defensive position and with complete disregard for his own personal safety and advanced across open terrain toward the wounded soldier, exposing himself to intense enemy fire. Sergeant Gdovin then reached the wounded soldier and under continued fire, brought him back to safety of the squad's position, where we was further evacuated. Sergeant Gdovin's actions are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) and the United States Army. This is truly an exceptional story and I was honored to play a small role in recognizing Sergeant Gdovin. This ceremony was an opportunity to say thank you to all veterans. We can never forget that they gave their time, risked their health, and even placed their lives on the line. This not only means honoring their sacrifices, but also honoring our promises and commitments to them as well. Let us ensure that we honor and remember all our veterans, not just this week but throughout the days and years to come. Their commitment to this Nation is a shining example to all of us.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the late civil rights leader, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who passed away earlier this month. From his humble beginnings in Mount Meigs, AL, he grew to become one of the most influential leaders in the battle for civil rights. Reverend Shuttlesworth was best known as cofounder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was formed in response to the Montgomery bus boycott, and for the role he played in the sit- ins of lunch counters in 1960 and the Freedom Rides of 1961. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. considered Reverend Shuttlesworth one of the Nation's most courageous freedom fighters. Reverend Shuttlesworth was beaten, assaulted, jailed, and had his home bombed because of his outspoken views and his fight for racial equality. In 1953, he became the presiding pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL. He continued his call to preach in Cincinnati, OH, from 1961-1966 where he pastored the Revelation Baptist Church. Reverend Shuttlesworth remained in Cincinnati during his latter years and returned to Birmingham after his retirement in 2007. During that time, he continued his fight for racial equality and became a strong advocate for the homeless. Although Reverend Shuttlesworth is no longer with us, his contributions to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague for his comments and look forward to working with him. Again, it is a simple amendment. It is a jobs amendment. It is perfectly germane to the bill. It is exactly the type of amendment that I think should not be blocked through this process. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 859, which is a germane amendment to the underlying bill. It is one I introduced that would restore fairness, encourage competition, and prevent many States around the country from seeing cost increases in the price of guardrails. This amendment specifically addresses the Transportation bill we are talking about and addresses one of the new provisions in the bill this year that is a mandate that I think is not appropriate. A lot of States have infrastructure challenges right now, and the last thing we should be doing here in the Congress is making it more difficult for States to pay for their infrastructure with the limited transportation dollars they have. With the fiscal crisis we have, we have to make sure now more than ever that States have the flexibility to meet the requirements from the Federal Government. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over 14 million Americans out of work, we should be doing everything we can to protect jobs. This amendment would hurt jobs, and this amendment I am offering would give States more flexibility to help keep some jobs. There are countless miles of guardrails in our country, and many of those are manufactured in my home State of Ohio. Those manufacturers galvanize the guardrails to prevent corrosion, and they have two options on the process they use to galvanize the metal as well as two options with regard to the thickness of the zinc they use in the galvanization process. In terms of the galvanization process, the first method is called continuous galvanization, where a company treats the flat steel with zinc and then fabricates the guardrail afterward. The second method is called batch galvanization, where the company dips the final product in a zinc bath after they have completed the fabrication. In addition, there are two types of zinc thickness options for the guardrail. Type 1 requires a thinner coat of zinc, and type 2 requires a thicker coat of zinc, which increases the life of the guardrail. A lot of States around the country, including Ohio, require type 2, which is the thicker kind of zinc, for all of their guardrails, and that is due to the harsher conditions that cause metal to erode more quickly. However, Ohio is one of those States that, although they require type 2, allow for continuous galvanization or the batch galvanization process--either one. It was a great surprise to me to read the legislation before us. The underlying bill says the States are prohibited from using any kind of guardrail unless it is type 2, plus it is produced through this batch galvanization process. So it is a mandate. Again, it has never been in this legislation before. It says it has to be type 2, meaning the thicker type zinc, and has to be applied using a particular process, so it is micromanaging the process. The life of a guardrail, as you can imagine, is entirely dependent on the thickness of the zinc but also on the environment into which it is placed. There are 15 States that still approve type 1. These States have less extreme environments where corrosion occurs more slowly, and the extra thickness of zinc is not needed. Without this amendment, they would be forced to buy a more expensive product that they don't want and don't need. By the way, those States are Mississippi, Virginia, Delaware, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, New Jersey, Colorado, Utah, Texas, California, Montana, and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of Transportation has weighed in on this issue. They have said: Requiring all galvanized steel to meet type 2 could add unnecessary expense for many States where the added thickness of galvanization is not needed. We know that type 1 galvanizing will protect guardrail components in many locations for the typical 20-year life design. The extra cost of type 2 galvanizing may be unwarranted. That is the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Ohio Department of Transportation has said that while they only use type 2 materials, ``ODOT does not have a preference as to how galvanizing occurs.'' They do not have a preference for a particular species of guardrail, as both have been found to have very similar properties to one another. They would prefer that their flexibility to use both kinds remains intact. That is the Ohio Department of Transportation. They don't want to be told they can't use the process many of them use now, which is continuous galvanization. The primary manufacturer of continuous galvanization guardrails is Gregory Industries, located in Canton, OH. It was founded in 1896. It is a privately owned company currently run by the fourth and fifth generations of the Gregory family. These guardrails make up about 75 percent of the Gregorys' business, and about 99 percent of the guardrails they make are made through this continuous galvanization process that would be prohibited under the legislation. In addition, about 30 percent of their sales come from type 1 guardrails, which would be prohibited under the legislation. So the language as it stands would be devastating for this one company and put 125 jobs in their Canton, OH, facility at risk. By the way, the guardrails they produce are approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in a document called the M-180 that dictates what is acceptable and what is not. The type of products the current language would prohibit, by the way, have been in use in all 50 States in the country, and the continuous process for galvanizing guardrails that would be prohibited has been around for 50 years. The bottom line is that we should not give this Ohio company or any company an advantage. We should allow competition to determine this and let the States determine it. Why come up with a new mandate that micromanages this process at a time when we are all trying to save dollars and use them more efficiently? So this amendment seeks to strike the language that would limit the flexibility of States and place additional costs in cases where it does make sense to use type 1 or it does make sense to use this continuous galvanization. I urge the Senate take a commonsense approach, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I know my colleague may have some thoughts on this, but, in summary, I would ask through this amendment to strike the language that would limit the flexibilities of States and encourage support of amendment No. 859.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 859.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers, SMART, Act with Senators Wyden, Burr and Ben Nelson. This bi-partisan effort will help strengthen and protect Medicare by ensuring greater reliability and efficiency of Medicare reimbursements. The SMART Act proposes common- sense solutions to problems in the current Medicare Secondary Payer, MSP, system, at no cost to the American taxpayer. With Washington's sky high debt and deficit, we need to do everything we can to ensure that vital entitlement programs, such as Medicare, are cost effective and working for the very people they were designed to help. Under the MSP program, if a Medicare beneficiary is injured by a third party and a settlement is pursued as a result of that injury, the third party is responsible for paying for the individual's medical expenses. If Medicare, now the ``secondary payer,'' pays any of the costs associated with the injury, it is entitled to reimbursement. Numerous problems exist with the current MSP system; each of these are addressed by the SMART Act. Under current law, Medicare does not have a pathway to disclose their MSP amount until after a case has been settled or adjusted--which creates an uncertainty that impedes beneficiaries and third parties from reaching a legal settlement. This legislation creates a process that allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to disclose this information before settlement, so it can be factored into the settlement. Second, Medicare often spends more money pursuing an MSP payment than they actually receive in payment. This bill requires that Medicare no longer pursue MSP claims that do not cover their own expenses. Additionally, the MSP system requires complex and extensive reporting requirements from those who settle a claim involving Medicare. If all required information is not 100 percent accurate and on-time, the company is fined $1,000 per claim, per day. The SMART Act provides CMS with leeway to issue smaller fines and provides safe harbor to protect companies that make good faith efforts to comply fully and on-time. Furthermore, under these requirements, claim beneficiaries must submit their Social Security numbers or Health Insurance Claim Numbers, Medicare Numbers, to the settlement company so they can be reported to CMS, generating serious privacy concerns. This legislation directs Medicare to establish an alternative method of identifying individuals, to mitigate concerns about identity theft and Medicare fraud. Finally, there is currently no clear statute of limitations on MSP claims. This bill sets a 3-year statute of limitations for most claims. The SMART Act is a common-sense bi-partisan bill that will make the MSP system work more efficiently, reduce unnecessary burdens and waste, and speed the repayment of amounts owed to the Medicare Trust Fund.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Bruce H. Akers, mayor of Pepper Pike, OH, for many years of outstanding leadership and service to the Greater Cleveland community. Mayor Akers has done remarkable work during his distinguished career as a leader in the business and civic community to improve the quality of life for his fellow citizens. On Thursday, October 20, 2011 the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association will honor Mayor Akers with the George V. Voinovich Public Service Award. Mayor Akers' work as a civic leader started more than 50 years ago when he began his career in banking with National City Bank. Although Mayor Akers retired in 2000 as senior vice president for civic affairs at KeyBank, he has continued his vigorous efforts to serve his community as a civic volunteer and local elected officeholder. Throughout the years, Mayor Akers has held leadership positions in organizations such as City Year of Cleveland, Park Works, the Chagrin Valley Inter-Governmental Council, The Salvation Army of Greater Cleveland, and United Way Services. He was also one of the founders of Business Volunteers Unlimited. In June of 2000 he completed 30 years as a member of the National Board of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America and is currently a member of its National Advisory Council. Mayor Akers has had a distinguished political career, beginning with his work as a precinct committeeman in 1960. Since that time, he has served on the staff of Cleveland mayor Ralph J. Perk, as a Pepper Pike councilman, and as president of the Cuyahoga County Mayors of Managers Association. He was appointed in 2008 to serve on the nine-member Commission on Cuyahoga County Government Reform and has been integral in recent years to the reform and transformation of the new charter form of government in Cuyahoga County. This year, Bruce Akers will retire from elected office after serving five terms as Mayor of Pepper Pike, OH. For his commitment to public service and the many contributions he has made to Pepper Pike and the Greater Cleveland community, I would like to recognize and thank Mayor Bruce H. Akers for his years of service and wish him well as he continues his many civic endeavors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to rise today to speak about the three trade agreements that are working their way over to the Senate. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over 14 million Americans out of work, it is past time for us to take up these three important agreements. These agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama are going to create jobs and put Americans back to work. That is why it is so important we move, and move on a bipartisan basis, to get them done. With 95 percent of consumers living outside of our borders, we need to proactively help American workers, farmers, and service providers sell their products all around the world. The President himself has said that repeatedly. Just last month he came to Ohio and said he wants to be sure more products are stamped with the three proud words ``Made in America.'' I couldn't agree more. One way to do that is to get these trade agreements done. Finally, we have the opportunity to vote on them. This will help us to gain market access for U.S. workers to about 100 million consumers. Unfortunately, while these agreements have been sitting on the shelf for over 4 years, our workers, our farmers, and our service providers have lost market share. They have fallen behind because other countries have completed agreements, and their workers and their farmers, their service providers have gained market share that we should have had. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, by waiting for 4 years to take up these agreements, American workers have lost over $12 billion in wages. So I am glad the agreements are here. They should have been here sooner. Again, this, to me, should be a lesson that we learn as a Congress, a Senate. We need to have more agreements, and we need to have them negotiated constantly on behalf of our businesses and our workers. While we have waited for the President to submit these agreements to Congress for a vote, other countries have moved forward and have gained footholds in other markets. The European Union and Korea, along with Canada and Colombia, have negotiated, completed, and put into force their own trade agreements they started to negotiate after we were done with ours. In other words, we finished our negotiations, they then began negotiations, they ratified their agreements, and they are now in effect taking market share away from us. We have seen the U.S. market share be reduced in Colombia and in Korea because of these agreements. A good example would be our exports of agricultural products to Colombia. We have seen them drop from 70 percent of the market for corn, wheat, and soybeans to less than 30 percent of the market just since we completed the agreement with Colombia. Because, again, the President did not send these agreements forward for ratification, we have been on the sidelines while farmers in my State and around the country have lost out. We are falling behind in Korea too. When we started discussing an agreement with Korea, the United States was Korea's biggest trading partner. Since then we have slid down the ladder, with China, Japan, and the Europe Union jumping ahead of us. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, in just over a decade, our share of Korea's goods imports has fallen from 21 percent of their market to 9 percent of their market, while China's share of the Korean market has increased from 7 percent to 17 percent. We are now at 9 percent; China is now at 17 percent. This has happened, again, since we began negotiations or discussions about negotiations with Korea. By standing still we are still allowing China and our competitors to get a leg up in this crucial Asian market. According to the President's own metrics, these three agreements together will create over 250,000 new jobs. Conversely, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if we fail to move forward on these agreements, we would lose 380,000 jobs--again, because we would lose market share that we already have to these other countries that are negotiating agreements while we sit on the sidelines. The nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission says these three agreements will increase U.S. trade exports by nearly $13 billion each year. When I was the U.S. Trade Representative, I had the privilege of launching the Korea agreement, actually in a room right next to the Chamber. This agreement is called KORUS. I did so with Korean Trade Minister Kim in February of 2006. At that time, many people said this agreement would be very difficult to negotiate. Some criticized us for launching it thinking this economy was too big, to complicated, that we would not be able to get a meaningful agreement. We took the chance because we saw the incredible potential for trade liberalization, and it would drive greater economic growth in the United States and U.S. job creation--and also because of the importance of the alliance with the Republic of Korea. It turns out the skeptics were wrong, and we now have before us this week, in the Senate, to vote on the largest free-trade agreement, largest export agreement this Congress has looked at in almost two decades. Korea is a vital market for U.S. exports already. It is America's seventh largest trading partner, and their economy is now growing by more than 6 percent per year. KORUS eliminates tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of industrial and consumer goods to Korea within the first 5 years of the agreement. The agreement's intellectual property rights provisions contain stringent protections for American intellectual property-- extremely important to some of our service companies and other exporters. This gives American companies additional access to Korea's $850 billion services market. America has a large services trade surplus, actually, in services right now, both globally and with Korea, and this agreement will allow American service companies that are the best in the world to expand and sell more products to a country of more than 48 million people. KORUS is supported by the United Auto Workers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many other business and export-related groups. Let me read an excerpt, if I could, from the United Auto Workers' statement earlier this year about the Korean agreement. The UAW said the Korea agreement and related auto provisions ``will protect current American auto jobs . . . will grow American auto industry jobs . . . includes labor and environmental commitments, and . . . has important enforcement mechanisms.'' The KORUS agreement opens an important market for American farmers and ranchers as well. According to the International Trade Commission, KORUS will expand American agricultural exports by $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion per year. In my own State of Ohio, KORUS, along with Panama and Colombia, will increase Ohio's agricultural exports by nearly $55 million annually--just to Ohio. KORUS will eventually phase out the 40-percent Korean tariff on U.S. beef and will immediately eliminate the 5-percent Korean tariff on soybeans, resulting in a $3 million annual increase in Ohio soybean exports. Soybeans are the biggest export crop in Ohio. In fact, 1 of every 2 acres of soybeans in Ohio is planted now for export. KORUS also opens the door for American manufacturing jobs. In Ohio over 25 percent of manufacturing jobs now depend on exports. Over $31 billion of U.S. manufacturing goods were exported to Korea last year. In fact, Korea was our fastest growing export destination in the world, with a 37-percent increase over 2009. When American-manufactured goods are exported to Korea, they face an average tariff now of about 9 percent. With passage of this agreement this 9-percent tariff will fall to zero and in most cases immediately. However, due to this agreement we talked about earlier between the European Union and Korea going into force about 100 days ago, on July 1, EU exports to Korea are now on the rise because 90 percent of their goods can now enter Korea duty free. Again, it is important we move forward, and move forward quickly, to avoid losing more American share which is difficult for us to regain. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an editorial recently entitled, ``Korea Free Trade Deal Will Help U.S. and Ohio.'' The piece talked about the benefits of the Korean agreement, particularly for manufacturers and autoworkers. The editorial concluded by saying: Trade can help drive recovery. This deal with a longtime ally will help. They are right. Another important agreement is the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement. Colombia is a growing economy in Central and South America, to which the United States exported over $121 million in goods last year. This agreement with Colombia is a clear victory for U.S. workers. Due to preference programs that are already in place, nearly 90 percent of the exports from Colombia to the United States have entered our market tariff free. So we largely have a one-way free-trade agreement with Colombia already. Due to these preference programs, this agreement will be a huge benefit to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses, because U.S. exports to Colombia have faced an average tariff of about 14 percent. So, historically, 90 percent of their goods come in duty free while ours face much higher tariffs when they enter Colombia. This isn't fair trade, and this agreement will fix that. It will assure that the one-way trade that advantages Colombian exports instead of American exports is balanced. The agreement will lower the 14-percent average Colombian tariff to zero, allowing over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products exported to Colombia to become duty free immediately. The agreement also immediately eliminates duties on about 70 percent of U.S. farm exports, including soybeans, wheat, barley, flour, and beef. The Colombia agreement also establishes new transparency rules on nontariff barriers to trade; in other words, not a higher tariff, but other barriers in the country, so-called nontariff barriers, that keep our products out. Further, it establishes new commitments on the environment and labor, an area on which Colombia is improving and proactively addressing. The agreement also protects U.S. intellectual property with enhanced protection for copyrighted entertainment products, software, and U.S. trademarks. Finally, we have an important agreement with Colombia's Latin American neighbor, Panama, another key ally to the United States. Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Last year, $46 million worth of Ohio goods were exported to Colombia. Panama is a vital strategic partner for the United States, since nearly two- thirds of the Panama Canal's annual transits are either from or to U.S. ports. Moreover, the ongoing $5 billion Panama Canal expansion project presents unique opportunities for American exporters such as Rockwell Automation, which employs nearly 3,000 Ohioans. At Rockwell's Twinsburg facility in northeast Ohio, they produce controllers and automation systems that open and close the doors of the Panama Canal's locks and divert the water. They are bidding on more work in Panama. However, they say they are currently working with one hand tied behind their back because their competitors have an advantage in Panama, because we don't have a trade agreement. So this Panama export agreement will help companies such as Rockwell by cutting tariffs, protecting their intellectual property, and giving them more investment certainty. Upon entry into force, Panama will immediately eliminate its tariffs on over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and on more than half of U.S. agricultural exports. Eighty-five percent of U.S. exporters to Panama are small and medium-sized companies. That is over 7,000 American small and medium-sized companies that export to Panama and will thus benefit from this agreement. Let me speak about a couple of Ohio products that are exported to these markets. The Step2 Company, headquartered in Streetsboro, OH, is the largest American manufacturer of preschool and toddler toys. They employ over 800 Ohioans. They like to export to Korea and Panama, and they want to take advantage of these agreements. Lincoln Electric's 3,000 employees in Euclid and Mentor export welding products and equipment to Korea, Colombia, and Panama from northeast Ohio. These agreements don't just help Lincoln Electric export more, they also will help Lincoln's customers export more. Another Ohio company is PRO TEC Coating, a U.S. Steel joint venture company located near Findlay. PRO TEC Coating employs about 250 Ohioans and creates steel that meets the most demanding specifications of U.S. automakers. The Korean agreement will open a big potential market for U.S. auto exports, which will help companies throughout the automotive supply chain to be able to get more business, and PRO TEC Coating is one. Gorilla Glue, one of my favorite named companies in Cincinnati, OH, my hometown, has over 100 employees and they export their premium line of adhesives and tapes to Panama, Colombia, and Korea. They want this agreement because they will be able to expand their exports and create more jobs in Cincinnati. While these agreements bring large economic benefits, those responsible for our national security also recognize the geopolitical benefits of building economic ties with key regional allies. In testimony earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN Douglas Fraser, who is Commander of U.S. Southern Command, described the Colombian agreement as ``a very positive, beneficial aspect for our cooperation because of a growing capacity to support the capabilities of the armed forces and law enforcement.'' Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly support these agreements, noting the importance of an effort that leverages all elements of national power to protect our interests overseas. Secretary Panetta confirmed the role these increased economic ties have on promoting regional security, with Colombia as a prime example of a key ally in a continent with ever changing political dynamics. When it comes to international economics and security, there is no question of the critical role Panama plays. With 20 percent of our trade to Asia passing through Panama, building on this historically strong relationship will signal our commitment to engaging with Central America. When President Obama submitted these agreements to Congress last week, he said, ``The agreements I am submitting to Congress today will make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South Korea, Colombia, and Panama and provide a major boost to our exports. These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across our country. . . .'' While these agreements are late, the President is right. These are important job-creating and export-opening agreements. They have strong support from Members of both parties and, more importantly, they are supported by American workers and businesses. Again, the lesson we should learn here is that we need to give the President the authority he has yet to ask for to negotiate further agreements. Because in these last 4 years while these agreements have been pending, while the President has not sent them during his administration--and prior to that when President Bush was blocked by the House from moving them forward--we have not been negotiating additional agreements. I am told there are over 100 bilateral trade agreements being negotiated right now. The United States is not a party to any of them. That is not acceptable because we are losing out. Our workers, our service providers, and our farmers are losing out and we will not have the sustained recovery we all hope for unless we engage more in these international markets. I wish to commend so many in this body who have been patient, persistent, and even passionate in promoting these agreements over the years. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I worked closely with then Chairman Grassley, with Chairman Baucus, with Senator Hatch, and others on the Finance Committee to promote these agreements. Those Senators are to be commended today. We will hear a lot from Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, I am sure, about the importance of these agreements, but I want to underscore the key role they played even early on in ensuring that these agreements could be here before us today. I commend the staff of the Finance Committee, who have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that we could be here with this opportunity today. Other Senators played a key role--Senator Blunt, Senator Kerry, and others whom I should be naming but I am not--to make sure we have this opportunity to move our country forward by enacting these agreements. Finally, I wish to thank the dedicated staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who make these agreements possible. Again, I had the privilege to lead this nimble and effective agency, comprised of remarkable public servants who relish the agency's mission, which is to knock down barriers to U.S. products so we get a fair shake. They balanced this challenge with aggressively enforcing our international trade laws, which is also part of the mix. We need to both expand exports in open markets and ensure that trade is fair, and that we are enforcing both the international standards and U.S. laws with regard to trade. They do it very well. Without our negotiators' commitments to resolving some of these very complex and sometimes controversial economic issues, we would also not be here today. So I commend them. For all of those professionals with whom I have had the honor to serve and for those who are there now serving under Ambassador Ron Kirk, who has also been a strong promoter of these agreements, I thank you for your efforts. Finally, I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--and some of them have talked to me--to take a strong look at the economic and geopolitical benefits of these agreements. We don't do much around here that is bipartisan these days. Yet we have a country that is crying out for it. This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats, realizing that for 14 million Americans out of work, we need to move our economy forward. This is a clear example of where we can indeed take steps that are bipartisan, where we have a consensus to be able to create jobs and opportunity in the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, exports are absolutely critical to our economic growth in this country. In fact, there are nearly 10 million good-paying American jobs that are related to exports. The President, Members of Congress, and so on talk about that a lot. But I am disappointed we are not moving forward with an aggressive agenda to actually open new markets for our exports. I am encouraged that the administration, finally, this week, sent forward three trade agreements that do just that--the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements. These open markets to U.S. workers and farmers, those who provide services, so it is going to be good for jobs in this country. The President's own metrics indicate these three agreements alone will create 250,000 new jobs. We need them badly. I also want to congratulate Chairman Dave Camp and the House Ways and Means Committee for reporting out all three of these agreements this afternoon. My understanding is, each agreement received a strong bipartisan vote, and I am hopeful those agreements will now come to the Senate for us to be able to move forward--again, opening these critical markets that will create over 200,000 jobs for Americans. I will tell you, these three agreements were all negotiated and signed over 4 years ago. During that interim period, the United States has been absent from the kind of trade-opening negotiations we ought to be involved with. This President--for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt--has not asked, as his predecessors did, for trade promotion authority to be able to negotiate new agreements. So we are losing market share. Every day there are American workers who do not have the same opportunities to compete in foreign markets as those workers from other countries do because the United States is not actively engaged in opening markets. We need to do that. Right now, we have no ongoing bilateral trade agreements. We have one multilateral agreement, which I support moving forward on--the Trans- Pacific Partnership--but, frankly, there are over 100 bilateral negotiations going on right now, and America is not a partner in any of them. We need to get engaged because it is so critical to growing our economy. During the debate we have had over the last couple of weeks on trade adjustment assistance, where I was supportive of a version of trade adjustment assistance to get the trade agreements moving, we had a discussion about giving the President trade promotion authority. We were not able to get support from the administration for that. This is critical to move forward. It is because growing goods and services is absolutely critical to our economic health. Over 95 percent of consumers in the world, of course, live outside of our borders. We want to access those consumers, we want to sell more to them. Export growth and a healthy trading system depends on these export-opening agreements, but it also depends on having a healthy international trading system where all the players play by the international rules. So the export-expanding agreements are good. We need to do more of that. We should be much more engaged, but we also have to insist that everybody plays by the same rules. Today the Senate is debating legislation that has to do with one of those rules, and that is the issue of currency, and specifically the issue of China and their currency manipulation. China is a country, as you know, where we have a persistent and unprecedented trade deficit. It is also a very important trading partner for us. So it is critical we keep that strong trade relationship but do it on a basis that is fair for us and for China. I consistently hear about this China currency issue when I am back in Ohio. I hear about it a lot from manufacturers and the workers at those plants who tell me it is just not fair that in the global marketplace Ohio products are not able to compete on a level playing field. Just this year I have worked with a lot of Ohio companies that are facing various problems, including Ohio candle makers, steel manufacturers, diamond saw blade producers, rare earth magnet manufacturers, and others who are concerned about getting a fair shake in the global economy and want to be sure they are not competing with unfair Chinese competition. Again, I believe in the benefits of trade. I know they work. I believe in reducing barriers, but I also believe opening export markets and vigorous enforcement of trade laws go hand in hand. They both should be something that the United States pursues. China's undervalued currency does provide, in my view, an export subsidy, making Chinese exports to the United States less expensive in the global marketplace and making our exports to China relatively more expensive. I have long had concerns about this. Actually, when I was before the Senate Finance Committee in my confirmation hearings to be U.S. Trade Representative years ago I stated that I believed China currency does affect trade, and I stated that China should revalue their currency. I still believe that. I believe this administration should label China a currency manipulator because I think it is clear there continues to be manipulation. The legislation before us today is not the perfect answer, and I do hope the Senate will permit my colleague, Senator Hatch, to offer his amendment, which I think is a constructive amendment to improve parts of the legislation. But I do support the bill with the expectation that it is compliant with our international trade obligations and that it gives the administration the flexibility it needs to implement this bill in a smart and sensible way. However, I would also say this bill has been described on this floor many times over the last couple days as I have listened to the debate as doing more than it does. We should not overstate it. It does not address some other issues that, frankly, I think would make a bigger difference in our important trade relationship with China. One of these issues would be indigenous innovation, which I believe to be an unfair practice that China is currently practicing. Also, there is the issue of violations of intellectual property rights. It is not so much that the laws are not in place; it is that many times there is not adequate enforcement of the intellectual property laws that are in place. Of course, there is the issue of anticompetitive practices and subsidies that continue with regard to state-owned enterprises. I am also working with Senator Wyden and others--a bipartisan group of Senators--on combatting transshipment and customs duty evasion problems, which involve companies from various countries but include China. So we have a growing list of complex issues facing our relationship with China. I believe they should all be addressed together. I hope the next round of diplomatic and commercial negotiations with China will bring about some of that discussion and bring about some solutions, not just more broken promises. I understand the JCCT, called the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, between the United States and China will meet in November--next month--and that the next round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue will take place next year. I urge the administration to use these negotiations as leverage to get some of these real results that are so necessary. We should also look at multilateral approaches, including the World Trade Organization, and certainly the International Monetary Fund. I will tell you, as someone who has sat across the table in negotiations with tough Chinese negotiators, endless dialog is not the answer. Sometimes that is what occurs. We are not just looking for more talk. I think it is important we get serious--both U.S. leaders and Chinese leaders--about some of our lingering trade problems that we have had through the years so we can have a healthy trade relationship based on mutual respect. Each country is important to the other. We cannot overlook the fact that China continues to be a very vital U.S. export market, despite the issues I talked about. Right now, China is the third largest export market for Ohio goods, for instance. The State I represent sends over $2.2 billion a year in exports to China. With 25 percent of Ohio manufacturing jobs dependent upon exports, this is incredibly important to us. One out of every three acres of land in Ohio is planted for export, so agricultural exports are also important. There is also an important issue with China that relates to investment both ways: our investment in China and Chinese investment here. Let me read to you from an editorial that was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer last Thursday. Its title is: ``Chinese investors are welcome here.'' If Greater Cleveland is going to prosper in the 21st century, it has to build strong two-way connections with the rest of the world. The region has to sell more of its services and products abroad and welcome talent and capital from overseas. That's the path to jobs and wealth. The editorial goes on to talk about the collaboration between Chinese companies and investors looking to build relationships with Cleveland's world-renowned medical device industry. Just last week, the mayor of Toledo, OH, Mike Bell, returned from a 12-day trade mission to Asia in order to boost job creation in northwest Ohio. Since Mayor Bell's trip, plans have been announced for increased commercial ties between Chinese and Ohio job creators and companies, including launching a new international business center in downtown Toledo. These are just a couple of examples in my State of the importance of this relationship and why it needs to be taken so seriously. This relationship is vital to the future not just of our two countries but, in my view, to the global economy. So we need to be sure, again, it is a healthy relationship. It needs to be fair. It needs to be on a basis where, again, there is a level playing field on both sides. So it is time for our trading partners to play by the rules so that, indeed, we can have a fair trading system. Trade is key to growth. But, again, it is only one part of a broader problem that is holding back our economy today, holding back Ohio manufacturers from hiring and innovating. Another big issue that has come to the attention of this Senate time and time again is the incredible regulatory burden that is placed on Ohio's job creators. So in order to be successful in trade, we need to have more open markets. We talked about that: a level playing field. But, also, we need to be more competitive at home or else we are not going to be able to create the jobs in this century that we need to keep our economy moving forward. At a time when we have over 9 percent unemployment, it is critical we be sure our economy is more competitive. This regulatory burden is one issue that I think all sides can agree ought to be addressed. I am joined today by the junior Senator from Nevada, my friend and colleague, to offer a couple of amendments designed to give American employers some relief from the regulatory mandates that continue to hold back our economy and hinder job creation. There is no official counting of this total regulatory burden on our economy, and estimates do vary. But one study that is often cited is from the Obama administration's own Small Business Administration where they report the regulatory costs exceed $1.75 trillion annually. That is, of course, even more than is collected by the IRS in income taxes every year. So it is a huge burden. We can talk about what the exact number is, but the fact is this is something that is forcing Ohio companies and other companies around our country to have higher costs of creating a job. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the annual cost of a narrow set of rules--these are just what are called the major rules that are reviewed by OMB over one 10-year period--registers at $43 billion to $55 billion per year. I have been encouraged by what the current administration has recently been saying about regulations. I have been less encouraged about what they have done. The new regulatory costs on the private sector are real, and they are mounting. Compared to historic trends, we have seen a sharp uptick over the last 2 years in these new so-called major or economically significant rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million on the economy. They also have an impact, of course, on consumer prices and American competitiveness. George Washington University Regulatory Studies recently told us that this administration has been regulating at an average of 84 new major rules per year, which, by way of comparison, is about a 35-percent increase from the last administration and about a 50-percent increase from the Clinton administration. These figures do include the independent agencies which must be included in the calculations. So there has been an uptick in regulations, and continues to be, again, despite much of the rhetoric to the contrary. One commonsense step we can take to address this issue is to improve and strengthen what is called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, UMRA. I worked on this along with some of my colleagues who are now in the Senate back when I was in the House. It was a bipartisan effort that basically said Federal regulators ought to know the costs of what they are imposing. We also ought to know what the benefits are, and we ought to know if there are less costly alternatives. The two amendments I am offering today are drawn from a bill that I introduced back in June called the Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act. It is an effort that now has over 20 cosponsors. Again, it seems to me it is a commonsense effort that should be bipartisan. The first amendment would strengthen the analysis that is required in some very important ways. First, it requires agencies to specifically assess the potential effect of new regulations on job creation, which is not currently a requirement, and in this economy it must be. Also, to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to regulation, again, something we need to look at. It also broadens the scope of UMRA to require a cost-benefit analysis of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million or more. It requires agencies to adopt the least costly and least burdensome alternative to achieve the policy goal that has been set out. So, currently, agencies have to consider that, but they do not have to follow the least costly alternative. We simply cannot afford that, again, because of the tough economic times we have. The second amendment extends those same requirements to the independent agencies. This is incredibly important, and these are agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, agencies that are very important on the regulatory side and are currently exempt from these cost-benefit rules that affect all other agencies. On this issue I was very pleased to see that President Obama issued an Executive order in July which was specifically related to independent agencies. That order and the accompanying Presidential memorandum called on independent agencies to participate in a look- back, but also, very importantly, called on independent agencies to evaluate the costs and benefits of new regulation just as, again, all executive agencies were already required to do. It is a step in the right direction, but the problem is that the President's order is entirely nonbinding because a President cannot require independent agencies to do that. Congress can. We can do it by statute. And independent agencies do not answer to the President. So since this order was issued in July--by the way, we have not seen a rush by independent agencies to pledge to comply with these principles. Again, they are not required to, so this amendment, this second amendment, would effectively write the President's new request into law so it can be effective. Independent agencies would be required under UMRA to evaluate regulatory costs, benefits, and less costly alternatives before issuing any rule that would impose a cost of $100 million on the private sector or on State, local, and tribal governments. The fact is, independent agencies are not doing this on their own. According to a 2011 OMB report, not one of the 17 major rules issued by independent agencies in 2010 included an assessment of both cost and benefit. Not one. Closing this independent agency loophole is a reform we should be able to agree with on both sides of the aisle. Certainly, the President should agree with it since it is part of his Executive order and memorandum, and this is the right vehicle to do it. This a jobs issue again and a commonsense approach. No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American employers on State and local governments without a serious consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the availability of less burdensome alternatives. These amendments move us further to that goal. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Cincinnati resident Bill Engeman, who has made countless contributions to the sport of rowing over the past 30 years. Bill will be leaving Cincinnati later this year for Lancaster, OH, and I would like to thank Bill for his years of selfless efforts to encourage the sport of rowing. Since the early 1980s, Bill has been a leader in advancing rowing in southwest Ohio. In the fall of 1981, Bill helped found the University of Cincinnati Rowing Team. Bill also has helped develop many rowing programs and build many boathouses at East Fork State Park and along the Ohio River. He also worked to bring the Men's and Women's National Collegiate championship to the region multiple times in the 1980s and 1990s. Bill was inducted into the National Rowing Hall of Fame in 1998. In 2008, I had the opportunity to work with Bill to construct the Matt Maupin Memorial Pavilion at East Fork State Park, named in honor of a local high school rower and brave soldier who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. Over the last 3 years Bill has worked to help rebuild the national rowing program in Iraq and assist in its journey to qualify young athletes for the London Olympics in 2012. This latest project is having a global impact and illustrates his commitment to rowing and the youth of the world. Bill Engeman has given tremendously to the Cincinnati area and the sport of rowing over the years, and thousands of area residents have benefited from his legacy. Bill will be honored for his efforts on Tuesday, September 27, 2011. I would like to join with his many friends in congratulating Bill and thanking him for all he has done. While he may be moving to another city, he will always be considered the father of rowing in Cincinnati.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the senior Senator from Ohio for his generosity in allowing me to speak now. I also commend Senator Hatch, who has been a leader in expanding exports and therefore creating jobs for many years, and again he is standing today talking about the importance of us moving forward on a progrowth trade agenda, including giving the President the ability to have trade promotion authority. That is what I wish to talk about today. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, introduced an amendment to the underlying legislation saying that, along with trade adjustment assistance, for the same 3 years there also be trade promotion authority given to this President, which all of his predecessors have had. That makes sense. The legislation in the amendment is actually identical to legislation I introduced my first week here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis with Senator Lieberman to provide the President with trade promotion authority. It is incredibly important. I think it goes without saying that we live in an increasingly interconnected world where the movement of goods and services and people across borders is part of our economy. It is very much an economy where the United States is connected to our global competitors. We are moving forward around the globe on various arrangements, export agreements at a rapid pace. Yet I am sorry to say the United States is simply not a part of that because we do not have trade promotion authority. These agreements that are being negotiated open markets for workers and farmers and service providers to be able to expand exports, again, of goods and services. By the way, there are over 100 of those bilateral agreements being negotiated today. Guess how many the United States is party to. None, not a single one. The reason is that we don't have the ability through trade promotion authority to have the United States at the table negotiating to open these markets for our workers and our farmers and our service providers. There is one agreement on which we are negotiating, a regional agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I support the continued negotiation there, but, frankly, it is not a bilateral agreement that is likely to reduce barriers significantly. The United States is getting left behind. We lost trade promotion authority in 2007. It expired. At that time, President George W. Bush came to the Congress and asked for it to be renewed. Then a Democratically controlled Congress said: No, we don't want to give you the ability to negotiate these agreements that help, as Senator Hatch has said, expand jobs in this country. President Obama's administration has not asked for the authority. In fact, as Senator Hatch has just indicated, they don't seem interested in having it, which is unbelievable to me--that you would not want the ability to negotiate with other countries to knock down barriers to help our workers, our farmers, and our service providers here in this country. But that is where we are right now. Before the 2007 expiration of trade promotion authority, the United States was active and involved in agreements that knocked down barriers to our exports. There were three agreements negotiated now 3 and 4 years ago, and these were agreements with Panama and Colombia and Korea. Those are the three agreements that have been talked about a lot on this floor over the last day because the trade adjustment assistance we are talking about is related to those three agreements. We need to get them done. They have been languishing for too long. Obviously, the United States, not being able to negotiate anything in the interim period, has fallen behind, but at the least, we should move ahead and ratify these three agreements. The President's own metrics tell us these three agreements alone will generate 250,000 new jobs in this country. Look, with unemployment at over 9 percent, we need those jobs, and the jobs tend to be better paying jobs with better benefits. What has happened in the interim while we have not moved forward with these agreements? Well, Korea has started a negotiation with the European Union since our agreement was finalized and completed that agreement and now made that agreement effective in July of this year. Exports from the European Union to Korea increased 36 percent in July alone. Our exports to Korea during that time period, by the way, increased less than 3 percent. What is happening? We are losing market share. We are losing jobs while we sit back and allow these other countries to negotiate. Remember, over 100 agreements are being negotiated, and we are not parties to any of them. The same thing is happening in Colombia. Since we negotiated the agreement with Colombia, Colombia started negotiating with other countries, including Argentina and Brazil, and guess what has happened. They have completed that agreement, it has gone into effect, and, again, our market share has diminished. We used to provide about 71 percent of the agricultural exports, including corn, wheat, and soybeans, to Colombia when we completed the agreement. Today, that market share is down to 26 percent. That means farmers in Ohio, Montana, Utah, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are being disadvantaged by our trade policy. We have to move forward with these agreements. Instead of having increased exports from Seoul, Bogota, Calgary, and Munich, they should be coming from Cincinnati and Cleveland and Columbus and Dayton. Interestingly, Korea and Colombia have now started negotiating an agreement with themselves. Again, we are not moving forward because we are not part of these agreements because we do not have trade promotion authority. I think these three agreements that I hope the President finally sends to the U.S. Congress for ratification are examples of the kinds of agreements that we could have been negotiating over the past 3 or 4 years and that we should start negotiating tomorrow, by this Senate and the House, giving the President the trade promotion authority he needs to be able to have those negotiations and to open those markets for U.S. products. The reality is that trade promotion authority is vital for any President to have. Why? Because if you don't have trade promotion authority, the other countries will not sit down at the table and bargain with you. It is a pretty simple concept. If you want to get the best deal from another country, you have to have trade promotion authority because here in America, after we negotiate an agreement at the executive branch level, it has to come to Congress, and other countries don't want to renegotiate an agreement with the U.S. Congress that would be full of amendments and changes. So in order for us to ensure we can get the best deal, we have to give the President trade promotion authority. Every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has asked for this authority and received it. It is unbelievable to me that this President does not want that. I believe he must want it--any President would--and he should ask for it, and we should provide it to him. This amendment does exactly that. Congress has given TPA authority to Democrats and Republicans alike. It is not a partisan issue. So a Republican Congress has given it to a Democratic President and vice versa. I stand as a Republican telling my colleagues that I would like to give it to President Obama. The underlying amendment we are talking about provides trade promotion for 3 years, so it would be for the remainder of the President's term and, if he is reelected, for the next couple of years or, if a Republican is elected, for that person. It should not be about party; it should be about our country. The President has been talking in the last couple of weeks about the fact that he wants products stamped with three words: ``Made in America.'' I couldn't agree with him more. He is saying they should be exported all around the world? How is that going to happen? It is going to happen by opening these markets, by leveling the playing field for us as Americans so we can compete and win. When we open these markets, we expand exports dramatically. Think about this: Countries with which we currently have trade agreements which comprise less than 10 percent of the global GDP--think about it. We do not have an agreement with China or the European Union. It is about 10 percent or less of the global economy. Yet that is where we send about 41 percent of our exports. These agreements are good for us, which is why the Colombia agreement, the Panama agreement, and the Korea agreement, in my view, will be able to pass this floor easily because the facts are there, if the President will just send them. By giving the President trade promotion authority, we could go on and, indeed, make good on his promise to have more products stamped with those three words, ``Made in America,'' sent all over the world. It is a little bit ironic to me that the underlying bill we are talking about, the TAA, the trade adjustment assistance, is attached to the generalized system of preferences, GSP. It is not legislation I oppose, but it is legislation that opens the United States more to products from other countries. So here we are talking about opening up the United States more with the GSP bill, and yet we are not willing to put in place measures to open up other markets more for the United States of America through trade promotion authority. How does that make sense? But that is where we are. To my colleagues, I will say, if we are not engaged in opening markets, we are falling behind. America needs to get back in the game again. We need to take a leadership role in global trade. That means giving this President and all future Presidents the ability to negotiate, just as all of their predecessors have had. I strongly urge my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to give to this President the same authority other Presidents have had of both parties. Our economy and the future for our children and our grandchildren depend on it. Again, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his generosity, and I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Unfortunately, I think some of these countries--all three of which are great allies of the United States: Panama, Colombia, and South Korea--feel as though the United States has let them down. We are going to move forward here, I believe. I am more optimistic than the Senator from Kansas. I believe the President will finally send these forward. He has to. The logic is difficult to escape. Why wouldn't you? And that is good. We will be able to move forward, I hope, with not just opening more markets but helping on our relationships with these incredibly important allies. But in the meantime, there has been damage done. The Senator is absolutely right. I think they believe in some respects that the rug has been pulled out from under them. They made huge concessions and commitments to the United States and politically took great risks. Frankly, in Colombia and Panama, where they moved forward immediately to ratify these agreements in their legislature, it wasn't just the administration, it was the elected representatives of the people, as we are, who took risks to say: Yes, we want to be a partner with the United States of America, the greatest economy on the face of the Earth and this beacon of hope and opportunity, and here we are in America letting them down. So in both its commercial impacts on the United States--we have lost market share, we have lost jobs because of it, but it also has had an impact, as Senator Roberts says, in terms of our standing in the world. We have to move forward not just with these three, but the important point is that we have to move forward with additional agreements. There are over 100 trade agreements being negotiated right now around the world, and because the United States does not have a trade promotion authority, the ability for the President to negotiate and bring an agreement back here for an up-or-down vote, we are not engaged in these agreements. We are engaged in one, which is a regional one--the transpacific partnership--but none of these bilateral ones, which is where you are really going to get these trade openings and new exports and, therefore, new jobs. This is a bigger issue that must be addressed. This Congress, I hope, will address it in the context of the votes we are going to have in connection with the trade agreements. We are going to promote getting the United States back in the game of expanding our trade and helping U.S. jobs. By the way, it was mentioned earlier that it is not just that we have the opportunity to create over 200,000 jobs. It is also that if we do not move forward on these three agreements, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done some analysis showing we would lose 380,000 jobs. This sort of goes both ways. There is a cost to not moving forward, and that is also hundreds of thousands of jobs we desperately need in States such as Ohio and the States represented by the Senators who are here with us on the floor today. The International Trade Commission now says these three agreements alone would expand exports annually by $13 billion--again meaning jobs and opportunity. It is time for us to move forward. Senator Roberts has talked about what is happening with the European Union, which actually negotiated its agreements after we completed ours. In the auto sector, by the way, there is an EU-Korea agreement that says the 8-percent tariff on imported cars has already started being reduced. That has resulted in the companies sending UK cars, including Hondas that are being produced in the United Kingdom--they are being exported to South Korea. We have a Honda plant in Ohio. I visited it recently. There are 4,200 Ohio workers there. We want to export Hondas from Ohio to Korea. We can do that with these export agreements. It is time for us to move forward. It is not the time for us to play politics. We have to move forward because we need these jobs and because, again, the United States should be at the forefront of these agreements in order to not just protect the market share we have but expand it. Ninety-five percent of the consumers live outside of our borders, and we need to access those consumers. I now ask, if I could, one of my colleagues to talk a little about his experience in his State. John Hoeven was Governor of North Dakota, so he was like the trade representative from North Dakota. He was out there promoting trade as Governor, and North Dakota is a State that has a lot of exports, including wheat, as we talked about earlier, so they are being hit by what Senators Roberts and Johanns talked about in terms of what is happening in Colombia today with the Canadian agreement and also the EU agreement with Korea. I ask Senator Hoeven if he would talk a little about why these agreements with Colombia and Panama are so important to his State.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Kansas, who has just made the case eloquently as to why we need to move forward. To answer his question, when you apply the metrics the President of the United States and his administration have used for these three trade agreements alone, they would create 250,000 new jobs. I ask my colleagues, with 9 percent unemployment and continued bad economic news, can't we use those jobs? By the way, jobs that are related to trade tend to be higher paying, tend to have more benefits. This is exactly what we need to do in this Senate and in the House and here in Washington--put the partisanship aside and move forward on what makes sense to create jobs. I can't think of anything that would have a more immediate impact on those exporters Senator Roberts talked about, who right now are seeing their market share eroded because the United States is sitting on its hands. In 2006, the Colombia agreement was finalized. It has been tinkered with since then, but we are talking 5 years ago. It is unbelievable. When we have sat on our hands and not moved forward with giving our farmers and our workers and our service providers the chance to go into that Colombian market, you are exactly right, they have gone ahead and made trade agreements with other folks. Colombia is a great example. Back when we negotiated this agreement and completed it--and I was the U.S. Trade Representative then, as the Senator indicated, and I negotiated with the then-President of Colombia, President Uribe, who made lots of concessions, including on manufacturing and agricultural services. At that time, we had a 71- percent market share in terms of exports of agricultural products-- wheat, corn, and soybeans--into Colombia--a 71-percent market share. Today, that market share is about 26 percent. Why? Because after we completed our agreement with Colombia, they engaged with other countries, including the Mercosur countries of Argentina and Brazil, and now they are buying their products instead from those countries that got their act together and moved forward with trade agreements that this President will not get his act together on and send to us. As Senator Roberts said, just recently, in August, this summer, they completed an agreement with Canada. Guess what the Canadians love to export--the same kind of wheat we love to export. So the Senator is right, they are going to take the wheat market away from Kansas and North Dakota and other States that really need those jobs and need those exports. We have to move forward. It is really a crime that we have not been able to provide our farmers, workers, and service providers these opportunities.

Mr. PORTMAN. Yes. Absolutely.

Mr. PORTMAN. Would the Senator yield for a second? The Senator talked about being at home and talking to his constituents about this, and I am sure all of us have stories like this, but I will tell you this morning we had one of our weekly coffees and the Ohio pork producers came. There were about 12 pork producers from around the State of Ohio. Do you know what the No. 1 issue was they raised with me? Trade and getting these trade agreements done. Why? Because it affects their prices directly. They have to have these international sales in order to make ends meet. Particularly with the price of feed going up, they have to have these foreign markets. It was interesting that of all the issues they could have raised with me, the one they are most concerned about is to make sure we get these three agreements done, and then move forward with the additional agreements. It is our job to provide the environment for success. Part of that environment is to give our exporters the ability to have a level playing field to access these markets. They are the best farmers in the world. We have some of the most productive land in the world. They just need a fair shake.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Bernadine Patricia Healy. Dr. Healy was a cardiologist and a pioneer in the field of medical research. Among her many impressive accomplishments, Dr. Healy served as the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, president of the American Red Cross, and president of the American Heart Association. A brilliant scientist, an innovator, and a strong leader who could effectively communicate technical information, Dr. Healy was also a valued Presidential adviser. Dr. Healy selflessly answered the call to public service from Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Dr. Healy was a courageous champion of women in science and medicine. While serving as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Healy introduced a number of initiatives, including the Women's Health Initiative, which resulted in monumental advances in understanding the causes and researching the cures of diseases that affect women. Dr. Bernadine Healy was truly a source of inspiration who touched the lives of so many of us in Ohio and around the world, and her extraordinary legacy lives on. She will not be forgotten.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Indiana whom I heard a moment ago. I think he is absolutely right. We have deeper and more important problems we need to address, along with the important decisions we make over the next 24 hours on the debt limit. It is necessary to extend the debt limit, but it is not sufficient. We also have to deal with these underlying fiscal problems, and I think my colleague from Indiana stated that well. I rise to talk about the debt limit proposal and how we can provide a pathway forward on a bipartisan basis--again, not just to solve this immediate problem that confronts us but also to deal with these deeper and very serious problems we have with our fiscal deficits and a weak economy. It may be good to start by asking why we are here. We are here because we have a law that says the U.S. Government can borrow only so much. The law says the U.S. Government can borrow only up to $14.3 trillion. That is a lot of money--$14.3 trillion. It is approximately 95 percent of our economy. This is unprecedented, of course. We have never had debts at this level before. Many economists look at this and believe it is already having a very negative impact on our economy to have this huge debt out there because it affects the private sector. But we have come to this $14.3 trillion limit, and now, in order for government to continue to provide everyday government services, benefits to our troops, veterans, Social Security, and so on, the limit needs to be raised. The Federal Government now borrows more than 40 cents of every $1 that is spent. It seems to me only common sense that when we have maxed our credit card, which is what the Federal Government has done, and when we have this deep underlying problem of these huge deficits--$1.4 trillion this year, a record level also--and mounting debt, we should deal with the underlying problem before we extend the credit card limit. So that is why we are here. I think it is an appropriate debate. I wish it could have been resolved sooner. I think it can be resolved over the next day or so, but I think it is an important discussion we have to have. The President has made it clear he would like the debt limit increased, and he would like it increased high enough to last through the 2012 election. Interesting, because election day is not part of the economic calendar. It is not the end of a fiscal year. It is not the end of a calendar year. It is the political calendar. It is unfortunate during this time of such budgetary uncertainty, we seem focused on political deadlines. Meeting this request the President has made--that it be extended until beyond the election--would be the largest debt increase that has ever been approved by the Congress. It would be over $2 trillion. So, again, I think it is appropriate we have this discussion before we agree to the largest debt limit increase in the history of our country. We have never raised the debt limit that much at one time before. The President also says we need to do this because the markets want the certainty that a long-term debt limit increase will provide. I think there is something to that, in the sense of market certainty. If there could be a longer debt limit increase, I suppose it would add to market certainty. But markets don't just want a solution to this debt limit issue. In fact, I would argue what they want even more is a solution to the soaring debt itself, and this is not based on conjecture, it is based on looking at what those who are analyzing our economy say. We have all heard about Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's. These are the credit agencies a lot of people have been talking about. They are the ones threatening to downgrade our debt. They say we should extend the debt limit, but they also say that is just the first step; that we also have to deal with the underlying fiscal problems in our country or the downgrade will occur. They want a serious commitment to reining in the spending spree that has buried us in debt in the first place. So this has to be dealt with. A friend of mine, Keith Hennessey, sent me an e-mail tonight, and he had an interesting way to put it, for people who follow the financial markets. He said: We face both a liquidity crisis right now--which is that the Federal Government can't borrow to meet its needs--but we also face a solvency crisis--which is that the accumulation of the Federal Government deficits into the debt are at historic levels, and already harming the economy in very significant ways. So we need to deal with both. One way to show this commitment to the solvency problem--to the debt problem--is to be sure we guarantee $1 in spending cuts for every $1 we raise the debt limit. There is a formula that was laid out several months ago by Speaker Boehner, and I think it has been widely agreed to. We will see it in what Majority Leader Reid has proposed. As we will talk about in a minute, unfortunately, some of the budget savings he thought were there, based upon the Congressional Budget Office analysis, are not real cuts, but that was the formula he used. The President has also talked about this formula, and I think it is widely agreed we need to be sure we are only extending the debt limit to the extent that we are reducing spending. So if it is going to be over $2 trillion of debt limit extension, we need to find $2 trillion in spending reductions over time. It is interesting. As I have analyzed how this formula would work over time, it actually makes sense for our economy. If we raise the debt limit $1 but also cut $1 in spending, it not only helps us in the short term but over a 10-year period, what the CBO tells us in terms of what the debt is likely to be, just about at the 10th year we would actually balance the Federal budget. We will not get rid of the debt-- the debt will continue to grow all during that time period, unfortunately--but there would actually be, at the end of that process, an annual balanced budget by repeatedly applying that formula every time we need to raise the debt limit. I don't think that necessarily was the intent when the formula was derived, but it is interesting that it is a formula that makes sense to get us to, at least over 10 years, the point where we are not spending more than we are taking in. Given that the President and the majority leader would like to see a debt increase of over $2 trillion, and Republicans--and even many Democrats--want to be sure there is an equal size spending cut, it seems to me there is an obvious way forward. We can raise the debt limit for this extended period of time, but we have to require equal spending cuts, and they have to be real. If they are not meaningful and credible spending cuts, then we will have the same negative economic consequences we have been talking about tonight: The credit agencies will downgrade our debt and we will have higher interest rates, which will affect every American family--student loans, credit card loans, certainly our mortgages. It will affect small businesses trying to get credit and that are trying to hire people. If you have a car loan, it will affect you. It affects the entire economy. So we have to deal with this issue in a real way, in a way that is credible and meaningful. Unfortunately, the proposal that Majority Leader Reid put forward, which was intended to meet this formula we have talked about--$1 spending cuts for every $1 in increases--has some spending cuts that do not meet that standard of being credible and meaningful. The biggest one is about $1 trillion in what is called the global war on terrorism spending reduction. A little background on this. When we are writing the budget baseline, the Congressional Budget Office says we have to assume all the discretionary spending that is happening now will continue into the future. So they assume, for the next 10 years, we will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But nobody believes or hopes that will happen. It has not been requested by the President. No one intends to spend that money. In fact, the President's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be spent over the next decade, we will spend about $600 billion. That is what the President's budget says. That is what people assume. This means Senator Reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that is not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. Why? Because it is money that is not planning to be spent. It is a little akin to a family saying: Let's assume we are going to take a vacation we are never going to take, and it is going to cost us $10,000 and then saying: We saved $10,000 on our budget. I wish it weren't so. I wish the $1.1 trillion was a credible spending reduction we could rely on. But the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and many other observers have looked at this and said: Frankly, it is not a meaningful reduction in spending. So there are some meaningful reductions in spending in the proposal of the majority leader, but this particular one, unfortunately, is a big part of what he has proposed. Out of his $2.7 trillion in cuts, about $1.1 trillion is this proposal on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We might hear it referred to on the floor as the OCO spending--overseas contingency operations. I think one thing we should do as a Congress is make sure these cuts are meaningful and credible, and we can do that. Second, let's expand this initial round of spending cuts. Right now, if we take out the war spending we just talked about and then look at the Congressional Budget Office's score of the majority leader's proposal, the cuts are just under $1 trillion. It is still a substantial, and I think a credible, proposal of just under $1 trillion, but that is all that is guaranteed. However, Washington is scheduled to spend about $46 trillion over that same period--the next decade. Think about that: $46 trillion and increase spending, by the way, by about 57 percent during that time period. I think we can do a lot better than just cutting $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and I think we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. I say that because I have identified $2.8 trillion in spending reductions that have been agreed to by some bipartisan process. The Biden talks, the Gang of 6, the President's fiscal commission, and some of the President's own discussions specifically came up with some spending reductions in addition to this $1 trillion. So my hope is, we can take some of these spending cuts that have been agreed to through some bipartisan process and apply them to this initial package. Finally, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner's proposals both have this deficit reduction committee. It is an approach which makes sense, to be sure we get at the longer range problem, which is our unsustainable--very important but unsustainable--entitlement programs; tax reform, which will help stimulate more economic growth; and budget reform, which is clearly needed. I have been here 6 months. We have done nothing on a budget. In fact, the Senate hasn't done a budget in 2 years. It sounds like we are in need of some reforms to make this place work. So this committee makes sense. The majority leader calls for the committee to reduce the budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP. I think that is an interesting proposal. I think we need to be sure we know how long it would take to reach that level and how long we should maintain it, because there is no timeframe in his proposal. So 3 percent of GDP, does that mean we would wait until a certain time period and, say, if it is a 10-year proposal, the ninth year or tenth year and suddenly make those reductions? If so, the reductions would not be nearly as significant. Instead, we should put a timeframe in place, 5 years or 10 years--I would prefer 5--and say that there will be reductions starting in the first fiscal year to meet the 3-percent target. If you don't do that, then over that period of time, 5 years or 10 years, we will not see the kinds of reductions in spending that I think Majority Leader Reid wishes to see and I know that many of us here on this side of the aisle believe are necessary. Eventually, we have got to balance the budget, as we talked about earlier, and it needs to be something within the 3-percent committee that leads us to that. Also, under the majority leader's bill, there is no requirement to actually enact any of the deficit reduction committee's reforms. I think he has a very interesting proposal in terms of having an expedited process on the floor, an up-or-down vote, no amendments. I think that is smart. But if the deficit reduction committee deadlocks or if the deficit reduction committee fails to get the votes here on the floor of the Senate, there needs to be some mechanism, a fail-safe mechanism or so-called trigger for accomplishing dollar-for-dollar cuts. The House plan responsibly makes much of this debt limit increase contingent on the cuts being actually approved and signed into law. If the President and Majority Leader Reid want the entire debt limit increase now, we would need some guarantee that this deficit reduction would actually take place. A commonsense compromise would be to add sequestration language, meaning you sequester across the board all spending, if the deficit reduction doesn't work, deadlocks, or doesn't pass on the floor even under these procedures. I would say you could limit that sequestration to the size of the debt limit increase, not even the size that Speaker Boehner has, which was $1.8 trillion, or Leader Reid I think assumes, which is even higher than that for his debt reduction committee, but just be sure it meets this formula of $1 spending cuts for every $1 of extension for the debt limit. That seems to be the kind of proposal that, at this late hour, could be agreed to and certainly should be. Sequestration, by the way, is not a new concept. It has enforced nearly every budget reform law of the past 20 years in the Congress. It can guarantee that, one way or another, we will receive the deficit reduction equal to the debt limit increase, which is, again, the intent by Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, and others. Finally, I think we need to allow the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment. Let's have a vote. Leader Reid has talked about that, Speaker Boehner has talked about that. I think it is important to provide the representatives of the American people the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on a balanced budget, or in many forms of a balanced budget, because there are different iterations of a balanced budget. It seems this path forward should be able to satisfy both sides. The President and the majority leader would get the larger debt increase limit they want; there would be guaranteed deficit reduction necessary to begin fixing the budget and assuring financial markets that we are up to the task. I think when you look at the various options we have before us, there is a way forward here. There is a way forward that says, Let's ensure that we have this upfront spending; let's remove the global war on savings gimmick; let's strengthen the initial savings, provide guarantees that this deficit reduction committee will actually work; and then let's have a vote on the balanced budget amendment. Finally, I have heard the President talk about the importance of having a debt limit increase because of the market uncertainty in the economy. I agree that we need to do everything we can to stimulate this economy right now. We had bad news this week.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. PORTMAN. However, again getting back to our earlier discussion, if we simply extend the debt limit and don't deal with the underlying issue of our fiscal problems, what we called earlier the solvency crisis, we will have these same negative economic consequences. With low growth in this quarter and, unfortunately, high unemployment over 9 percent, we need to do everything we can to encourage pro-growth economic policies, including tax reform, as we talked about, as well as using the energy resources we have in this country, regulatory relief, and, yes, dealing with our debt and deficit. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment to the underlying bill. This amendment is designed to give American employers some relief from the regulatory burdens that continue to hold back our economy and hinder job creation. This amendment is actually identical to the bill I introduced in April, S. 817, which has been endorsed by both the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. It is the same amendment I also introduced on the small business bill, the Economic Development Administration bills, and also part of the larger regulatory relief bill I introduced in June, which currently has 22 cosponsors. Last week, as we know, we heard more troubling economic news. This time it was the June jobs report, which unfortunately showed the unemployment rate had actually risen to 9.2 percent and hiring slowed to just 18,000 new jobs. These are, of course, very disappointing numbers, but much more important are the families who are affected by it, families in my home State of Ohio and across the Nation who are struggling to find a job and to get the paycheck they need to make ends meet. The real discussion in Washington, this month in particular, has been focused on the fiscal reforms we need to get our fiscal house in order, to get the economy back on track. But there are other things we can do as well and one, of course, is to reduce the regulatory burden, particularly on small businesses. I hear from them all the time. I am sure my colleagues do as well. This burden is increasing. One recent study commissioned by the Small Business Administration put that burden at $1.75 trillion annually. By the way, that is more than the IRS collects in income taxes. I have been encouraged by what the current administration has been saying about improving our regulatory system, but I continue to be deeply concerned about the new regulatory costs this administration is imposing on the private sector as we meet here today. We have seen a sharp uptick over the past 2 years in what are called major or economically significant rules. These are regulations that have an economic effect of $100 million or more. According to OMB and GAO data, the current administration has been regulating at an average pace of 84 of these major rules per year--which, by the way, is a 50- percent increase over the average regulatory output during the Clinton administration, which had 56 major rules per year. These figures include both the executive branch agencies and the so-called independent agencies. Today, I was pleased to see that President Obama issued a new executive order that specifically addressed independent agencies. These are the regulatory bodies that are not within the executive agencies but are considered independent. They would include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the newly created Financial Protection Bureau, which has been subject to a lot of debate on the floor. These are all independent agencies which are designed by law to be insulated from Presidential control. This new order the President issued today and the accompanying Presidential memorandum endorsed two goals. First, it asks independent agencies to participate in ongoing regulatory look-backs. That means looking back retrospectively at rules that are already on the books to see if they make sense. Every administration since President Ronald Reagan has done this, undertaken some kind of look- back, and it is important this work continue. Second, and more importantly in my view, it calls on independent agencies to evaluate the costs and the benefits of new regulations, as executive agencies are already required to do under executive orders, including an executive order by President Clinton and an executive order by President Obama in January. I am encouraged by the words of this new executive order and Presidential memorandum on independent agencies. It endorses a very commonsense principle; that independent agencies, no less than executive agencies, should evaluate the costs of new regulations before imposing a new burden on the economy. It is common sense. It is also consistent with these amendments I have been offering on legislation this year and the independent agency part of the regulatory relief bill that was introduced in June. The problem is the President's order today is entirely nonbinding because independent agencies don't answer to the President, so it has no force of law. The amendment I will offer would effectively write the President's new request into law. The President has now agreed with this principle. We need to expand this cost-benefit analysis to independent agencies, but we need legislation to do it because these independent agencies are not answerable to the President. Specifically, this amendment would extend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation, where I was the Republican cosponsor in the House. It expands the two independent agencies. Major rules issued by what is sometimes called the headless fourth branch of government are today exempt not only from the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act but also from the cost-benefit review overseen by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIARA, at the Office of Management and Budget. This amendment would change that, effectively making the President's order he issued today binding on these independent agencies. They would be required, under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, to evaluate regulatory costs, benefits, and less costly alternatives before issuing any rule that would impose a cost of $100 million or more on the private sector or on State, local, and tribal governments. Based on the GAO data, it appears there are nearly 200 independent agency regulations that have been issued between 1996 and 2011 that would be considered major; in other words, have over a $100 million impact on the economy. They were excluded from review under this cost-benefit analysis we have been talking about. In 2009 and 2010 alone, the last couple years, independent agencies issued 56 economically significant regulations, representing billions of dollars in regulatory costs exempt from the standard cost-benefit analysis rules. But this affects our economy in a big way. It affects jobs and our ability to get this economy back on track. Closing this independent agency loophole is a reform those of us on both sides of the aisle should join the President in supporting. This is the right vehicle to be able to achieve that. No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American employers or on State or local governments without a serious consideration of what the costs are, what the benefits are, and whether there is available a less burdensome alternative to achieve the same objective. This amendment moves us closer toward that goal. It is a commonsense amendment, again, taking the President's executive order and memorandum of today and actually putting it into force through the force of law. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I rise today to talk about some of the enormous challenges facing our economy, about Washington's failure to address those challenges and a way forward. Today there are nearly 23 million Americans looking for full-time jobs. This includes people among those 9 percent of Americans on the unemployment rolls, but also includes a lot of Americans who want to work but have given up looking for work or are scraping by on part-time jobs when they want a full-time job. What makes it more troubling is that, among the Americans being counted in that 9 percent, the average length of time on the unemployment rolls is now nearly 10 months. That is the longest ever recorded. These folks are looking for help, looking to us for leadership and looking for us to help get the economy back on track by creating a better environment for job creation and economic growth. As we have heard from the two previous speakers, the government faces serious, unprecedented budgetary challenges. Washington is borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar it spends. It looks as if we may have another record deficit this year, and we will have the highest debt ever. Government spending has gone from $25,000 per household to more than $31,000 per household in the last 4 years. The national debt has doubled over the 2008 levels--doubled since 2008. We have hit this $14.3 trillion debt limit, and if we do nothing about it, we are going to end up with an economic crisis much like Greece is facing today. I just listened to the comments of my colleague from New York and my friend from Alaska, and they are talking about the fact that interest rates might go up unless we vote to extend the debt limit. I am talking to a lot of economists and thinking about the impact it will have on Ohio if we don't do something about the deficit and debt. When we extend the debt limit again, interest rates will go up. The value of the dollar will continue to go down. Inflation will go up. The point is not that we want to go into default--I hope nobody does in this Chamber. Despite what my friend and colleague from New York said, there is no Republican interest in defaulting on the debt. No one wants to default on the debt. But it is just the same as when we have a credit card in our families. Once we max out on the credit card, before we try to get a higher line of credit, we ought to look at the underlying problem, otherwise we will fall right back into the same financial problems. That is what Republicans are saying. It is this: If we do not deal with the underlying problem, which is this huge fiscal imbalance we just talked about--a $14.3 trillion debt that has doubled since 2008--then we are going to find ourselves with a financial and economic problem that will result in a spike in interest rates and will result in this negative impact on all Americans via car loans, mortgages, and student loans. So this is why it is so critical over the next few weeks as we work through this; That we deal with not just extending the debt limit--I guess that is a pretty easy thing to do, to just say let's go borrow more; we are already borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar--but we have to deal with the underlying problem. So what are we doing in the Senate to deal with that underlying problem? Very little. This week we are debating a meaningless sense-of- the-Senate resolution. It is what is called a nonbinding resolution. It will not create a single job or reform a single part of our tax code. It will not save $1 of government spending. It does nothing to address the debt limit. It is a distraction, and that is why earlier today I voted against proceeding to it. Serious times demand serious work. I was pleased when the Senate came together to cancel this week's scheduled recess because we should be here. We pledged to return to Washington and to confront these economic challenges we talked about and the budget problems we face. I supported doing that, but this has not been a serious effort. By the way, the Senate has not even passed a basic budget for this year. There is no budget, which is highly unusual. It also never passed a budget last year. So instead of talking about nonbinding resolutions, we should be talking about a budget. We should have a budget on the floor. We should be debating it. The other side will have their issues, and we will have issues to talk about. None of us will necessarily agree with one another on the precise provisions of a budget, and that is fine. Let's have the debate and end up with a blueprint for our spending going forward. President Obama talks about getting involved and showing true leadership but, to be honest, he hasn't stepped to the plate. The best example would be his own budget. He is required by law to submit one every year. He did submit a budget. That budget was voted on by this Senate. Because we didn't have our own budget, we voted on his budget. It was unanimously rejected 97 to 0 partly because, as Democrats will say, a few weeks after he submitted the budget, he gave a speech where he said: My budget wasn't really adequate to the task. So he rejected his own budget, in a sense, but he offered no alternatives, no specifics. His own budget, by the way, was so unserious that it doubled the debt over the next decade, and that is why, again, it was voted down by this Senate. What is our budget? What do we believe in? We should have that debate. We need to know what the numbers are; and what vision the President has for the next 10 years. That is what the budget is supposed to do. And, of course, we need to know what he will do to help grow the economy. In my view, getting the budget under control is a matter of restraining spending, but it is also a matter of growing the economy. If we don't grow the economy--and that will increase revenues, by growing the economy--we will not be able to get out of this deep fiscal hole we are in with record deficits, record debt, and, again, an increasing negative impact on our economy. The lack of a true debate is not from a lack of ideas, by the way. Senate Republicans have developed a commonsense jobs plan, much of which I think should be and can be bipartisan. It includes a lot of commonsense ideas. One is to reform the Tax Code. Senator Begich from Alaska talked about that earlier. That is to make sure that our Tax Code works better for our economy; that it is simpler, that it encourages investment and job creation. Economists across the board would agree that our current code is inefficient. We should do that as a body. That will help develop the economy and jobs and economic activity which will increase revenue. We need to rein in regulations. When I am home talking to small businesses, the first thing they talk to me about is the latest Federal regulation. A new one out today from the Environmental Protection Agency which is affecting my home State of Ohio is going to cost jobs at a time when we need jobs desperately. These are very specific proposals. Maybe they are not proposals everyone can agree to. What are the other side's proposals? Let's debate this issue. Let's pass legislation that forces a cost-benefit analysis of regulations. Let's be sure the regulators are using the least burdensome and least costly alternatives. These are commonsense ideas: creating a competitive workforce to make sure we are competitive for the 21st century. This is incredibly important. Expanding exports to create more jobs. On energy, being sure we have the ability to get away from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by developing more resources right here in this country. These are all commonsense proposals we should work on because they relate to the very issue we should be talking about this week, which is how to deal with our budget imbalance. The proposal, by the way, also caps government spending. It says we need to have a balance between revenues and expenditures, which is only common sense because until we get the fiscal house in order it is going to be very difficult to get our economy moving. It is like a wet blanket over the economy creating uncertainty and unpredictability. On the budget, let's be clear. The long-term problem is from soaring spending, not falling revenues. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. It is a nonpartisan group. Their job is to give us the data to tell us what is going to happen with spending and with revenues. This is what they tell us. Even if we keep current tax rates for everybody--in other words, don't get rid of the so-called Bush tax cuts--revenues are still expected to rebound above the historical average of 18 percent of the economy. If, in fact, the Bush tax cuts do not get extended, which is current law--right now they are expected to end at the end of next year--those tax revenues will be well above the historic average. Instead of 18 percent, they get up over the next several years to about 20 percent. Over the last 50 years, it has been about 18 percent. The deficit is rising not because of lack of revenue but because spending is now at 24.5 to 25 percent of our economy as compared to its historical level over the last 50 years of 20.3 percent of the economy. What is going to happen? Well, CBO has it right there. It is projected to rise on the spending side to 26 percent of the economy over the next several years; then 30, then 40, then 50 percent of the economy on spending alone. We talked earlier about the fact that we have gone from $25,000 per household government spending to $31,000 per household in the last 4 years alone. That spending is projected to grow and grow. If we don't deal with that spending we will never be able to get the budget in balance. That is the top issue. Again, we have to face this before we extend the debt limit again. If we don't, there will be major economic problems. Look at what Standard & Poor's and Moody's and Fitch--the so-called credit agencies--are telling us. They are saying: Yes, default would be a terrible thing. Let's not default. But they are also saying: If we don't deal with the fiscal imbalance, if we don't deal with the record deficits and debts, there will be major and negative impacts on the economy, and they will be in a position where they may downgrade our debt, which means higher interest rates. Having tax rates chase spending is not the solution. It will not balance the budget. Moreover, it will not spur this sputtering economy to grow and to create the jobs we talk about today. It will not work to get us back to work. In fact, virtually all economic theories agree that tax increases harm economic growth. When we tax something, people do less of it. That is why we tax smoking. So if we want economic growth, the last thing we should do is to raise taxes on working, raise taxes on savings, raise taxes on investment. These are not the ways to get the economy moving again. Instead, we should be unleashing American entrepreneurs, not putting more taxes on them. Some suggest we must choose between creating jobs and reining in government. My view is that the opposite is true. Reining in government can help create jobs. The less the government spends, the more money remains in the private sector for families and entrepreneurs to spend. The less the government borrows, the more savings are available for businesses to borrow in order to expand, as well as for families to borrow for a new home, a new car, or a student loan. Think about it. The government borrowing all this money is like a big sponge soaking up our savings. Today, we are borrowing, again, more than 40 cents of every dollar the government spends. That is harming the economy. Reducing the deficit also reduces the risk of a debt-induced financial crisis that might otherwise dwarf what we have seen happening in Greece today. But don't take my word for it. Lots of economists have looked at this. There is a great study out there that I encourage people to look at. It is done by the economists Ken Rogoff and Carman Reinhart. Rogoff and Reinhart do something very simple. They go around the world and look at different economies and determine what happens when their debt gets too big for their economy. Their view is that when the debt gets to 90 percent of the size of a nation's economy, it has a substantial negative impact on the economic growth and jobs in that country. Their data suggests that when the debt gets to 90 percent of the economy, there is a 1-percent reduction in economic growth rates. So instead of our economy growing at 1.8 percent in the first quarter, it should have grown at 2.8 percent. What does that mean? That 1-percent growth would otherwise mean 1 million jobs. So if we didn't have this huge debt--and right now it is about 93 percent of our economy; it will be at 100 percent of the economy this year--then we would have more jobs. If we look at what Rogoff and Reinhart have said, it means we would have about 1 million more jobs in this country. Could we use those jobs? Yes. We need them desperately. So there is a connection between this overspending--and this huge gap we have between revenues and spending--and our ability to get this economy back on track. Over 25 years, by the way, annual growth rates 1 percent lower would leave the economy nearly one-fourth smaller than it would otherwise be. Think about that: a 25-percent reduction in the size of the economy as a result of this debt. In order to create jobs and growth, we have to balance the budget, and we have to reduce that debt that is now over 90 percent of our economy. There are two ways to reduce the debt's share of the economy: One is to make the debt smaller, and the other is to make the economy larger. We know raising taxes will shrink the economy. Instead, we have to keep tax rates low to create jobs and expand the economy, and we have to reform the Tax Code so it works better. Again, economists across the spectrum will tell us we can have a better economy if we have a more sensible Tax Code. We must also responsibly reduce government spending, of course, to rein in the debt. Low tax rates and spending restraint will bring prosperity and alleviate this immoral avalanche of debt that we are otherwise leaving in the laps of our children and grandchildren. I understand some of my colleagues have their own approaches to this--to jobs, to the economy, to the budget deficit. That is fine. Let's have the debate. There are numerous proposals in Congress to reduce spending, balance the budget, and reform entitlements. Instead of voting on political nonbinding resolutions as we have done this week in the Senate, let's have that debate. We have too many important issues. Let's stop fiddling while Rome burns. Mr. President, I yield the floor.